Term 3 Blog Task.

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

Marriage has been traditionally known as an institution between a man and a woman but now, there are many controversies about marriage and whether same-sex marriage should be allowed in countries. Same-sex marriages may bring about economic growth in the country which is essential for globalisation but it may upset how the society works. Therefore, should same-sex marriage be allowed in countries because of globalisation?

There are people who are totally against same-sex marriages especially because of religious purposes. For example, most Christians are against same-sex marriage because they think this goes against biblical teachings however, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, First Corinthians 6:8-10 and Romans 1:24-27, have never outright define marriage in a purely heterosexual way. Does this means that homosexual can marry another homosexual? Although there are religions who oppose same sex marriage, there are also religions who do not oppose or even favour same-sex marriages. An example will be at the 1996 Unitarian Universalist General Assembly, delegates voted overwhelmingly that because of "the inherent worth and dignity of every person" same-sex couples should have the same freedom to marry that other couples have.

By allowing same-sex marriages would mean that there will be more homosexuals around and the problem on discrimination will surface. For example, a heterosexual US citizen who marries a foreign partner immediately qualifies to bring that person to the United States, while long-term gay and lesbian binational partners who have spent decades together are denied the same rights, forcing foreign gay partners to seek expensive temporary employer or school-sponsored visas or face separation. In many countries, marital status is an important factor and once your marital status is different from the rest, you will be treated different too.

In conclusion, i think that there are many factors to consider before allowing same-sex marriage in a country especially in a country like Singapore where the older generation are still conservative. However, i think that the homosexual couple should not be deprived of this right.

Research On GP

Globalisation and Culture in the Asia-Pacific Region: http://www.mediatimesreview.com/february05/Globalisation.php
http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/globcult.htm

Environment and Biodiversity
http://enrin.grida.no/biodiv/biodiv/nrcbd/ukraine/en_21.htm
http://habitatnews.nus.edu.sg/pub/naturewatch/text/a082a.htm

Sustainable Development
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0402/ijge/gj01.htm
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7361/399?ck=nck

Terrorism and War
Iraq and the "War on Terrorism
Reaction to the September 11, 2001 events

Term 3 Blog Task.

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

I agree to a large extent that the cause of crime and revolution is poverty and this is often seen in third world countries.

Poverty is defined as the state of being poor and lack the means of providing material needs or comfort. Revolution and crime is the result of it could be because people need the basic needs to survive and yet, they were not given anything hence resorting to crimes such as stealing and going on riots just to get the basic needs. Revolution and crimes are actually about the same because people who does that wants to achieve their aim, which is to have a better life.

One reason is because of the wide income gap in the country. Take Singapore for example, there are people who are doing very well and there are people who are the total opposite. According to an article in February 2007 from the International Herald Tribune, it states that 'average wages were rising with the economy' but 'incomes among the bottom 30 percent of households had actually fallen'. This is a serious problem that needs to be solved because if it is left untouched, those people who are in the bottom 30 percent of the households will feel very indignant and may start a revolution.

The other reason is because of the increasing standard of living in the country. People who are already earning much lesser than others have to support the family and with the rising standards of living, they could not cope with the life in Singapore. An article in August 2007 from The Straits Time states that the economy is 'projected to rise by 5 to 7 percent' and the value of HDB homes will also continue to rise. In this case, it is very hard for the bottom 30 percent of households to catch up with the economy, increasing the precentages of crimes and revolutions.

However, crimes and revolutions may be caused by poverty where people are desperate to get their basic neccessities, it can also be caused by a person's character. If a person is neglected by his family and mix with bad companies, he is most likely to commit crimes. Hence, i agree to a large extent that revolution and crime is caused by poverty although there may be other reasons causing it.

Ageism, Xenophobia, Lookism, Disablism

Article on Disablism (discrimination because of disability) : http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/columnists/tom/060904_index.shtml

Article on Lookism (discrimination based on looks) : http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/04/18/29307/overweight-and-underpaid-as-lookism-sweeps-the-world.html

Article on Ageism (discrimination based on age) :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4041713.stm

Article on Xenophobia (discrimination against Foreigners) :
http://www.iht.com/articles/1996/02/14/edpaul.t.php

June Hols Task

Based on the two articles that i've read, both articles believe that freedom of speech is essential in the world today. In Singer's article, it states that in a democratic country, freedom of speech is essential and in Szilagyi's article, it states that it is important to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens for a democratic advancement in a society. I agree with this view because in a democratic society, if there is no freedom of speech, people do not have the right to voice their views then there is no democracy in the country.

