Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?

Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?

What is the first impression you get when the word "same-sex marriage" appears?
disgusted? neutral? supportive?
In this age of ever-changing world where due to the Western influence, human rights has been gaining increasing emphasis.
Human rights as defined by Wikipedia is "the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.
Through the years, discrimination in aspects of age,disability,looks and race has been gaining awareness. But why is there still so much discrimination against homosexuals? aren't they humans just like any one of us?

Yes -- it is practical
1. The legalisation of same sex marriges will give rise to pink dollar. When homosexuals are assured that they can behave openly and freely in a particular country, they will most probably want to live there and in the long run, contribute to the country's economy either by working there or spending more. For instance, in 2005, "Nation V” in Phuket, an annual event for social gathering for gays, lesbians, and gay-friendly folks brought in revenues of Bt30 million. If this continues, it will be a great source of income to help recoup the losses Phuket has suffered due to tsunami.

2. Some people may argue that marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species but in the case of China, where overpopulation can lead to widespread poverty, legalising same sex marriges may not be a bad idea after all. Not only will it solves overpopulation problems, same-sex marriges may also encourage the adoption of children. This will in turn help many children.

No-- it is Not practical
1. There has been cases to show that children that comes from a homosexual family may not be inferior to those that comes from a normal family due to the fact that what really matters is the amount of love and care given and not gender. But were the external factors considered?
One cannot deny that the environment you interact in, eg. schools will cause unnecessary stress and misery. For example, how will children from "normal" families look at those from homosexual families? Will they treat them equally? Most probably they will discriminate against those children from "abnormal" families and this in turn causes stress and much misery to the innocent children. Hence it is not practical.

2. In addition, if same-sex marriages are legalised, how will countries which have reserved and traditional values, eg. China and Singapore handle it? It will most probably arouse many dissatisfaction from the various racial groups with conventional values and in turn give rise to many riots and disorder of the society.


In conclusion, whether legalising same-sex marriages is practical depends on one's country's government. Whether the pros and cons are balanced or one outweighs another depends on each country's situation which can differs quite a lot. In my opinion, letting the society understand more about homosexuals will be a good start towards the complete acceptance. This will in the long run, give the term "human rights" a more complete definition.

references : http://www.fridae.com/aboutus/news051110_1.php
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

GP research

Globalisation and culture
definition(from wikipedia) -- globalisation : increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres. effects of globalisation with regards to culture : growth of cross-cultural contacts; advent of new categories of consciousness and identities such as Globalism - which embodies cultural diffusion, the desire to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture".

related articles:- http://www.globalisationguide.org/07.html
http://www.sociology.emory.edu/globalization/issues05.html
http://www.inst.at/studies/collab/breidenb.htm

Environment & Biodiversity, Sustainable Development
definition(from wikipedia) --- Sustainable development is defined as balancing the fulfilment of human needs with the protection of the natural environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but in the indefinite future.

related articles : http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what/index.htm

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Development.asp

definition ----- biodiversity: a measure of the relative diversity among organisms present in different ecosystems

related articles: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/biodiversity/biod.htm http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/features/index.cfm?uNewsID=2143

http://www.biodiversityproject.org/bdglobalwarming.htm

environment
related articles: http://environment.about.com/cs/a.htm http://www.ec.gc.ca/Science/sandefeb03/a1_e.html

Terrorism and war

definition---- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
related articles: http://www.terrorism-research.com/
http://www.mediate.com/terrorism/

munich massacre

Does Poverty = Crime & Revolution ?

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle) Do you agree?

The statement is defined as it is poverty that will leads to revolutions and crimes. But is it always true?

Poverty is a social problem that will occur in every country. Whether it is due to limited access to certain resources, overpopulation, natural disasters, government corruption or even social factors such as discrimination against certain race, poverty is always present. Take for example Singapore which is known to be a globalised and “first-world” country also has people trapped in the poverty cycle, only earning $600 per month.

Normally people who are trapped in poverty cycle are those who lack of education. Thus in this ever changing and competitive world where people need to constantly upgrade and equip themselves with the latest knowledge, these people feel so helpless, powerless or even miserable. “The rich become richer and the poor become poorer”, this is quite true to the majority of society.

Hence when pushed to a dead-end, people who are desperately in need of money to support their family or even sustain their life will resort to crimes and revolutions. Robbing, stealing, riots, etc. They will do everything that they believe can make their lives better and find the solution to such unfair treatment of society.Therefore, poverty is the mother of crime and revolution.

