Saturday, July 26, 2008
8:36 PM
Do the past and present offer any guidance for the future? (2004)
Yes, the past do offer guidance for the future. Racial riots that occurred in the past have taught us the importance of racial harmony. An example of racial riots was the Maria Hertogh riots of 1950, sparked by a court decision to return custody of Maria, then aged 13, to her biological Catholic Dutch mother after she had been raised as a Muslim by her adoptive Malay family. Eighteen people were killed in those riots. Another example of bloody riots includes the Eighty Years' War (1568-1648), where Catholics pitted against Protestants. Germany, whose population was roughly 21 million before the war had its population reduced to about 13 million by 1648. History of these riots gives us guidance that it is important to respect different races and culture, and learnt to tolerate and accept them. To prevent future cases happening from cases where history from repeating itself where bloody riots or inevitable wars to occur and millions of innocent causalities to result as a result, we should learn from the past. Likewise, the present also do offer guidance for the future. The recent case of the misuse of financial problems of the Ren Ci hospital under Buddhist monk, Ming Yi, who was accused of several offences under the Charities Act and Penal Code, have offer guidance for government for management of charities in the future. Auditing should be more frequent and more detailed to prevent misuse of public funds. Through these cases, public members will also be more careful when donating to charities in the future.
However, sometimes, in exceptional cases, the past and present do not offer any guidance for the future. Events or cases maybe outdated and may not be applicable in the future. Likewise, it is also tough to predict future events and many assumptions that we predict in the past or now will not be applicable or useful in the future. Myths and legends will not stand true in the 21st century, they are deemed as superstitious in modern day society. What matters most importantly now is the constantly improving technology that will be the most important tool in providing guidance for the future.
Jessie :)
0 comments
7:01 PM
What role do you think religion has to play in the public sphere in Singapore? Justify your stand.
According to the dictionary, religion is a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. Religion is also the belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. Religion is something that plays at least some role in the lives of Singaporeans, for according to a 2000 government survey, 85 percent of citizens and permanent residents profess some religious faith. And of these 85 percent of the population, there are 4 major religions, with many other minor religions which do not constitute a large part of the population. Hence, with such a large proportion of the population, and believing in many different religions, it is evident that religion plays an important role in the public sphere in Singapore, specifically religion tolerance locally.
A part of Singapore’s uniqueness lies in the fact that we are a multi race, multi religion country. There is no state religion, and neither is any religion prohibited in Singapore, unless it breaches any other laws relating to public order, public health, or morality. As such, some of Singapore’s policies have been made in regard to religion, as religion tolerance has been a top priority in order to maintain a peaceful and harmonious society. As mentioned in the article: Secularism - not from theory but bloody history, Muslim girls have been barred from wearing the headscarf or tudung in schools, so as to maintain their 'common secular space'. I believe the aim of this is to allow students of different races to mingle together without the barrier of religion. Hence, however important religion is to a Singaporean, if it is a threat to the society, in the sense that it allows for discrimination or creates discord among its citizens, the government will step in.
Personally, I feel that religion plays the part of reminding Singapore that it is a vulnerable country, and that peace, harmony and security is not something that will always be present. As the 911 terrorist attacks have shown, religion plays an deciding factor in the stability of a country. Terrorists have tried to use religion to mobilize Muslims worldwide to take part in their terrorist activities, significantly against Western nations. Shortly after the 911 attacks, suspected JI (Jemaah Islamiyah) terrorists have been arrested and detained under the ISA for plotting to create racial and religious discord. These terrorists proclaim retaliation in the form of violent attacks due to oppressions to their religion. This proves just how easily Singapore can be segregated by religion, as some who claim that saving their religion is their aim in their violent operations. Hence, Singapore has been actively promoting interethnic harmony, such as the Community Engagement Program (CEP) in 2006, where its goal is to promote multiracial and interreligious harmony, in part so that a strong foundation would be in place should an incident that could provoke ethnic/religious discord, such as a religiously related terrorist attack, occur in the country
In Singapore, although religion plays in important role, it is mainly in our personal lives, not so much publicly. It is my personal opinion that most Singaporeans do not identify themselves primarily as Christians, Buddhists or Muslims, but rather as citizens of Singapore.
kiawoon
http://knowledge.smu.edu.sg/article.cfm?articleid=1141
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Singapore
religion. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion (accessed: July 26, 2008).
