Throughout history, countless revolutions, which have collapsed fearsome, autocratic governments or brought the downfall of powerful countries from within, have arised. Such an attempt to change the system of government, usually by force, is definitely not to be underestimated or trifled with. Occurring even more frequently in our daily lives are offences punishable by law, or simply known as crime. Ranging from a simple "get rich quick"scheme to assassinations of prestigious figures, these crimes have taken place world-wide, and sadly, there is no stopping to them. Even though they may not be as impactful as a revolution, the feelings they inflict on victims and thier family are equally agonizing. The mother of revolution and crime refers to the most significant cause leading to them. One cause is poverty, which is the state of being poor, but I agree to a small extent that the mother of revolution and crime is poverty as I believe there are more important causes such as freedom.
Much as we want to deny it, we cannot refute the fact that money is essential to survive in this mecenary world. No man would want to remain poor and suffer his entire life, hence thier desire to have more money. According to an article entitled "S'pore's dirty secret" in the Straits Times, the salaries of all occupational groups rose, except the group of cleaners and labourers. Even more ironical is the decrease in thier wages by 30 per cent between 1996 and 2006. Furthermore, in the international Herald Tribune, Wayne Arnold mentions in his article that while average wages were rising with the economy, incomes among the bottom 30 percent of households had fallen. Considering that these people are already poor yet they are still getting poorer, it is understandable that they will feel outraged and depressed. Moreover, the increasing income dispairity between them and the richer majority is akin to adding fuel to fire. In a country which stresses on meritocracy, where the skilled and educated are rewarded, this will put pressure on the poor who most likely cannot match up in terms of ability and intelligence. Out of desperation, they may resort to criminal acts such as theft and robbery. Moreover, if such a scenario prevails over the long run, the poor minority may initiate a revolution to fight for income equality. Such an event would devastate a small country like Singapore as she is highly dependent on her human resources. Thus, this supports the claim that the mother of revolution and crime is poverty.
However, others may argue that freedom is a more significant cause than poverty. If given a choice between freedom and a slave that earns a high salary, but is at the beck and call of the master, any rational person would most likely choose the former. In the blockbuster movie "V for Vendetta", Britian was under the rule of a tyrant and corrupt government. Even though her people were earning decent wages, they suffered under thier government's iron fist. However, the charismatic "V" sparked a revolution by emerging with an aim to bring freedom and justice back to this society. This movie shows how important freedom is and how far a person is willing to go in order to achieve it for his people, even if it means sacrificing himself. Furthermore, people of all income groups stood together to oppose the government, reiterating the point that freedom is more essential than money. Hence, this is against the view that the mother of revolution and crime is poverty.
In conclusion, poverty may cause crimes and revolutions, but freedom is a more important cause as it constitutes human rights and no one has the authority to deny others of it, whereas money can always be earned anytime. Even if a person is poor, he or she may still live happily but no person denied of freedom can ever be proud of his or her life.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
June Blog Task: Freedom of Expression vs Social Responsibility
Singapore, despite its minute size on the world map, has made a name for itself among the top nations in the world. It has established itself as an attractive educational and medical hub and its economy is one of the best in the Asian region. One would ask how Singapore has recovered and achieved such tremendous success just after 50 years from the devastation World War II had dealt it. The answer is simple; it is due to the capability of her democratic government and hard work of the people. The government has led Singapore effectively and achieved great success. At the same time, it has retained a politically stable climate and peace among its multi-racial society, a difficult feat to accomplish indeed. However, such a combination of democracy and a multi-racial society may face problems too. For example, how can Singapore manage between freedom of expression and maintain harmony among the different races?
Singer’s view does have its pros. Since the government has chosen the form of democracy, it should respect the claim that in democratic countries, freedom of expression is a basic right. Everyone should not be restricted in what they want to say, be it true of false, and violence should not be involved so as to change their opinions or limit them from voicing their views. If the different races could freely express what they think of each other, even if their opinions may be harsh, the issues can still be debated in a proper and official manner so as to come to a solution that satisfies both parties. This is much better compared to harboring their thoughts, keeping mum about actions that people of other races did to stimulate feelings in them and perhaps, may even lead to misunderstandings and in turn, hatred towards other races.
