Blog Prompt #6 - RM Phone-hacking SCANDAL

 "The news media should be blamed for the unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to the extremes for sensational news. How far do you agree?"

Yes, I only agree to this statement to a small extent, the news media are not the ones to take the entire blame. Look at the modern world today. The readers have a part of this blame. The general readers (not the entire public) wants their gossips and news everyday. They demand it and the newspapers give it to them. However, the Internet has been much more important and it is used to spread these gossips around to their social circles. This will affect the news firms. Thus, the news firms have to resort to the most ultimate methods. They have to do much more than interviewing the      person, they have to deploy spies and trackers to follow, stalk and report back to the news firms. The celebrities are thus affected and will try to avoid these paparazzi and spies, but it will definitely inflict harm on themselves. For example, the Princess of Wales, Diana, was killed in a car crash due to the pursuing paparazzi. She had to avoid them and entered the car which resulted in this fatal accident. Thus, the readers could tone down and give the celebrities some breathing space.

If the paparazzi and readers are following this particular celebrity, don't they want to care for them? If so, why not abolish such extreme methods? It will definitely cause harm sooner or later, and it's about time the readers should really sit down and re-think their tactics.

The celebrities sometimes have themselves to blame too. Some of them just want more exposure to the public and aspire to become a star overnight. All they have to do is to post a rumour anonymously somewhere and it will instantly result in a overwhelming number of fans and paparazzi following them. Simple yet stupid.

Thus, the readers and paparazzi have themselves to blame, not entirely the news media itself for this unhealthy culture. If YOU are one of them, then please, stop these nonsense now.

Seriously.

Blog Prompt #5 - Justice and Mercy

1. Is there true justice? Why?

2. Is there true mercy, as expounded by Portia? Why?

3. Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. Comment on this with reference to the text and other real-life cases and examples.

1) No, I don't believe that there is true justice in this world. There will always be exceptions and things that can defy the power of justice. Although we always try to make unbiased decisions, justice is not totally black and white; there is a grey area. Our past prejudices will act against how we make our decisions, for example, those with different religions and races, and those with different wealth. Moreover, the people can change and obstruct justice to their own means. 

2) I do not believe there is true mercy. True mercy does not always happen at important situations. Look at the trial scene in Merchant of Venice. Shylock had declined all offers, including the six thousand ducats that Bassanio offers, and was only determined to get his pound of flesh, or simply killing Antonio. He has not shown any form of mercy towards Antonio. The hatred in his heart only tells him to get rid of Antonio. Nothing else. However, Shylock eventually gets trapped by Portia. The duke showed mercy by not killing Shylock for threatening the life of a Venetian. Shylock, on the other hand, did not think that the punishment meted out was any merciful as he had to convert to Christianity, and he was stripped of his profession. Thus, in the trial scene, we can conclude that there is no form of true mercy, and that applies to the modern society too.

3) Yes, Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. In the MOV trial scene, Portia manipulated the law to turn against Shylock and let him receive punishment instead of his much yearned revenge. Justice is manipulated to the favour of the majority and the minority definitely have the lower hand, such as the Venetians (Christians) and Jews in MOV. In real life, people with power and wealth constantly abuse their power and use it in their own means; if they are determined to do this, they will do it no matter what. They will use bribes, blackmail, and in any retarded way they will still do it. I am shocked. Retarded people like Dominic Strauss-Kahn abused his power as the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund and did perverted things which I wouldn't want to state. After everything was revealed, he paid a enormous sum of cold hard cash and was released out for custody. Even though the maid's statements might be unreliable, we can see that with money and power, anything is possible, right to the point where justice is manipulated, changed and abused. It's still outright possible.

Blog Prompt 4

To what extent do you agree with the issues that the student has raised here? Point out some issues of agreement and possible contention.

I agree to a certain extent on the issues that Janelle, a Secondary 4 student form Nan Chiau High School has raised in her open letter to the Education Minister, Mr Heng. In her letter, she stated that from her personal experience, she found that 'students are often not taught to ask ‘Why?’'. This is somewhat true, for I can also see that this phenomenon has also occurred in our lives too. In the past, only hard-working students are rewarded, they spend all of their time reading books and studying, with no computer or internet access. And if they are REALLY poor, they have to copy books as their only form of getting information. Nowadays, with the introduction of computers and internet, we can easily find and compile useful information, which is extremely easy. Most Singaporeans have the money, and internet access is not a problem.