3:29 PM
Discuss the importance of religion in society today. (2004)
Religion. For many years, people have fought because of it. Wars were waged because of it, riots erupted because of it. However, religion still has an important place in our society today.
For one, all religions despite their differences impart good values to its followers. These values such as honesty, filial piety, love, kindness and many more are all in line with the values needed by the society for survival and sustenance. Religion can act as a foundation on which good character and thoughts are built, resulting in a society where people can live together harmoniously. Good character would also lead to positive behavior and actions, which would help reduce the crime rates in our society today. For example, many religions encourage their followers to abstain from social ills such as robbery and drugs. Many churches also provide counseling and classes to help people combat these things.
As such, the society is made a better place to live in because of religion.
Religion also gives people a sense of identity and diversifies our society’s culture. Religion adds vibrancy and meaning to one’s otherwise monotonous life. For example, many religious buildings and places such as the intricately built catholic churches and the Muslim sacred place of Mecca are both tourist attractions.
However, even though cultural diversification is beneficial, it may affect secularism and cause a split within the society. If people of different religions discriminate against one another, they would not be able to work hand in hand to aid in the progress of our society. For example, though married to a French citizen and the mother of their three, French-born children, Faiza M. was denied citizenship on the grounds that she has "adopted a religious practice incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes".
Thus, religion despite being important, has its limitations.
Melissa
0 comments
Saturday, July 19, 2008
3:53 PM
2) Do you think there are circumstances where human rights may be curtailed?
Human rights are basic freedoms that all people are entitled to enjoy. They include civil and political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly; the right to fair and equal treatment under the law; and the right to vote. Economic and social rights, such as the right to work or obtain an education, also fall under the banner of human rights.
Whether human rights should be curtailed is a very subjective point of view. However, in my point of view, I believe that human rights may be curtailed depending on the circumstances.
Take for example the recent human rights allegations in IBA report on Singapore’s government. In its 72-page report released on 8th July, the London-based International Bar Association's (IBA) Human Rights Institute said Singapore has failed to meet international standards and expressed concerns about the independence of its judiciary. It says that Singapore courts had a good reputation when adjudicating commercial cases that did not involve members of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), however 'there are concerns about an actual or apparent lack of impartiality and independence', when it came to cases involving 'the interests of PAP members or their associates'. However, in response to these allegations, the Singapore government said the association did not justify its 'grave allegation' of bias with evidence, and slammed its statement as 'a feeble justification'. In such political cases, human rights should be curtailed, and Singapore in this case should include ratifying the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, easing restrictions on the media and ensuring that its courts are free from government influence. In circumstances where discrimination exists, be it racial or gender discrimination, I feel that human rights in the form of freedom of speech should be curtailed too.
However, in cases such as social rights are involved, such as the basic human rights of prisoners in Kutaisi Prison in Georgia, human rights should not be curtailed and instead be promoted. Recent exploration of the conditions in the penitentiary system of Georgia exposed facts of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners. Overcrowded cells, restricted medical treatment, bad food products and lack of an adequate water supply are problems when cell temperatures reach 35 to 40 degrees. From the above case, it seems that there is lack of human rights for prisoners. Evidently, the government seems to forget that every person has right on life and health regardless s/he is prisoner and condemned for even the gravest of crimes.
In conclusion, I feel that human rights may be curtailed depending on the circumstances, for e.g. in cases of civil, political or social rights.
Jessie :)
http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/STIStory_256242.html?vgnmr=1http://www.humanrights.ge/index.php?a=article&id=2956&lang=en
0 comments
12:17 AM
Do you think human rights are universal?
As countries advance and develop due to economic growth, there is growing pressure on countries all over the world to place more focus on its people, to ensure that human rights are pursued. Personally, I feel that human rights are universal only to a certain extent. Yes, there is no doubt that there are many policies on human rights in the world today. This includes the World Conference on Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil Rights and Political rights, United States Bill of rights and many others. However, these policies may not always be effective. One example is Singapore’s refusal to sign the International Covenant on Civil Rights and Political rights. Even if one country and particularly that small as Singapore is not part of the human rights movement, then human rights cannot be said to universal.
There are countries in which human rights are absent as well, making human rights not universal. Universal mean something pertaining to characteristics of the whole. As such, if human rights are non-existent in even one country, human rights cannot be said to be universal. One example is Sri Lanka during year 2006. In that year, the Human Rights Commission’s members’ term of office expired and there was an absence of a human rights commission for that period. This shows that the universality of human rights is only possible every single country and individual play their part. Thus, human rights are not always universal.
