Can mercy and justice co-exist?
Firstly, I'll like to define the two issues of discussion, mercy and justice. Mercy is taking into consideration the circumstances of a situation that a person was in when he commits a mistake, giving him a lesser punishment, ultimately forgiving him. Justice involves following the law by the book, punishing one for his acts which are considered wrong by the law. Many tend to put mercy and justice as two separate issues, claiming that they cannot co-exist which each other simply because of the reason that if mercy is taken into consideration, justice would not have been done. However, I beg to differ.
Justice is definitely a very subjective term. Justice can be deemed either as having a person pay for his crime fully, and get his due punishment in full. In other words, "an eye for an eye". However, justice can also hold the meaning that a person has learnt his lesson, and "peace is restored". A concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics, according to wikipedia. In the case of the latter, it already seems that mercy and justice already co exist in defining justice.
If we take the definition of justice to be the former, justice would not be able to coexist with mercy as mercy lightens the severity of justice, ultimately returning a "blind eye" for an eye.
However, definitions are different from reality. In our society, justice can definitely co exist with mercy, under certain circumstances. There are definitely acts which we are able to forgive, take for example the incident which happened in China not too long ago. A chinese mother was sentenced to 5 years for killing her two twin sons. Now, why was she only sentenced to 5 years for murder? She was given a lighter sentence due to her circumstances where both her twin sons had cerebral palsy, leading to her not being in a clear state of mind. Thus, mercy was given and she was given a lighter sentence.
Even in Singapore, mercy is definitely taken into consideration. A person is allowed to submit a medical report to prove if they were in a clear state of mind when committing and crime, and thus receiving a lesser punishment. That does not mean that they do not learn their lesson as they would still receive punishment, go to jail and repent on their mistakes.
However, there are circumstances where mercy and justice cannot co-exist. For example, Osama, former leader of terrorist group Al-Qaeda was killed on the spot when the American soldiers approached him, not giving him a single chance to explain himself or even stepping on American soil(he was dumped into the sea). When someone commits a grave crime which involves mass murder, it is definitely not possible to take mercy on him.
In conclusion, mercy can co-exist with justice, but only under certain circumstances.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Term 3 Week 5 (Blogging Assignment)
What do you think is Shakespeare's intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice? Support your opinion with examples.
Shakespeare's intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice is probably to attract viewers of the Elizabethan Era, who had stereotypical views of the Jews, yet arousing sympathy for the Jews. In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock is portrayed as a character who was materialistic and greedy, with an eye for money. His hatred for Christians is also portrayed as a main part of the story, from where he tries to find opportunity to kill Antonio through the bond, where he states that if the money is not repaid in time, he would be able to cut a pound of flesh nearest the the heart.
In the 16th Century, anti-semitism in England was strong and almost no Jews lived in England. Discrimination was on a high and hatred between Christians and Jews were strong. Thus, writing a play which portrayed a Jewish character who was often discriminated would be considered normal and common in playwrights during that period of time. This was probably a reason Shakespeare created Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, to attract people to view his work.
However, there was also a hint of trying to take pity on Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. During the court case, the relentlessness of Portia was strongly portrayed, forcing Shylock to his wits' end. This makes the audience take pity on him naturally. At the end of the court case, Shylock, who lent money to Bassanio, lost both his money and his motive of killing Antonio. In such a plight situation, it would be natural for audiences to take pity on him. Another reason for creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice could also be to attempt to change the prejudiced and stereotypical perspectives of the people, hoping to move a step toward racial equality and end anti-semitism.
Shakespeare's intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice is probably to attract viewers of the Elizabethan Era, who had stereotypical views of the Jews, yet arousing sympathy for the Jews. In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock is portrayed as a character who was materialistic and greedy, with an eye for money. His hatred for Christians is also portrayed as a main part of the story, from where he tries to find opportunity to kill Antonio through the bond, where he states that if the money is not repaid in time, he would be able to cut a pound of flesh nearest the the heart.
In the 16th Century, anti-semitism in England was strong and almost no Jews lived in England. Discrimination was on a high and hatred between Christians and Jews were strong. Thus, writing a play which portrayed a Jewish character who was often discriminated would be considered normal and common in playwrights during that period of time. This was probably a reason Shakespeare created Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, to attract people to view his work.
