In my view, poverty is something that can be reduced, but never totally eradicated. After all, the rich cannot exist without the poor, and vice versa. They are a social class that balances society.

Kamala Sarup had mentioned that "a country with an unfavorable geography, or culture, or economy or polity is severely handicapped to make sufficient technological advances that increase the wealth and living standards of its people." As the geographical properties of a country can never be changed, it is right to say that some countries will always be comparatively poorer than other countries. "Countries with a combination of unfavorable geographies, cultures, economies and polities are doomed to remain relatively poor." Even if these countries have developed and become richer, they are still poorer than other countries and in that context, they are in poverty. This will be a situation that will always remain.

Jeffrey Sachs has a good idea to end worldwide poverty. However, I doubt that it will work. His plan involves the cooperation of everyone and this is possibly a little too unrealistic. It is nearly impossible to assume that everybody will cooperate and help out to put an end to worldwide poverty. As he had said himself, "In 1970, the world's leading countries pledged 0.7 per cent of their national income to help the world's poor. That pledge has been renewed as recently as 2002. But it hasn't been honoured." Seeing that this pledge had not been honoured, what makes him sure that the world will cooperate? More likely than not, there will always be some who do not live up to their words and go back on their promises.

Thus, the poverty can possibly be reduced, but to truly eradicate poverty would be highly unrealistic and improbable.

-Angela Ho, 08/07

A common issue often raised is that of capital punishment and the death penalty. In the two articles provided, a disagreement is seen as to whether capital punishment will be beneficial to the society. In the first article, Becker agrees with the usage of capital punishment, supporting his stand with the reason that it deters other murders from happening. In the second article, Cassese refutes this. Although I was formerly in support of the death penalty, reading the second article has convinced me to think otherwise.

As mentioned above, Becker's stand is that capital punishment is appropriate as he feels that it deters people from committing murder. Although seemingly convincing, Becker's argument is based and developed upon his beliefs and assumptions, and as thus it does not fully support his stand well. In addition, Cassese has a counter argument to Becker's point. He quotes, from Thucydides, that "the death penalty has been laid down for many offenses, yet people still take risks when they feel sufficiently confident; it is impossible for human nature, once seriously set upon a certain course, to be prevented from following that course by the force of law or by any other means of intimidation whatsoever." This immediately proves that people can never be truly deterred, making Becker's point invalid.

On the other hand, Cassese provides sound reasons for his objection of capital punishment despite the ethical background of these reasons. He states that unlike the Europeans countries, the US states do execute their convicts. However, the number of serious crimes has not diminished. In addition, the death penalty itself is essentially an infringement on human rights. To execute a criminal would be to disrespect their life and belittle their dignity. When the state executes someone for committing murder, it is itself stooping to the level of the criminal and committing the very same crime. Thus, in view of the arguments, I am convinced that the death penalty is not the way to go.

-Angela Ho, 08/07

Singapore is often known as the immigrant society, having forefathers from many different countries who moved here in the quest for a better life. As such, we are very multi-racial, consisting of Malays, Chinese, Indians and Eurasians, and in recent years, many various other races as well. As the country that plays host to more and more people from different backgrounds and cultures, Singapore inevitably meets challenges due to this uniqueness, one of which is the inability of the locals to accept foreigners and immigrants in the country.

Despite appearing more international with people from all over the world, some locals still find it hard to fathom that these people are fellow residents. They find it a strange sight to see someone different living among them. To them, a white will always be a tourist, and anyone from the Philippines, Indonesia or Bangladesh must be menial help. This proves to be a challenge for Singapore. Being multi-racial, a large part in the growth and development of the country lies in the cooperation between the different people. If we are unable to accept and embrace the different people we live and work with, how are we going to grow and prosper as a country?

Although we see from the above point that Singaporeans are unable to accept foreigners for their difference in appearance, it does not mean that Asian immigrants do not face the same problem of discrimination. Beneath the similarity in appearance, we are rather different on the inside. Unlike in the past, much fewer of them are joining the traditional clan associations in Singapore, making it much harder for them to integrate into our society. In addition, there is the common assumption by Singaporean Chinese that women from China come to Singapore with an ill motive--to seduce men and rob them of their hard-earned savings.