Lastly, even countries themselves violate human rights! How is it possible for human rights to be universal then? If countries pledge to support the human rights movement, but cross the line once they turn their backs, then human rights can be said to be non-existent in that country. One example is the Sudan Genocide. In 2003, rebel groups in Darfur demanded greater political power. Afraid that other small states may follow suit, the government of Sudan carried out an extermination of the people in Darfur, killing over 400000 people. If a government can kill its innocent people, they obviously have no regard for human rights. Hence, human rights are not universal because not all countries practice it.
Hence, I feel that human rights is universal only to a certain extent.
Melissa (:
0 comments
Friday, July 18, 2008
11:48 PM
Do you think human rights are universal?
In answer to the question, yes I think human rights should be universal. Human rights are the basic rights and freedom to which all humans are entitled. Since it is all humans, and not only humans living in certain circumstances or certain country, hence it is not limited to geographical positioning. As we are all living as humans on the same planet, there should be no doubt as to whether a rich person living in a first world country should be entitled to human rights whereas a poor person living in a third world country should not be entitled to human rights. The entitlement of human rights should be based on only one condition- that is to be human. Basic rights and freedom should be allowed to everyone irregardless of their nationality, race, religion or gender, as in essence we are all living, breathing, thinking humans. By saying that human rights are not universal, it is equal to discrimination against humans.
However, it is not wrong to say that human rights are not universal. This is because in the many societies existing, each has its own culture, way of living and history. These factors affect the way people view human rights. For example, education rights are not seen as essential in some countries with agriculture as its main economic activity, especially in third world countries. Hence going by the United Nation’s definition of human rights, this particular country would not fulfil its agreement for human rights as its people do not enjoy education rights. The extent of human rights will then differ from another country, such as first world America. The context of human rights would then not be universally.
As can be seen, human rights should be universal, as equal treatment should be extended to all humans who, underneath appearances, race and religion, are the same.
-kiawoon
0 comments
Saturday, July 12, 2008
6:30 PM
Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
In my opinion, there is no definite “Yes” or “No” to this question, especially as it mentions “ever right”. I think there is no “ever right”, but instead, in some cases it will be right, while in some other instances, it is not right. Generally, it will depend on the country in question.
It will be right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another when the country proves to be inadequate in solving their own problem, such as the example of Myanmar in the recent earthquake. After the earthquake, international aid was refused and even after it was allowed to enter the country, there were strict restrictions on the medical personnel that could enter the country, while foodstuff and medical supplies were slow in reaching the population. If international aid was accepted as soon as the disaster struck, the damage might not be so severe. Even though Myanmar initially maintained that they could deal with the problem on their own, it could be seen that the extent of damage was too much for Myanmar to repair on their own. This was due to the military dictatorship of Myanmar, which made them suspicious of aid from other countries. If another country, or organization such as ASEAN had been involved in 'Operation Myanmar Freedom', as mentioned in the article, this second round of disaster following the lack of repair efforts after the earthquake might have been prevented.
However, this is not always the case. As can be seen form the example of Iraq, another country becoming involved in their internal affairs was “right”, as it rescued the Iraqis from cruel military dictatorship, but in effect it caused much excessive deaths of Iraqis, the very people US troops were meant to save, not mentioning the deaths of troops while on their “Operation Iraqi Freedom” mission. To evaluate the situation, the objective of invading Iraq, which is to give them freedom from the military dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, was “right”, but factor in the extra costs that were incurred, it is not right of another country to become involved in one’s internal affairs.
Also, since it is the “internal affairs” of a country, one would naturally assume that the country is the most capable of rectifying the problem, as they would know the situation better. They would also most probably not have ulterior motives, because logically, they would want the best for their own country. The method used by other countries in “helping” them might then make the situation worse. In this case, it will never be right of another country to become involved in the internal affairs of another.
In conclusion, there is no absolute “ever right” or “never right” to this question. Many other factors would have to be considered, such as the ability of the country to take care of their own internal affairs.