Another advantage is that the mass media would not be restricted in what they show through the various media forms such as newspapers and television. The mass media is seen as a symbol of freedom and it should treat itself as one instead of limiting what can be written or said by the editors and reporters. Only then will news coverages give people the full story instead of being one-sided so they can see the full picture and not be influenced by only what the government or mass media wants them to see. For example, a group of Malays assaulted a Chinese because he said some racist comments that insulted the malay community. Then, the mass media should publish the whole story to let everyone know the truth and not be limited in their freedom of expression, masquerading it with lies such as the fight started due to a misunderstanding. Nowadays, Singaporeans are civilized people and the mass media should have faith in them that the two races will not become hostile to one another just because of one case.
However, there are people who may disagree with Singer’s view. The existence of the Holocaust is undeniable. The countless tombstones of its victims and sorrowful history records are solid proof that the Holocaust occurred, yet there are some with the audacity to reject its existence just because there is freedom of expression. Not having experienced the Holocaust or its aftermath does not mean a person can baselessly voice out that the Holocaust never happened and believes freedom of expression gives them the authority to do so and there is nothing wrong about it. As a result, that person unwittingly infuriates many of those who themselves or relatives have suffered during that period and they would want that person to be made accountable for his atrocity. By imprisoning Irving to appease the anger of the masses, a problem created by freedom of expression was attempted to be solved by limiting freedom of expression contradictingly. What if in a democratic country like Singapore, a Chinese, who is likely not understand the impact Prophet Muhammad on Malays, boldly claims that the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad should be published on all newspapers? Considering Singapore is a multi-racial society, won’t this greatly provoke the Malays, so much so that they could initiate a racial riot? This puts Singaporean government in a predicament as they have to decide between restricting a person’s freedom of expression, akin to going against the principles of democracy, or upholding it and further angering the Malays.
Szilagyi’s view is based on social responsibility and in a multi-racial country like Singapore, it is an important issue. As mentioned before, when one race provokes another, hatred between them is could ensue, ending up with violent clashes nation-wide. What’s more, its hard to keep the conflicting races apart with four million people living in such a small country like Singapore. In short, a racial conflict would be devastating to Singapore and must be prevented as far as possible. Only through social responsibility and controlling freedom of expression will the chances of such a scenario happening be greatly reduced and the multiple races will not be offended.
Currently, competition among countries is very stiff and Singapore has to constantly improve her economy and productivity of the workforce. If there was no social responsibility to keep in check the extent of the effect of freedom of expression, When races badmouth each other because of certain issues that concerns each race as a whole, it will breed hostility between them and they cannot tolerate each other. Consequently, workers of the different races in the same companies find it difficult to work with each other and disputes arises. As a result, many companies with workers belonging to the different races will encounter internal problems such as workers resigning just because they cannot stand each other and this adversely affects Singapore’s economy. With social responsibility, workers of different races remain united and can cooperate together and good work ethics is maintained among them.
However, with social responsibility, freedom of expression will always be limited. It is mentioned that Singapore has cultural and religious pluralism, but social responsibility prevents people from expressing them and forces cultures and religions to be always seen from one perspective. People are hardly ever given to right to question the truth behind them and as much as they want to, they cannot do anything about as freedom of expression is monopolized by the government and mass media.
In my opinion, I feel that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted. Most of us know the effects of the two racial riots during 1964, one of which also occurred during the celebration of Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. During that time, racial tension was very high and all that was needed to spark off the riots was a small fight between the Chinese and Malays. More importantly were the consequences of the riots, namely over a hundred deaths, many more injured and millions of dollars worth of public property turned into worthless wreckage. Singapore has no natural resources, thus she is very reliant on her people. If freedom of expression is unbounded and no social responsibility to control what people say of other races, one race may upset another and this ultimately leads to Singaporeans not being united, disruption of production and economic downturn due to workers of difference races unable to work together and worse of all, the possibility of racial riots which could all have been prevented with a little social responsibility. Singapore cannot afford to lose her most important resource due to racial enmity, hence Szilagyi’s view on social responsibility is more important and should be adopted.
Singer’s view does have its pros. Since the government has chosen the form of democracy, it should respect the claim that in democratic countries, freedom of expression is a basic right. Everyone should not be restricted in what they want to say, be it true of false, and violence should not be involved so as to change their opinions or limit them from voicing their views. If the different races could freely express what they think of each other, even if their opinions may be harsh, the issues can still be debated in a proper and official manner so as to come to a solution that satisfies both parties. This is much better compared to harboring their thoughts, keeping mum about actions that people of other races did to stimulate feelings in them and perhaps, may even lead to misunderstandings and in turn, hatred towards other races.