This discrimination of others has caused some unhappiness and should be stopped. We got to stop resenting the foreigners and immigrants, and instead welcome them as part of Singapore. After all, the beginnings of our society were people like them, too. Our fathers had been immigrants to Singapore, and they had blended in to form our new society. What is stopping us from allowing others into our society now?

-Angela Ho, 08/07

In the articles given, both authors take opposing stands, Singer believing in freedom of speech whilst Szilagyi believes in social responsibility. Both of them have provided clear and sound arguments regarding their stands. However, in the multi-racial society of Singapore, I feel that it is much better to adopt Szilagyi's stand.

Like Szilagyi had said in his article, "Once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations, and often manipulation that serves political agendas. " This is a strong reason why we need to be socially responsible. Although freedom of speech is important, it can cause social unrest. This is especially to be avoided in our multi-racial Singapore. Any speech or expression we make in public is spread around by means of media, and is then available for others to use to their advantage. The public can read and interpret the message in their own way. Seeing the outrage over the publishing of the Prophet Muhammad cartoons is a clear message to the consequences of social irresponsibility. This will become worse in Singapore, where we are very multi-racial.

However, I do not disagree with Singer that freedom of speech is also important. Indeed, it is essential to democratic regimes, and one may think that a country will never be fully democratic when there is censorship. However, Singer had said that to have freedom of speech, the freedom to say what others believe to be untrue and even offensive must be attained. This I do not agree with. Here in Singapore, we do have freedom of speech to some extent. There is a speaker's corner, as well as various television programmes that allows people to voice their views that sometimes do touch on racial issues, to a certain extent. However, we do have some form of censorship, and what is deemed as highly offensive are not said in public.

Although it is good to have some form of freedom of speech, social responsibility must not be neglected. This is important, extremely so for a multi-racial society, and the best course of action would be to strike a balance between the two.

-Angela Ho, 08/07

In this article, what I find most shocking is the fact that even young children have undergone sex-reassignment surgery. True, cases of adults undergoing these operations are not unheard of, but the notion of children as such disturbs me. Looking back at it, though, I guess it is actually for the best that these operations are done at a young age. At the very least they wouldn't have to live with the discrimination from society, as few people wold know that this boy used to be a girl, or vice versa.

I do see the rationale some people have for changing their gender, per se. When it comes to societies that do not take upon homosexuality kindly, some homosexuals turn towards these to pursue their interests legally. They will however, still be scorned by society. Not because they were homosexuals, but because they are transgenders. Of course, I understand that transgenders did not come about because of homosexuals, that this happens to be coincidence. People who go through sex-reassignment surgery do so because they feel that they were meant to be the opposite gender but born with the wrong anatomy. Where their orientation lies is a totally different matter.

How do we define gender? What is it that makes us decide whether we're a boy or a girl? Is it our habits and mannerism, or tastes and preferences, our hair length, or simply the clothes we wear? Scientifically speaking, we are decided as male or female by our anatomy. But, like what the author says, gender is 'certainly more than the physical details of what's between our legs.' In this day and age, with females in pants, tomboys as well as males with long hair, all that we have no qualms about, there exist many grey areas. Perhaps, with the trend of sex-reassignment surgery, it is merely another blurring tool between the already fuzzy line of the male and female.

- Angela Ho
--------------
Article from May 21st, 2007th issue of Newsweek, titled 'Rethinking Gender: What makes Us Male or Female?', written by Debra Rosenberg.

In the article, the author's viewpoint is that the Singaporeans' advantage over the mainland Chinese, although affected, is not rapidly vanishing. She also adds that the people in China do not have a good grasp of the English Language whereas there are people some people in Singapore who are excellent in English. However, I find this comparison unfair, as the author's judge of the mainland Chinese comes from her experience in only Shanghai, whilst she uses the rarer few examples from Singapore to illustrate her point.