However, there was also a hint of trying to take pity on Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. During the court case, the relentlessness of Portia was strongly portrayed, forcing Shylock to his wits' end. This makes the audience take pity on him naturally. At the end of the court case, Shylock, who lent money to Bassanio, lost both his money and his motive of killing Antonio. In such a plight situation, it would be natural for audiences to take pity on him. Another reason for creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice could also be to attempt to change the prejudiced and stereotypical perspectives of the people, hoping to move a step toward racial equality and end anti-semitism.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Term 3 Week 4 (Blogging Assignment)
Read the following Newsweek article, How to Raise a Global Kid, byLisa Miller (July 18, 2011)
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/17/american-kids-immersed-in-chinese-asian-education.print.html
What is the main argument Jim Rogers is trying to make in this article? Do you agree with his argument? Justify.
In the article, Jim Roger's main argument is that in order for children to live in the globally competitive world of today, one must be able to master the ropes and indulge in different cultures and languages, needing actual experiences with foreign cultures to better able communicate with people of a different "world". Jim Roger also mentions that domestic issues and international issues would slowly bond together as one in the future, and the world would be where all economies, industries, and people would be interconnected and co-related. He also states that if America is left without communication to this futuristic world and continue to feel superior about their current superpower title, they would gradually lose out to the other rising economies. Thus, immersion into different cultures would definitely be beneficial to future interactions.
I agree with the view point of Jim Roger. Integration into the world around us would do more good than harm. Our world is slowly changing into a global world, where everyone would be able to communicate with each other due to advanced technology of our time. Countries thus start working together more closely and global issues have been expanded to different areas. It is definitely important that children get familiarised with different cultures and languages so as to be better informed about certain "rules of religion" and also to more fluently and smoothly communicate with their future partners in their careers.
The status of Asians of a whole is definitely rising. Countries like Korea and Japan are producing high end products, improvising on many of America's production. While China sticks to a lower end production, we are certain to see many goods such as daily necessities like toothbrushes, toys and other household products made in China. While the intelligence of the product might be originating from different parts of the world, China has one of the largest, if not the largest manufacturing industries in the world. Working with China is just inevitable.
Take Google for example. While they might be looking at themselves as global giants, not working with countries like China could lead to large losses to them. China has the largest population in the world, which would mean a significant change in audience once China agrees or disagrees to work with an organisation. Google fell out with China due to issues which are sensitive to Chinese people and the government. If the people had been placed in a more global situation where there is mutual understanding, the fall out would not have happened.
Thus, it is definitely important that children are put into a global world from a young age. After all, their young and inquisitive minds would lead them to wandering around and exploring the world. They would "grow" into the world just like they "grow" into their clothes. As they mature and grow up, they would subconsciously be a more global being compared to a person who is not familiar with the global world of tomorrow.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/17/american-kids-immersed-in-chinese-asian-education.print.html
What is the main argument Jim Rogers is trying to make in this article? Do you agree with his argument? Justify.
In the article, Jim Roger's main argument is that in order for children to live in the globally competitive world of today, one must be able to master the ropes and indulge in different cultures and languages, needing actual experiences with foreign cultures to better able communicate with people of a different "world". Jim Roger also mentions that domestic issues and international issues would slowly bond together as one in the future, and the world would be where all economies, industries, and people would be interconnected and co-related. He also states that if America is left without communication to this futuristic world and continue to feel superior about their current superpower title, they would gradually lose out to the other rising economies. Thus, immersion into different cultures would definitely be beneficial to future interactions.
I agree with the view point of Jim Roger. Integration into the world around us would do more good than harm. Our world is slowly changing into a global world, where everyone would be able to communicate with each other due to advanced technology of our time. Countries thus start working together more closely and global issues have been expanded to different areas. It is definitely important that children get familiarised with different cultures and languages so as to be better informed about certain "rules of religion" and also to more fluently and smoothly communicate with their future partners in their careers.
The status of Asians of a whole is definitely rising. Countries like Korea and Japan are producing high end products, improvising on many of America's production. While China sticks to a lower end production, we are certain to see many goods such as daily necessities like toothbrushes, toys and other household products made in China. While the intelligence of the product might be originating from different parts of the world, China has one of the largest, if not the largest manufacturing industries in the world. Working with China is just inevitable.
Take Google for example. While they might be looking at themselves as global giants, not working with countries like China could lead to large losses to them. China has the largest population in the world, which would mean a significant change in audience once China agrees or disagrees to work with an organisation. Google fell out with China due to issues which are sensitive to Chinese people and the government. If the people had been placed in a more global situation where there is mutual understanding, the fall out would not have happened.
Thus, it is definitely important that children are put into a global world from a young age. After all, their young and inquisitive minds would lead them to wandering around and exploring the world. They would "grow" into the world just like they "grow" into their clothes. As they mature and grow up, they would subconsciously be a more global being compared to a person who is not familiar with the global world of tomorrow.