In response to Jessie’s post:
I agree with her stand that “it is right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another, provided that there are no ulterior motives involved and just purely for the sake of the well-being of the country and her citizens”. After all, a country constitutes of her people. As long as it is in the well-being of their citizens, there is no reason why another country should not become involved. However, in real life situations it might not always be that simple, it is difficult, when another country is getting involved, that the well-being of the people will not be compromised.
kiawoon
11:06 AM
Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
I feel that it is right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another, provided that there are no ulterior motives involved and just purely for the sake of the well-being of the country and her citizens.
It is a known fact to every single human being on earth (except Bush Washington) that the Americans have failed badly in their so-called “Operation Iraq Freedom” which actual motive was to liberate the Iraqis and force Saddam Hussein to step down. However, instead of bringing freedom, hope and democracy to the Iraqis, everything spiraled out of control when the US invaded Iraqis, what resulted were just more deaths and control over them and more misery. Likewise for Yugoslavia, the failure of the European Union (EU) involvement has resulted in a different democracy that was decided on initially. In both cases, war erupted and many hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens were killed. The Americans and EU failed to take moral responsibilities; instead they pushed the blame to the citizens of the countries. From these two cases, it can be seen that it is not always right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another as it seems to bring more trouble and misery instead of the intended help. Instead of invading the country to help her, other countries that offer help in other alternative forms, such as aids and funds raised from organizations worldwide. Most importantly, the welfare of the citizens should be put in top priority first.
However, on the other hand, there is an ongoing saga of India’s key roles in Nepal affairs. Recent clandestine meetings in India between leading Nepalese politicians and Maoist leaders have once again highlighted the crucial role India continues to play in Nepal's internal affairs. India's role has been crucial in every major political change and the sustenance of such changes that Nepal has witnessed since the late 1940s. After late King Mahendra sacked the elected government and took control of state power in 1960, the then Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, made his displeasure public. However, within six months, his government had signed four aid agreements with Nepal and normal friendship resumed. Many believe that the self-serving change in Indian attitude helped the continuation of the monarchy's rule for 30 years. Similarly, many believe India played a crucial role in the collapse of the royal regime in 1990. Nepal has been very dependent on India for these past few decades. Without the constant interference of her internal affairs by India’s government, Nepal might have succumbed to terrorism by the Maoist leaders.
In conclusion, I feel that it is morally right for countries to become involved in the internal affairs of others if they render more help and aid to the country rather than chaos and more casualties.
In response to Melissa’s post:
The British colonization of Singapore is a good example of successful impacts of countries being involved in the internal affairs of others. Without the British, Singapore will not be what she is now. The British has transformed us from a relatively unknown fishing village to a viable business hub in the world today. I agree with Melissa’ stand that it is right for countries to intervene in the internal affairs of another if the reason is validated and if this move can bring about positive changes in that country.
Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4456036.stm
0 comments
Thursday, July 10, 2008
9:02 PM
Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
Countries should practice discretion on the issue of involvement in the internal affairs of other countries. It is only when that country is confident that they can bring about positive changes and improve the lives of people in the other country, should they intervene. Take for example, the involvement of the European Union in Yugoslavia’s internal affairs. Though their intentions might have been good, but their haste in introducing democracy led to ineffective leaders being chosen. These leaders worsened the situation by waging wars. Instead of bringing Yugoslavia out of their problem, the European Union indirectly caused more chaos in the country, causing many to lose their lives and homes. Thus, countries should not become involved in the internal affairs of another if they are unsure of how that countries function and the nature of its people. This is because different countries have different cultures, hence reacting to policies differently.
However, this is not always the case. A country’s intervention in the internal affairs of another can bring about improvements to the standard of living to that country and also diversification of education, the economy and they way of life. One example is the colonization of Singapore by the British before World War 2. Before, colonization, our country was just a backward fishing village with few amenities, poor sanitation and the lack of clean water for consumption. When the British forces took over, our country changed for the better. The British built settlements, schools, and amenities and modernized the whole country. Instead of fishing as a living, people could now take more jobs in the secondary industry with the setting up of factories. These increased their revenue and boost the whole economy. It also left a significant impact on our education system. The British formally introduced the English language into our curriculum, allowing us to better communicate with the rest of the world. Today, our strong foundation in English has made Singapore a viable business hub and a conducive environment for further studies. Thus, I feel that a country’s intervention is not necessarily bad if it helps the country to improve and progress, without affecting the culture of that country.
Hence, it is right for countries to intervene in the internal affairs of another if the reason is validated and if this move can bring about positive changes in that country.
Melissa
0 comments