However, is it always the “poor” people who commit crimes and raise revolutions?

Hubert H. Humphrey, American 38th US Vice President once said, “History teaches us that the great revolutions aren't started by people who are utterly down and out, without hope and vision. They take place when people begin to live a little better - and when they see how much yet remains to be achieved.” I agree with his statement as in some cases, there are people who feel that the government is too corrupted and by revolting against the government they are helping the citizens and hoping to give the people a better future.

Sometimes it is man’s unlimited greed that leads to the desire of more luxurious life and eventually leads to the committing of crimes. It is not uncommon to hear reports of lawyers embezzling of funds or certain director of some big companies pocketing funds. A good example will be Mr T.T Durai, the former CEO of NKF.

To conclude, poverty is not the sole reason why crime and revolution occurs. There can be other reasons like personal greed and desires or even the ambitions one can have. Thus I agree with the statement to a small extent.

Other Forms of Discrimination

Ageism

as defined in Wikipedia, is stereotyping and prejudice against individuals or groups because of their age. The term was coined in 1969 by US gerontologist Robert N. Butler to describe discrimination against seniors, patterned on sexism and racism.

BBC News: New ageism law comes into force

--New age discrimination laws have come into force in the UK in the biggest single change to employment practices in 30 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5396252.stm

Lookism

as defined in Wikipedia, is discrimination against or prejudice towards others based on their appearance. The term is not in widespread use, though it appears in major English-language dictionaries

Lookism: How It Affects Us --- by Sharon Cullars

http://www.geocities.com/s_cullars/lookism.htm

Disablism

-discriminatory, oppressive or abusive behaviour arising from the belief that disabled people are inferior to others.

Disablism ain't the same as racism

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/columnists/tom/060904_index.shtml

Xenophobia

as defined in Wikipedia is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self. a fear or contempt of foreigners or strangers

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-07/31/content_5446337.htm

freedom of speech VS social responsibility

Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.

In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?

Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.

Both authors have their own stand about how democracy should be but there is no definite right or wrong about their views. However in the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, Szilagyi’s stand is more applicable.

Singer mentioned that “freedom of expression is a basic right” and “We must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred”. But is his stand really applicable in Singapore? If you remember, in 1964, race riots broke out due to some misunderstandings between the Chinese and Malays resulting in injuries and deaths. So aren’t the riots enough to remind us of the fact that we give due respect to each other’s religions and not give insensitive comments?

Szilagyi mentioned that “once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations, and often manipulation that serves political agendas” and “The press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it needs to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom”. I agree with his stand as I believe that everybody’s thinking is different and views towards same issues are subjective. Thus one cannot assume that whatever intentions behind what he/she say or published may not be interpreted differently by another person. This tells us that a sentence which may seems normal to you may just be the trigger to a break out of riot or worse a war between two nations.

Hence social responsibility is very important to a small country like Singapore. However, to achieve true democracy, freedom of speech is the long term strategy for Singapore. As it is only when can people fully understand a subject being it a religion or government policy. Freedom of speech is utilized in the right way when people have intensive debates to understand a culture or religion from all kinds of perspectives or to come up with solutions to problems or even better improvise new government policies so that the society welfare is maximized.

To have freedom of speech, I believe that social responsibility is the basic courtesy that everyone should have. Everyone should be responsible for what he/she says and be able to make statements that are supported by evidence and not abuse the freedom of speech where personal grudges or opinions are used to verbally attack a person or subject.

Sources:

www.project-syndicate.org

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/03/opinion/edsofia.php

Research------ Euthanasia

Definitions:

Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. (The key word here is "intentional". If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia)
Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed.
Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent.
Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary.
Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called "physician assisted suicide."
Euthanasia By Action: Intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection.
Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water.