Shakespeare's biasness in portrayal of main characters in MOV
I feel that Shakespeare is not biased in terms of portrayal of the main characters in The Merchant of Venice. In The Merchant of Venice, we are able to see the main characters in many different view points and not only in one light. Shakespeare highlights both the characters' positive and negative traits, not showing who is the exact "good" or "bad". For example, while Portia is viewed as a pure and innocent "princess" at first, her "scheming" traits are portrayed during the court trial. She uses different means to force Shylock into resigning to them. Another example would be Jessica. While she may be viewed as a faithless daughter due to her elopement with Lorenzo, she is also a charming and vivacious young lady. However, Shakespeare also shows Shylock as a "typical Jew", according to the stereotype of Jews at his time. This can be seen in the seemingly one-sided portrayal of Shylock, with his evil deeds and mindset allowing audiences to see him as the villain in the story. However, Shakespeare also manages to portray him as an isolated minority overwhelmed by prejudice from the Christian majority of Venice. Thus, I believe that Shakespeare is not biased in the portrayal of the characters in this play.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Term 3 Week 3 (Blogging Assignment)
Read the following letter:
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/07/12/an-open-letter-to-the-education-minister-from-a-secondary-4-student/
(1) Comment on the Janalle Lee's view on the education system in Singapore.
(2) Is an ideal education possible? Explain.
Post your 500 word response on your blog.
The Singapore Education system has always been rigid and traditionally result-oriented. Over the years, the "Singaporean way" of doing things have influenced generations that things have to be done in that way, never in another. In the context of the education system in Singapore, students have been told and forced to put facts into their brains without needing to really understand it. This leads to them becoming dead thinkers who are able to recite facts of their minds without being able to explain most of them.
As I read through the article on Janelle Lee's view on the education system in Singapore, I found out that it closely relates to my opinion on the Singapore education system too. In my two years in HCI, I realised that the Singaporean education system trains us to be very materialistic and result oriented. These days, the "Only for an A1" attitude leads to students asking a standard set of questions. "Is this graded?" "Because my notes say so". Students now study for the sake of scoring well in their examinations instead of the process and essence of learning. As Janelle Lee has mentioned, "The beauty of education is to ask ‘Why?’ and have those questions answered. To be aware of knowledge one never knew about. To constantly discover new insights and new things every day, to answer questions lurking in our minds. But far too often, we are taught not to ask why, to just memorise. To get an A1, all we have to do is memorise our textbooks inside out and upside down, and be able to regurgitate them on the very day, tweaking them minimally to answer the questions asked. In the pursuit for grades, I believe we have lost the beauty of education: The ability to ask ‘Why?’" Students, trained to be "robots" which memorise have lost the interest in learning, the beauty of education, the ability to inquire for more knowledge.
Another point which Janelle Lee states also set me thinking. She states, "How do we cultivate talent in this manner, by not giving youths a voice? By memorizing tons and tons of model answers and essays to be submitted? In this way, the education system is sending a message to Singaporean youths that it is not wrong to have a voice, but it is wrong to use this voice in the system of education. What it does not realise is that it is the education system that is supposed to give Singaporean students their voice! By educating students, we are giving them the ability and knowledge to speak their minds, yet take this privilege from them away all at the same time." I have heard many time from Language Art teachers to always choose the topic and pick a point of view where you are able to score the highest amount of marks, even if you do not believe in it, because it fits into the answer key Cambridge provides. I have always been annoyed by this. I have always believed in having our own voice, our own feelings from our own thinking. If examinations in the form of essays put students in a situation where they pick the topic and view point which is politically correct and might score them the highest marks, they would have the mindset that things HAVE to be done in a certain way, never in another. How then, will we be able to see a change in the world in the future? Does Singapore's education mean that what we have now is enough and perfect, such that no change in anything in the future is needed? In order for us to see a change in anything, the difference of opinion has to firstly be there. Which means that we should be given our own voices and opinion.
How then, should the students be assessed and graded such that we are able to train them to the greatest potential with allowing them a space for their own opinion? This concept lies within the "ideal education". Firstly, the mindsets of Singaporeans have to be tweaked. Parents have to start training their children to go through education learning and not only knowing. They have to harbour the sense of thought. We humans are thinking beings, not thoughtless creatures. An "ideal education" is definitely impossible, due to the difference in opinion of how one's education should be like. Then again, this contradicts my previous point on parents training their children to go through education learning and not only knowing. Different people have different opinions in opinion, some opinions being drastically different. Thus, an ideal education for everyone, catering everybody's needs is impossible.