Another advantage is that the mass media would not be restricted in what they show through the various media forms such as newspapers and television. The mass media is seen as a symbol of freedom and it should treat itself as one instead of limiting what can be written or said by the editors and reporters. Only then will news coverages give people the full story instead of being one-sided so they can see the full picture and not be influenced by only what the government or mass media wants them to see. For example, a group of Malays assaulted a Chinese because he said some racist comments that insulted the malay community. Then, the mass media should publish the whole story to let everyone know the truth and not be limited in their freedom of expression, masquerading it with lies such as the fight started due to a misunderstanding. Nowadays, Singaporeans are civilized people and the mass media should have faith in them that the two races will not become hostile to one another just because of one case.
However, there are people who may disagree with Singer’s view. The existence of the Holocaust is undeniable. The countless tombstones of its victims and sorrowful history records are solid proof that the Holocaust occurred, yet there are some with the audacity to reject its existence just because there is freedom of expression. Not having experienced the Holocaust or its aftermath does not mean a person can baselessly voice out that the Holocaust never happened and believes freedom of expression gives them the authority to do so and there is nothing wrong about it. As a result, that person unwittingly infuriates many of those who themselves or relatives have suffered during that period and they would want that person to be made accountable for his atrocity. By imprisoning Irving to appease the anger of the masses, a problem created by freedom of expression was attempted to be solved by limiting freedom of expression contradictingly. What if in a democratic country like Singapore, a Chinese, who is likely not understand the impact Prophet Muhammad on Malays, boldly claims that the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad should be published on all newspapers? Considering Singapore is a multi-racial society, won’t this greatly provoke the Malays, so much so that they could initiate a racial riot? This puts Singaporean government in a predicament as they have to decide between restricting a person’s freedom of expression, akin to going against the principles of democracy, or upholding it and further angering the Malays.
Szilagyi’s view is based on social responsibility and in a multi-racial country like Singapore, it is an important issue. As mentioned before, when one race provokes another, hatred between them is could ensue, ending up with violent clashes nation-wide. What’s more, its hard to keep the conflicting races apart with four million people living in such a small country like Singapore. In short, a racial conflict would be devastating to Singapore and must be prevented as far as possible. Only through social responsibility and controlling freedom of expression will the chances of such a scenario happening be greatly reduced and the multiple races will not be offended.
Currently, competition among countries is very stiff and Singapore has to constantly improve her economy and productivity of the workforce. If there was no social responsibility to keep in check the extent of the effect of freedom of expression, When races badmouth each other because of certain issues that concerns each race as a whole, it will breed hostility between them and they cannot tolerate each other. Consequently, workers of the different races in the same companies find it difficult to work with each other and disputes arises. As a result, many companies with workers belonging to the different races will encounter internal problems such as workers resigning just because they cannot stand each other and this adversely affects Singapore’s economy. With social responsibility, workers of different races remain united and can cooperate together and good work ethics is maintained among them.
However, with social responsibility, freedom of expression will always be limited. It is mentioned that Singapore has cultural and religious pluralism, but social responsibility prevents people from expressing them and forces cultures and religions to be always seen from one perspective. People are hardly ever given to right to question the truth behind them and as much as they want to, they cannot do anything about as freedom of expression is monopolized by the government and mass media.
In my opinion, I feel that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted. Most of us know the effects of the two racial riots during 1964, one of which also occurred during the celebration of Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. During that time, racial tension was very high and all that was needed to spark off the riots was a small fight between the Chinese and Malays. More importantly were the consequences of the riots, namely over a hundred deaths, many more injured and millions of dollars worth of public property turned into worthless wreckage. Singapore has no natural resources, thus she is very reliant on her people. If freedom of expression is unbounded and no social responsibility to control what people say of other races, one race may upset another and this ultimately leads to Singaporeans not being united, disruption of production and economic downturn due to workers of difference races unable to work together and worse of all, the possibility of racial riots which could all have been prevented with a little social responsibility. Singapore cannot afford to lose her most important resource due to racial enmity, hence Szilagyi’s view on social responsibility is more important and should be adopted.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Censorship
Censorship is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body such as the government and the mass media. Censorship plays a significant role in many things such as television programmes, movies, internet, books and music. Only stuff that these groups deemed fit and are not considered a challenge to thier authority will they be shown to the masses. In this way, they can control our mindsets and limit the knowledge of things that they do not want us to see or hear about.