What Euthanasia is NOT: There is no euthanasia unless the death is intentionally caused by what was done or not done. Thus, some medical actions that are often labeled "passive euthanasia" are no form of euthanasia, since the intention to take life is lacking. These acts include not commencing treatment that would not provide a benefit to the patient, withdrawing treatment that has been shown to be ineffective, too burdensome or is unwanted, and the giving of high doses of pain-killers that may endanger life, when they have been shown to be necessary. All those are part of good medical practice, endorsed by law, when they are properly carried out.

http://www.euthanasia.com/definitions.html

Research -------- AMD

AMD----- Advanced Medical Directive

An Advance Medical Directive (AMD) is a legal document that you sign in advance to inform the doctor treating you (in the event you become terminally ill and unconscious) that you do not want any extraordinary life-sustaining treatment 1 to be used to prolong your life.Making an AMD is a voluntary decision. It is entirely up to you whether you wish to make one. In fact, it is a criminal offence for any person to force you to make one against your will.New advances in medical knowledge and technology create new choices for both patients and health care providers. Some of these choices raise new ethical and legal issues.One issue is that modern medical technology can technically prolong life in the final stages of a terminal illness2. However, it cannot stop the dying process. In such situations, further medical intervention would be medically ineffective, and a decision has to be made whether to withdraw such futile medical intervention. Some terminally ill persons who are unable to express their wishes at that time, may want to be spared further suffering and be allowed to die naturally, in peace and with dignity.The law in Singapore allows Singaporeans who wish to make an advance medical directive to do so. The AMD Act was passed in Parliament in May 1996.

1 "Extraordinary life-sustaining treatment" is any medical treatment which serves only to prolong the process of dying for terminally ill patients but does not cure the illness. An example is the respirator that is connected to a patient to assist him/her to breathe. It serves only to artificially prolong the life of a terminally ill patient.
2 "Terminal illness" is defined in the Act as an incurable condition caused by injury or disease from which there is no reasonable prospect of a temporary or permanent recovery. For such a condition, death is imminent even if extraordinary life-sustaining measures were used. These measures would only serve to postpone the moment of death for the patient.

http://www.moh.gov.sg/mohcorp/legislations.aspx?id=7120

"The death penalty is not a deterrent. It is murder." Do you agree?

According to the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, “deterrent” refers to a thing that makes somebody less likely to do something and “murder” refers to the crime of killing somebody deliberately.

I disagree with the statement.

Throughout all these years, death penalty has been associated with cruel methods which exist in the past like stoning, crucifixion and decapitation and in the modern like hanging, electric chair and gas chamber. Just by hearing these methods, not mentioning about watching the whole process is gruesome enough to strike fear into normal people’s mind. Thus I believe death penalty has served as a very good deterrent in causing someone to think twice before they commit an offence.

Also, death penalty also can be seen as a form of returning justice to the victims’ families. How would you feel if the murderer who killed one of your family members is still walking freely on the streets just like a normal person?

However, who can ensure that the judge or the jury who give the death sentence is being objective and not being emotional? If the judiciary panel is being subjective, isn’t it taking revenge and in other words a murder?

Ask yourself this, who don’t make mistakes in their life? Often, some people commit an offence out of desperation or in a fit of rage. So why can’t we give them a second chance, a chance to turn over a new leaf? Although we cannot ensure that all of them will not commit the same mistake again, but at least we can offer the choice of counseling or rehabilitation. This will really be a great help to those convicts who are determined to atone for their mistakes.

To conclude, I feel that death penalty is a deterrent more than a murder as I believe that with the consequences of committing an offence lingering at the back of the mind, people will see as a warning and perhaps stop their offences while they still can. Whether is it a murder, it all depends on how subjective or objective one’s viewpoint is.

Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is un/necessary.

Censor when bring used as a verb as quoted from Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary: "to remove the parts of a book, film/movie, etc. that are considered to be offensive, immoral or a political threat".
And censorship is " the act or policy of censoring books, etc "

The merits of censorship:
1. Protects general audience : as seen from the above definitions, censorship will protect the public from seeing images which are gruesome like a headless corpse or a person whose body is being tore apart. Immoral images which are linked to taboo issues are also removed to prevent negative influence.
2. Protects national security: this is especially true in Singapore which is a multi-racial country because if images or even speeches that promote discrimination among the races are shown, riots and conflicts among the races are bound to occur. As Singapore is a small nation, we cannot afford to be fighting among ourselves. Thus censorship serves to protect the national security.

The demerits of censorship:
1. Narrow one's learning horizon : by leaving out certain parts of information or even facts, we are restraining the amount of information portrayed to the general mass which they have the right to know. Also in the process of censoring information or images, we are giving the general public a biased view and a limited chance to know the truth.
2. No transparency : by not showing the truth to the public, we are not being transparent. And what is democracy without transparency. We are depriving people of the right to know the truth and with the raging concerns about human rights in our generation, there will bound to have many conflicts about the issue of censorship.