However, I do not completely disagree with the author, as I too feel that it is overly far-fetched to say that the Singaporeans' advantage is 'fast eroding'. Based on personal experience, majority of Singapore do have quite an adequate grasp of the English Language, at least sufficient for the average job. In addition to that, I have a close circle of friends who, although not exceptional like Genevieve Antono, are indeed rather good in their English, expecting to get 'A's in English Language tests and assessments.  One of them actually becomes upset over getting an A2. Comparing this to some other friends I have in Beijing from an exchange programme, there is a vast difference. There, English lessons focus mainly on sentence structure and vocabulary. I am not sure about the teachers, but I can definitely say that  the students cannot be considered fluent in the language.

The author has also mentioned that we should reduce usage of colloquial slang, but at the same time she finds it acceptable for Singaporeans to insert a word of another language when speaking. This very much feels like she in contradicting herself. In my view, to reduce colloquial slang would mean to speak the language proper. If we insert random words from other languages while speaking, how can we still consider ourselves to be properly speaking in that certain language? I feel that if we are truly very proficient in a language, we will not require to borrow words from another language.

-Angela Ho, 08/07
-------------
Article from a letter to the Straits Times on 9 May 2007, titled 'Discredit Singaporeans' English? Think Again', written by Chen Xinyi.

In my opinion, no one should be discriminated for their preferences, and I am personally supportive of the idea of legalising homosexuality in Singapore. I understand that majority of Singapore would disagree with my view, as they feel that homosexuality is unnatural and thus 'wrong', and that homosexuals are the main group of cause for AIDS, people who lead licentious lifestyles. In their defense, I would like to quote the definition of 'homosexual' as a noun from dictionary.com:

noun
1.	someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

As the definition indicates, 'homosexual' merely refers to someone who has a preference towards others of the same gender. It has in no way mentioned that they are immoral and lawless. Like Tim Mou Hui, I find this view highly prejudiced and untrue, and this can be supported by Dr Shirin Kalimuddin and Jerry Siah. Both have given examples of how homosexuals have contributed highly to the society, more so than some heterosexuals.

Although I cannot argue about homosexual acts being unnatural, this does not necessarily equates it to being 'wrong'. What do we deem natural? If it means being the way we are made, are we not already being unnatural by wearing clothes, by getting a haircut, by putting on makeup and so on? Why then, does anyone not accuse us of being wrong? I find it strange that we can accept the above examples without objection, yet have so much debate over the topic of homosexuality. I see no reason for us to condemn homosexuals in Singapore and am glad to finally see thoughts of decriminalising it. They are a part of our society, and will be always be around, regardless of whether homosexuality is legal.

-Angela Ho, 08/07
--------------
Articles used in discussion:
Not true that all gays are hedonistic and loose - Dr Shirin Kalimuddin
Homosexuals are contributing citizens too - Jerry Siah
Gay liberation does send a signal of approval - Tang Shangjun
'Gay acts harm no one' argument flawed - Istyana Putri Ibrahim (Miss)
Looking beyond the gay issue - Aaron Ho Chien Kwok
Writer has prejudiced view that all homosexuals lead promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyles - Tim Mou Hui

A recent hot topic close to home would be the issue of plastic bags and 'Bring Your Own Bag' Day. In conjunction with Earth Day this year, the first 'Bring Your Own Bag' day was started on 18th April, and every first Wednesday of the month from now on will be such a day. This is a step towards saving the environment and reducing wastage in Singapore. Personally, I support this decision along with the notion that people should pay for plastic bags. Every year, Singapore consumes plastic bags at an alarming rate, leading to a high rate of wastage. This is not a good sign as plastic bags can pollute the environment.

As said in the letter by Dr Lee, 'we must stop thinking in terms of the price of a plastic bag'. I agree with his viewpoint. Indeed, why are people complaining over having to pay for a plastic bag? When it eventually comes down to seriously damaging the environment due to the unregulated use of plastic bags, who can we then blame? The price we pay then will be much greater than the price of plastic bags could ever be. Are people nowadays so self-centered, that they are unhappy in being required to pay a small sum to give the Earth a big help?