However, she pointed out that 'To get an A1, all we have to do is memorise our textbooks inside out and upside down'. This is not really true, for example, in Hwa Chong, we are encouraged to research online to find valid, resourceful and useful information. The textbooks and notes that teachers give are often not exhaustive. It is therefore easy to get an A1 as long as you know how to find information and study the fast and effective way. Thus, memorising text in our textbooks is not the only way to get good grades.

She also stated that civics and moral values are 'eating up classes' and schools are putting it in the last priority. This is not necessarily the case. In HCI, we often have compulsory PCME lessons during Assembly. During that period of time, we are not allowed to do anything else. A topic is started by the teacher and then we can discuss and answer questions. It is an effective way, and no time is wasted. Although parents also have responsibility in teaching the children moral values, I disagree with Janelle's statement that good parenting are more effective than teachers, as teachers may have more experience than parentas, and they may be more willing to teach these values.

Examine her tone and attitude in this letter. Do you think it’s a well-crafted letter with the appropriate tone?

I think that it's a well-crafted letter. In the beginning, she brought out some main points and was quite informal. However, as the letter progresses, she became more serious and formal. And she voiced out our opinions that might have never made it the the Education Minister. Her tone is unwavering, so I think this letter is well-crafted.

If you should write a letter to Minister of Education, what are some issues you would raise? Remember- your intention is to make the system better for society’s betterment via CONSTRUCTIVE ideas.

 

I might raise the point that we should follow the education system like China. 45 mins of lessons and 15 mins of break. It would not be too stressful and short breaks will allow us to further relax ourselves and digest the information we were given with a calm mind. 

Blog Prompt - Is money necessary for a marriage?

Does money affect relationships nowadays? Well, based on our mindset, I'm afraid to say that we are relying more on money to find a good companion than in the past. Let me explain this in a simply way:

Firstly, the female (mostly) wants to have a relationship. She has a choice between two men.
The first guy, is poor, but extremely caring, helpful, loving etc. etc. etc. (+ all the good qualities), so he's considered a gentlemen.
HOWEVER, the second guy, is extremely rich, but is fat, ugly and very annoying and hard to get along with.
(Sorry I think I exaggerated too much on the details)
Who will the woman choose? Gentleman or Rich-man?
EPIC SOUND EFFECTS
.....
....
...
..
.
Some (which is more than the past), will choose the rich-man.
No, that isn't good. But money is more crucial in relationships now as compared to the past, where only good gentleman are favourited. This trend will mean that poor people will have a disadvantage, but why again?
Rich people = have lots of money = become rich yourself = can spend money on anything = happy life.
So, why not? Why not marry a rich person when you know you are going to have a happy life?
But, rich doesn't mean happy (all the time). Sometimes that person is very annoying and hates people like you (which only appears AFTER marriage), but because of the other person's wealth, we may not choose to divorce. So, that's probably why (PROBABLY) people choose money over qualities. This is how I interpret this question, I'm not sure if I'm right about this... ._.

Blog Prompt - How has war evolved?

War in the past was  definitely different from what the war we are going to have now. Previously, it was due to the invasion of the terrible Nazis led by Adolf Hitler. What he planned was wrong, and everyone agreed to this point. Thus, a war had to be started in order to prevent him and his regime from taking over the world and turning it into a deadly nightmare. It was a war that had to be fought and nobody could have stopped it. His intentions were evil and most of all, wrong. However, look at us now. The younger generation (of the 20-21st century) are talking about unnecessary wars that could have totally be avoided by having friendly diplomatic talks between two or more countries. The war we are talking about now is totally unrealistic and overwhelmingly stupid. Why start a war when you realise that thousands or even millions of victims are going to die because of this war. I don't think they fully understand the consequences, and if a war really starts for no apparent of good reason, I don't think humanity will be able to survive past this century.

Why did I make this statement? Well, our technology has also improved dramatically in the past few decades, and some say the German scientists contributed most in this technological advancement, and I feel that this is not good news for us. This technology can be used by terrorists to create a mega terrorist attack, which means they can practically take over the world within a matter of time, and all they need is just advanced weaponry, manpower, which they all have. Compared to the past, terrorist attacks have only appeared in this century. And they are notorious and infamous than before. I seriously cross my fingers and hope that one day we can take action and eliminate all of them before they do the same to us.