Other than the merits, censorship is necessary in the sense that it helps to shield the young from negative influence such as violence, unnatural sex and polities in certain extent. Professionals have said that under long exposure to such negative influence, one will have a higher possibility to carry out the acts that he/she sees. Thus with censorship, we are in one sense or another helping to reduce the crime rates. Also, by having censorship will also ensure that terrorists who have the thought of using the media to arouse the people's anger and cause riots and chaos to happen in a country to not get their way. Thus censorship also helps to maintain peace and stability.

However, censorship is unnecessary as it is to certain extent promoting ignorance. If people are not exposed to the reality, wouldn't their general knowledge be limited or to some extent biased? How would other country think of us if our people cannot converse with a wide scope of facts? Also, by blocking out images or information to our young, wouldn't they be even more curious? As the saying goes, "curiosity kills the cat”. When the young especially the teenagers are curious, they will stop at nothing to search the "truth". Especially in our generation, where anything can just be found on the internet, wouldn't it be worse if they were to stumble upon unhealthy stuff and get addicted to it?

To conclude, i feel that censorship is unnecessary IF only there is proper and adequate parental guidance where parents will be able to tell their child how to differentiate between what’s right and wrong and in the meanwhile instill moral values in them. However due to the fact that there is an increased in numbers of families where both parents are working long hours and thus not being able to spend time with their children, i still think that a certain censorship is necessary. However, the government who is playing the role as the censor should always adapt to the changing world and do necessary changes to the censorship and allow the young citizens to be exposed to the reality of life bit by bit. Hence a flexible censorship is necessary.

The influence of media

If you have watched the television the last month or last 2 weeks ago, you would have notice an advertisement which shows grody image of a mouth which is full of mouth ulcers which are filled with pus. Just in case you have not seen it, it was part of an anti-smoking campaign to discourage smokers where they show an image of a smoker addict's mouth.

Many viewers have mixed reaction towards the advertisement.

For me, i was quite stunned by the image as it makes people feel disgusted. It would surely take away one's appetite and perhaps even dampen one's spirits for the day. By showing that image, is it really effective in promoting anti-smoking? I once watched a television program that interviews people and ask them about their views on this. A parent who was interviewed said that after watching the image on television, both of her daughters started to have nightmares and dared not watch television for fear of seeing the grotesque image again. So is it really necessary to show such an image to promote anti-smoking? I feel that the media could have shown some statistics to prove that smoking is bad or they could interview some ex-smoker addicts and ask them to share their story on how smoking harms their health. In this way, the media is promoting anti-smoking without terrifying people.

However, from another point of view, there is a saying, “a picture speaks a thousand words “. It is known to most of us that using an image to portray out an idea is much more effective than using words and statistics as our brain tends to register images better than words and figures. There was once a television program that interviews a psychologist who said that an image can stay in a person's sub-conscious mind and will cause a change in the person's behavior or thinking. He stated an example which is after the "911" incident when the whole event was shown on television, many people became scared of taking plane for fear of terrorists. This shows how the media can influence the mass public and perhaps in this case, showing the gordy image may be the best way to ensure results for the anti-smoking campaign.

Simple Introduction

My name is Benny Tan. I am from class 18/07. I was from Commonwealth Secondary School and was in Jurong Junior College(PAE). One common joke people have about Commonwealth is the word "Common wealth". And so the first question people always ask me is ,"Do everybody in your school has the same amount of money? ".

Basically i am a very talkative person but that will only happens when i know you well. I tend to keep quiet and talk much much lesser in front of strangers. But i like to make new friends. To me, a friend of a friend is a friend!

I am quite a sporty person and like to play basketball. I go to the gym quite regularly to lift some weights. I aim to be fit and healthy .But sadly I am still quite plump and overweight so i hope after my two years in AJ, i can shed some weight and at the same time tone my muscles.

I am currently " a thorn among the roses" in my class. If you are smart, you should be able to figure out what it means. Of course many guys are envious of me. Most of them always ask me ," do you enjoy spending time with your class? " And my answer will be you have to experience it yourself to know the answer. To me, it was tough spending the first few days in the class as you practically have no friends and trust me it was really lonely to spend all your breaks by yourself. But as the days went by, when you get to know your class, it is really fun as you get to understand girls better.
People says there is two outcomes being the "thorn" . One is being more gentleman and the other is to become more "gentle" . Whatever is the outcome, I shall leave it to those people who know me to judge themselves.