Thus you also see me disagreeing with the letter by Paul Chan. He feels that the taxing of plastic bags is inappropriate as 'we can manage its use properly'. I would beg to differ, as he did not provide any evidence to prove his claim. On the contrary, there are several incidents where I have seen plastic littered in various places. In addition, he says that "if we really care about the health of mother Earth and global warming, we should ban a lot of activities that propel the progress of human race." That may be the case, but things do take time and what Singapore is currently doing is among the first steps to help the Earth and the environment.

-Angela Ho, 08/07
-------------
Articles used in discussion:
Charging for plastic bags not the solution - give scientists more time to find alternatives - Paul Chan Poh Hoi
Live without plastic bags? Here's how it can be done - Dr Lee Siew Peng
Plastic bags will always be around, so let's find other ways to save the Earth - Alvin Sim Khim Woon
Campaign to discourage use of plastic bags: How they do it in Germany and the UK - Sit Amilia Khoo (Ms)

I have never been a supporter of torture in any form, and thus my view will be that the use of torture, even against criminals and terrorists, is not justified. Furthermore, the use of torture is not always effective. This is proved in the first article, where Abu Zubaydah interrogations 'yielded little from threats and torture', and what results they did get 'came largely from a sophisticated approach'. With a low success rate, it simply does not make sense to inflict harm and pain upon another human being.

"But then think of 9/11, of the awful carnage and a nation's broken heart, and as you slide down the slippery slope, their screams may start to sound like justice."

Sure, like the above quote from the first article states, some people will think that the torture is justified as it is used against criminals and terrorists, those who have caused great harm and suffering to the world. However, as mentioned in an article I read last week, this comes from a desire within each human to punish the criminals for their wrongdoing, to take revenge for their victims. It is a natural biasness. However, we have to look at this issue calmly without judging. It may be true that these criminals have caused much disaster, but if we do the same to them what they did via torture, are we not lowering ourselves to their level? My point of view is very much like Nicole Bieske. She mentioned in the second article, "Our fundamental position, of course, is that torture can never be justified in any situation. It's morally prohibited and it's also against international laws."

The example high-lighted by Paris Aristotle in the second article is also an apt example of torture being meaningless and unjustifiable. "When they pull out one of his fingernails and he doesn't say anything, do they find his child and start torturing his child? When they can't find anything from the child do they go find his wife and go and rape his wife in front of him?" Will they do that? Evidently not in the case of the child and wife. Why even start with the criminal himself then? It would actually make more sense to reason things out with him and convince him to share the information willingly. At the very least, a criminal who volunteers information willingly will tell all that he knows, whilst a criminal forced to share information by means of torture will at most tell the very minimal of what he knows because of resentment.

-Angela Ho, 08/07

The media itself is an extremely strong power. As seen in the first article, it is powerful enough to be used as a threat to stability, distributing lies and denying people from the truth, eventually leading to chaos and unrest. Over the media, news spread far and fast like wildfire, and has the greatest impact over people due to the variety of words, sounds and colours. An apt example of the power of media used to upset peace and order in the world, resulting in riots and lives lost is as quoted from the first article:

"We saw this with the false allegations of the desecration of a Koran last year. First published in a weekly news magazine, the story was then posted on Web sites, sent in e-mails, and repeated on satellite television and radio stations for days before the facts could be discovered. That false story incited deadly anti-American riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

On the other hand, it can also be used as a means for people to freely express their views, sometimes even affecting the government with the sheer number of people. This is brought across in the second article which focuses on blogging and freedom of speech. In a way, it can be considered as a power to the people. New media provides the masses with an avenue to voice their thoughts to the world with the click of a mouse, often prompting responses even from governments and large companies. It is also to be noted that this commentary as an assignment for school is done on a blog/ online journal, thus showing the impact of new media as a source of power.

Thus in my opinion, the media can be both a threat to stability and a power to the people. The media alone is merely a medium, a source of power free for all to use. Whether it causes unrest or promotes freedom of speech entirely depends on the way this source of power is used, and not the medium itself. Imagine a time where nobody used the media. Would it still be a threat to stability? Can we still say it has allowed the people to express their views easily? Obviously not. The media is a powerful medium, but we cannot strictly give media a fixed description by basing it on the way it is used by others.

-Angela Ho, 08/07