An ideal education, for me would be that we be graded and assessed according to how in depth our opinions are, and not how convincing it is. Being convincing is bounded by the way society educates people, thus far from the ideal way in my opinion. By accessing the depth of thought a student put determines the quality of thinking process he has put through. Instead of essays which grade students according to how convincing they are, students can also be graded according to how much thought is put into it. For example, has the student considered different factors which are different and contradicting his argument? How has he been able to use more concepts he learnt to counter this problem?
The education system in Singapore today, I would say, is effective in forcing facts down the students' throats, without them travelling through the nerves and into the brain. Put a student in a situation which requires them to use their knowledge to solve the problem in front of them today, and we would see how much they actually have thought about what they have been taught, what they presumed they have "already learnt".
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/07/12/an-open-letter-to-the-education-minister-from-a-secondary-4-student/
(1) Comment on the Janalle Lee's view on the education system in Singapore.
(2) Is an ideal education possible? Explain.
Post your 500 word response on your blog.
The Singapore Education system has always been rigid and traditionally result-oriented. Over the years, the "Singaporean way" of doing things have influenced generations that things have to be done in that way, never in another. In the context of the education system in Singapore, students have been told and forced to put facts into their brains without needing to really understand it. This leads to them becoming dead thinkers who are able to recite facts of their minds without being able to explain most of them.
As I read through the article on Janelle Lee's view on the education system in Singapore, I found out that it closely relates to my opinion on the Singapore education system too. In my two years in HCI, I realised that the Singaporean education system trains us to be very materialistic and result oriented. These days, the "Only for an A1" attitude leads to students asking a standard set of questions. "Is this graded?" "Because my notes say so". Students now study for the sake of scoring well in their examinations instead of the process and essence of learning. As Janelle Lee has mentioned, "The beauty of education is to ask ‘Why?’ and have those questions answered. To be aware of knowledge one never knew about. To constantly discover new insights and new things every day, to answer questions lurking in our minds. But far too often, we are taught not to ask why, to just memorise. To get an A1, all we have to do is memorise our textbooks inside out and upside down, and be able to regurgitate them on the very day, tweaking them minimally to answer the questions asked. In the pursuit for grades, I believe we have lost the beauty of education: The ability to ask ‘Why?’" Students, trained to be "robots" which memorise have lost the interest in learning, the beauty of education, the ability to inquire for more knowledge.
Another point which Janelle Lee states also set me thinking. She states, "How do we cultivate talent in this manner, by not giving youths a voice? By memorizing tons and tons of model answers and essays to be submitted? In this way, the education system is sending a message to Singaporean youths that it is not wrong to have a voice, but it is wrong to use this voice in the system of education. What it does not realise is that it is the education system that is supposed to give Singaporean students their voice! By educating students, we are giving them the ability and knowledge to speak their minds, yet take this privilege from them away all at the same time." I have heard many time from Language Art teachers to always choose the topic and pick a point of view where you are able to score the highest amount of marks, even if you do not believe in it, because it fits into the answer key Cambridge provides. I have always been annoyed by this. I have always believed in having our own voice, our own feelings from our own thinking. If examinations in the form of essays put students in a situation where they pick the topic and view point which is politically correct and might score them the highest marks, they would have the mindset that things HAVE to be done in a certain way, never in another. How then, will we be able to see a change in the world in the future? Does Singapore's education mean that what we have now is enough and perfect, such that no change in anything in the future is needed? In order for us to see a change in anything, the difference of opinion has to firstly be there. Which means that we should be given our own voices and opinion.
How then, should the students be assessed and graded such that we are able to train them to the greatest potential with allowing them a space for their own opinion? This concept lies within the "ideal education". Firstly, the mindsets of Singaporeans have to be tweaked. Parents have to start training their children to go through education learning and not only knowing. They have to harbour the sense of thought. We humans are thinking beings, not thoughtless creatures. An "ideal education" is definitely impossible, due to the difference in opinion of how one's education should be like. Then again, this contradicts my previous point on parents training their children to go through education learning and not only knowing. Different people have different opinions in opinion, some opinions being drastically different. Thus, an ideal education for everyone, catering everybody's needs is impossible.
An ideal education, for me would be that we be graded and assessed according to how in depth our opinions are, and not how convincing it is. Being convincing is bounded by the way society educates people, thus far from the ideal way in my opinion. By accessing the depth of thought a student put determines the quality of thinking process he has put through. Instead of essays which grade students according to how convincing they are, students can also be graded according to how much thought is put into it. For example, has the student considered different factors which are different and contradicting his argument? How has he been able to use more concepts he learnt to counter this problem?