One advantage of censorship is to hide explicit things from viewers. This includes gruesome findings, bloody scenes, sexual acts, violent incidents only to name a few. What all of them have in common is that they may contain strong or offensive images that affect viewers to a great deal. Thus, for the sake of the people's interest, censorship bodies deem it necessary to hide them from the public.
Another advantage is to keep highly confidential information a secret. This includes military censorship, which is the withholding of information about the country's military strength, defence and technologies so as to prevent the details from falling into the wrong hands. If there was no censorship, an enemy of a country could easily obtain important information and plan a successful assault to conquer that country. If countries all over the world started to do that just to eliminate opposing countries, an endless world war would break out and the word "peace" would cease to exist.
The next advantage is the protection of reputation. This is a very important issue as simple accusations would invite unneeded speculation. As a result, supporters of the person or body become suspicious and may stop showing support. This is most evident in politics, where the power and influence of political bodies depend largely on the support of the people. If there is no censorship, opposition parties may start false rumours defaming the targeted party and the government or mass media, having no censorship authority, can do nothing to prevent its spreading.
However, censorship does have its disadvantages such as it prevents children from being fully exposed to the world, sheltering them from reality. All that they see and hear are made acceptable by the mass media and governments, even images or videos that show horrifying and disgusting stuff are censored until what is shown is so minimal that children will only know what is going on by listening to the reporter or reading articles in newspapers, and even what is said or written has been thoroughly censored first. As a result, they grow up in a world which they think is full of love and peace and outrageous acts are not that severe, since they cannot see the extent of its significance as anything that shows too much of its iniquity are considered unsuitable for children to absorb and thus, censored.
Censorship only helps to delay the time that people find out about such stuff that the media or government do not want us to see or hear about. Now, with the existence of the internet, one can easily access censored stuff with the click of a button. For example, there is virtually no scenes of excecution by shooting or hanging shown on television in Singapore, but in Youtube, a popular website where one can upload or view video clips freely, one can find a long list of such gross scenes just by typing the word "excecution" in the search engine. If censorship is implemented with the motive of withholding information, what is the point of having it when anyone with an internet can still access what has been censored sooner or later?
Personally, I feel that censorship is necessary as censorship helps to maintain peace. The issue of global security is a major one and censorship greatly helps to uphold it as countries can keep sensitive information safe to prevent giving thier enemies opportunities to attack them. If there was no censorship, everyone would have more exposure to what the world is really like and children can break out of thier "protective shells" sooner. At the same time, if aggressive countries knew the weaknesses of other nations as there was no censorship over information, wars would be waged by the hour to dominate other countries, resulting in countless deaths as many soldiers and civilians are killed. When one is dead, would knowing of information that should have been censored be of any use? Hence, i feel that censorship is a must.
One advantage of censorship is to hide explicit things from viewers. This includes gruesome findings, bloody scenes, sexual acts, violent incidents only to name a few. What all of them have in common is that they may contain strong or offensive images that affect viewers to a great deal. Thus, for the sake of the people's interest, censorship bodies deem it necessary to hide them from the public.
Another advantage is to keep highly confidential information a secret. This includes military censorship, which is the withholding of information about the country's military strength, defence and technologies so as to prevent the details from falling into the wrong hands. If there was no censorship, an enemy of a country could easily obtain important information and plan a successful assault to conquer that country. If countries all over the world started to do that just to eliminate opposing countries, an endless world war would break out and the word "peace" would cease to exist.
The next advantage is the protection of reputation. This is a very important issue as simple accusations would invite unneeded speculation. As a result, supporters of the person or body become suspicious and may stop showing support. This is most evident in politics, where the power and influence of political bodies depend largely on the support of the people. If there is no censorship, opposition parties may start false rumours defaming the targeted party and the government or mass media, having no censorship authority, can do nothing to prevent its spreading.
However, censorship does have its disadvantages such as it prevents children from being fully exposed to the world, sheltering them from reality. All that they see and hear are made acceptable by the mass media and governments, even images or videos that show horrifying and disgusting stuff are censored until what is shown is so minimal that children will only know what is going on by listening to the reporter or reading articles in newspapers, and even what is said or written has been thoroughly censored first. As a result, they grow up in a world which they think is full of love and peace and outrageous acts are not that severe, since they cannot see the extent of its significance as anything that shows too much of its iniquity are considered unsuitable for children to absorb and thus, censored.