Although both articles believe freedom of speech is important now, they have different views. Singer's article believe that freedom of expression should not be restricted and if it has, in any way, affected someone else, the person should not be blamed because this is what freedom of speech is. On the otherhand, Szilagyi's article states that freedom of speech comes with responsibility. If it has affected another person in one way or another, the person should be held responsible and i believe that his view should be adopted. Freedom of speech without any social responsibility would lead to insensitivity towards other people or races thus leading to potential problems in the country. Hence, Szilagyi's view should be adopted because in a multi racial country like Singapore or even the other countries where people of different races stay together, it is more important to be sensitive to each other's feelings. Therefore i think that freedom of expression should come together with social responsibility.

Capital Punishment

"The death penalty is murder and should be abolished." Do you agree?

Death penalty is not considered as murder beacuse murdering someone, to me, is after careful planning and furthermore, the victim did not do anything wrong but by sentencing someone to death, is because the accused had done something against the law and there's no motive behind it. If the accused had done something against the law and is sentenced the death penalty, it means that he had done something grave like drug trafficking and hence he should be responsible for his own actions. Since he know the consequences of doing something against the law, then he is asking for it. Another reason why it is not considered as murder beacuse it brings justice to the victim's family members and poses a threat to society. If the accused had killed someone and is acquitted, then how will the people and the family members think? So, I think the death penalty should not be abolished to serve as a reminder for people to constantly check on their actions and the consequences of it.

On the other hand, the death penalty is considered as murder because a person's life is precious. It should not be taken away just because he had done something wrong. Instead, the accused could be sent for counselling or other things to change his look on life and change him to a better person. Although the accused had done something wrong to be given the death penalty, but by killing him, it does not solve anything or make the victim feel better. Two wrongs do not make a right. Another reason why it is considered as murder because of the cruel froms of execution like the electric chair. Everyone should die in a dignified way and there should not be any forms of cruel execution. Therefore, i think the death penalty should be abolished to a certain extent.

In conclusion, I think that the death penalty should not be abolished because I think without it, people will think that there is no consequence for commiting crimes thus more crimes will be committed and people should be responsible for their actions.

CENSORSHIP

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

Censorship is used to restrict things that are not meant for people of a certain age especially children. It could be because of the violence that it depicts or maybe even the wrong values that it will instill in young children example pornography.

But is it good to censor things or should we let the childern see the things that should be censored since they will have to face it sooner or later? Is it appropriate to shelter them from what is happening in the world and let them be naive thinking that everyone is trustable? This is what censorship does to people.

Without censorship, the world may be in chaos because wrong values will be taught to children. For example, showing a nine year old child violent scenes in a movie where people die for no reason, people taking revenge on their enemies or maybe even to the extent of limbs not being together with the corpse and muderers are not caught by the police. When he grow up, will he think that doing all these are common and he could get away so simply thus doing it? If thats the case, the world be in chaos with people taking revenge and killing each other.

Therefore, i think that censorship is necessary. Although they will be sheltered, not knowing whats happening, we can slowly introduce the various things at different age when they are appropriate to know instead of being open and let the small children know everything resulting in instilling the wrong values in them...

How does the media and its subjective perception affect the way this incident was handled?

The media can affect how things are handled because they choose to believe what is true instead of finding out the truth. In this case, the media happened to take the two swimmers 'smiling' while pointing at the disqualified list next to a television monitor and hence assuming that they're happy the Americans were disqualified. So, are the reporters reporting the truth or are they just making their own assumptions? It will lead to undesirable consequences if the incident was not properly handled. The media made the whole incident seemed like the Singapore swimmers were at fault by not carrying themselves with dignity at international meets whereas the Singapore Swimming Association stated otherwise, insisting that their ties with America is very strong and such a thing would not happen. According to the article, the swimmers explained that they smiled because it was 'hard to believe' and not beacuse of happiness. The media and its subjective perception could be indirectly accusing someone. If the media handled it in a better way, there would not be a controversy over Singapore swimmers showing bad sportsmanship and the report would not be widely-circulated across the globe. Therefore, i think that the media handled this incident very poorly by only believing what they see and not wanting to probe further into it. 'Different people will interepret those emotions and reactions in different ways.' It is how we look at them and whether we want to believe what we think is the truth or whether we want to find out the truth.