The education system in Singapore today, I would say, is effective in forcing facts down the students' throats, without them travelling through the nerves and into the brain. Put a student in a situation which requires them to use their knowledge to solve the problem in front of them today, and we would see how much they actually have thought about what they have been taught, what they presumed they have "already learnt".
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Term 3 Week 2 (Blogging Assignment)
Is there a difference between treating water as a human right and as a commodity? In your opinion, should water be treated as a human right or as a commodity?
There is definitely a difference between treating water as a human resource and as a commodity. Humans are unable to live without water. It is a fact that an average human cannot survive without water for a period of time longer than three days. Why then, with water being treated as something only the rich can afford, do the poor not have the right to live? Every human has the right to live, no matter what his/her social status is, no matter how rich one is. There is no valid reason why only the rich should be given the chance to survive. Water is essential for our lives. While beverages like expensive wine, soft drinks are consumed by us as a luxury, water is a human resource, definitely not a privilege only to be consumed by the rich.
As Herbert Spencer had once quoted, "Survival of the fittest". While many view life to be a battle of who is more capable of living, where the richest can get the most benefits, and thus the more chance of living the next day. This is why the poor is called the "poor". Being poor means that you would not enjoy the many benefits one can get from having a decently rich life. However, does this ideology imply that the poor do not deserve a chance to live their life? Even the less fortunate are human beings, and all human beings should get the chance to live to the next day.
Water is the Earth's resource. Water belongs to all Earthlings. It should not be treated as a commodity but a human resource, as all of us deserve to survive.
Water is the Earth's resource. Water belongs to all Earthlings. It should not be treated as a commodity but a human resource, as all of us deserve to survive.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Term 3 Week 1 Assignment
These days, it is common to see Singaporeans having maids in their households, taking care of most, if not all of their housework. Also, sights of maids being at the beck and call of their employers, and even the children, are no longer a rare sight, so much so that “it is perfectly fine” to do so. Recently, Ms Halimah Yacob said "If a rest day a week is not possible, then these workers should at least be compensated in cash." This sparked off an intense debate amongst Singaporeans. In my opinion , giving weekly days off should not be legislated in Singapore.
When Ms Halimah Yacob gave the suggestion, she was probably thinking about giving domestic helpers some rest, and get a day off a week just like other workers do. However, giving them a day off does not necessarily solve the problem of Singaporeans overworking the domestic helpers. Currently, under the standard employment contracts for maids, the number of rest days each month is stipulated, and should the maids agree to work on their rest day, employers are required to pay them an agreed amount of compensation, usually between S$20 and S$50. Some maids are willing to work more for these amounts of money, whilst some employers need their maids to be there to take care of their children, or to take care of elderly who might be bed-ridden. Thus, by legislating weekly days off, mutual negotiation between the maids and the employers is reduced, and the situation is cemented to be as such.
Nevertheless, there are also maids who feel they deserve a day off but have little room to decide for themselves with employers who feel they have the right to do anything they want to the maids as they are the ones paying for them to work. Thus, I feel that instead of having weekly days off legislated, maids should be given more power to make decisions, more power to negotiate to settle with a solution with their employers.
In conclusion, giving weekly days off should not be legislated in Singapore as it does not solve the problem of overworking maids, although the suggestion is in the interest of these domestic helpers. Instead, they should be given more room in decision making, allowing them to decide how their contract should be built up, how their work is to be carried out. With mutual consent, I believe both parties should be satisfied.
When Ms Halimah Yacob gave the suggestion, she was probably thinking about giving domestic helpers some rest, and get a day off a week just like other workers do. However, giving them a day off does not necessarily solve the problem of Singaporeans overworking the domestic helpers. Currently, under the standard employment contracts for maids, the number of rest days each month is stipulated, and should the maids agree to work on their rest day, employers are required to pay them an agreed amount of compensation, usually between S$20 and S$50. Some maids are willing to work more for these amounts of money, whilst some employers need their maids to be there to take care of their children, or to take care of elderly who might be bed-ridden. Thus, by legislating weekly days off, mutual negotiation between the maids and the employers is reduced, and the situation is cemented to be as such.
Nevertheless, there are also maids who feel they deserve a day off but have little room to decide for themselves with employers who feel they have the right to do anything they want to the maids as they are the ones paying for them to work. Thus, I feel that instead of having weekly days off legislated, maids should be given more power to make decisions, more power to negotiate to settle with a solution with their employers.
In conclusion, giving weekly days off should not be legislated in Singapore as it does not solve the problem of overworking maids, although the suggestion is in the interest of these domestic helpers. Instead, they should be given more room in decision making, allowing them to decide how their contract should be built up, how their work is to be carried out. With mutual consent, I believe both parties should be satisfied.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)