Censorship only helps to delay the time that people find out about such stuff that the media or government do not want us to see or hear about. Now, with the existence of the internet, one can easily access censored stuff with the click of a button. For example, there is virtually no scenes of excecution by shooting or hanging shown on television in Singapore, but in Youtube, a popular website where one can upload or view video clips freely, one can find a long list of such gross scenes just by typing the word "excecution" in the search engine. If censorship is implemented with the motive of withholding information, what is the point of having it when anyone with an internet can still access what has been censored sooner or later?
Personally, I feel that censorship is necessary as censorship helps to maintain peace. The issue of global security is a major one and censorship greatly helps to uphold it as countries can keep sensitive information safe to prevent giving thier enemies opportunities to attack them. If there was no censorship, everyone would have more exposure to what the world is really like and children can break out of thier "protective shells" sooner. At the same time, if aggressive countries knew the weaknesses of other nations as there was no censorship over information, wars would be waged by the hour to dominate other countries, resulting in countless deaths as many soldiers and civilians are killed. When one is dead, would knowing of information that should have been censored be of any use? Hence, i feel that censorship is a must.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Spilling Blood With Oil In Iraq
On reading this article entitled "Spilling blood with oil in Iraq", i have realised that the mass media does not always tell the truth. The purpose of this article is to present that fact and in addition, show us that the media also frabricate more lies to cover up false information. Many people think that what the media shows is everything that is going on, and they do not bother to delve deeper into the situation to reason out what is right and wrong. These people can hardly be blamed for doing so, since it requires a high level of understanding and professional skills of in-depth analysis.
Taking this article for example, the media only tells us half of the story, or more specifically, the good things that they want us to hear so as to generate a perceived truth in our minds that the US was right in initiating the war and made minimal mistakes while fighting in it. Yet, if we were to learn about the other half of the story, the real truth, our impression of US as the "hero" would drastically change. Everyone knows that the war was started due to fears that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), yet years after the war had ended, these WMD have not been found. People will then start to think if it was folly on US's part. However, President Bush tries to cover up this mistake by continuing with his pretence that Iraq has the WMD but they are just not found yet.
This article has mentioned several instances of the media trying to cover up errors of the US during the war. For example, US forces have attacked, killed and injured Iraqi civilians but the blame was pushed to diguised Iraqi soldiers to taint the reputation of the US. However, there was no evidence to back up this claim. In another case, it was said that US prisoners of war were publically excecuted in Nasiriya and this information was obtained only from a single source and there was no proof to support it. Furthermore, the US forces had violated the Geneva Convention by attacking Iraq's state television station which was a civilian target, but the incident was denied. All these cases showed the media's attempt to defame Iraq and make it seem everyone was suffering under the tyrannic rule of Saddam while projecting US in positive light as trying to redeem the Iraqis and protect the world from the WMD.
The mass media has a great influence over people, thus they exploit this advantage by mixing fact and fiction, choosing what they want to show us and what they dont. Hence we should not fully believe what the mass media shows us as it is not always right.
Taking this article for example, the media only tells us half of the story, or more specifically, the good things that they want us to hear so as to generate a perceived truth in our minds that the US was right in initiating the war and made minimal mistakes while fighting in it. Yet, if we were to learn about the other half of the story, the real truth, our impression of US as the "hero" would drastically change. Everyone knows that the war was started due to fears that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), yet years after the war had ended, these WMD have not been found. People will then start to think if it was folly on US's part. However, President Bush tries to cover up this mistake by continuing with his pretence that Iraq has the WMD but they are just not found yet.
This article has mentioned several instances of the media trying to cover up errors of the US during the war. For example, US forces have attacked, killed and injured Iraqi civilians but the blame was pushed to diguised Iraqi soldiers to taint the reputation of the US. However, there was no evidence to back up this claim. In another case, it was said that US prisoners of war were publically excecuted in Nasiriya and this information was obtained only from a single source and there was no proof to support it. Furthermore, the US forces had violated the Geneva Convention by attacking Iraq's state television station which was a civilian target, but the incident was denied. All these cases showed the media's attempt to defame Iraq and make it seem everyone was suffering under the tyrannic rule of Saddam while projecting US in positive light as trying to redeem the Iraqis and protect the world from the WMD.
The mass media has a great influence over people, thus they exploit this advantage by mixing fact and fiction, choosing what they want to show us and what they dont. Hence we should not fully believe what the mass media shows us as it is not always right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)