I would like to talk about this article in this blog post:http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2089390,00.html
It is a shocking scene to see so many people, mainly the youths of Egypt, go onto the streets in the masses. It is shocking because of two things. Firstly, the youth are the ones that now dare to stand up and overturn the government, and secondly, the things that the citizens of Egypt have to go through, and the time that they spent under the tyranny Hosni Mubarak. There is no justice in Egypt currently; everything is up to the corrupt government to decide. The police are corrupted, beating random civilians on the streets, and the government is also terrible, hiring thugs to scare the people to cast votes that favour the ruling government. The riot police are seen beating up the rioters, which has no link to "controlling the riot". It is an uneasy sight to see such atrocities being done by the government in the Middle East. Another sad thing to see is that the government allow the police to be corrupt, and even encourage corruption to make up for their measly pay. The wrong doing police, mostly those high ranking ones, are also being protected by the government such they can retain their jobs or in more complicated situations be transferred to other sections in the law enforcement. It is both sad and irritating to see how deep corruption can go, and how difficult it is to eradicate it, especially when corruption is everywhere. Next to nothing has been done in the Middle East to help this corruption and I cannot help but feel how lucky we are in Singapore. So what if our ministers get paid more? As long as they are corruption free, this is already the greatest blessing to me.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Blog Prompt 6: Media Paparazzi
Read up on the Rupert Murdoch phone scandal. You can find some links (from TIME online) I posted up in Week 6, as well as read up on the Newsweek coverage of the news. In relation to the news coverage on the scandal, answer the question: "The news media should be blamed for the unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to the extremes for sensational news. How far do you agree?"
I would agree with this statement. This paparazzi culture is actually started by the greed of the media, wanting to make more money by having more news to report on. In the Rupert Murdoch scandal, the News of The World hacked the phones of murder victims and loved ones of dead soldiers and victims of 911. This was what angered the public, because although phone hacking is not a rare thing, it normally affects only royalties, stars and other famous people, but this time the public was involved. Those famous people have to give up their privacy for their jobs, which is not the case for the ordinary people that are involved this time. Greed has a big part to play in this scandal as the News of The World leeched those very personal and private voice mails of the ordinary residents of Britain for their gossip news, in an effort to attract more people to buy their papers, especially those who like such genres of news, to make money. Another example is the news media in Hong Kong which has a great portion made up by gossip news. The media in Hong Kong go to very extreme means trying to get news to report, to the extent that they stalk some politicians and movie stars. Another example is also the death of Princess Diana. The media was blamed for the death of Princess Diana as it was the media scrutiny that Diana was trying to avoid that eventually made her enter the car that was driven by a drunken chauffeur, who lost control of the car, resulting to the crash and the death of Diana. However one might argue that it was the demand for such news by the paparazzi lovers that forced the media to go to extreme means to obtain news, but this is not that case in my opinion as what the people demand is not necessarily what they get, and that it was the initial burst of gossip news in the media that got the readers addicted, and this addiction was then made use of to make more money. Subsequently when the demand becomes increasingly higher the media then took the opportunity to earn yet more money through such disgusting methods so that there is a continual flow of gossip news to leech on and report about.
I would agree with this statement. This paparazzi culture is actually started by the greed of the media, wanting to make more money by having more news to report on. In the Rupert Murdoch scandal, the News of The World hacked the phones of murder victims and loved ones of dead soldiers and victims of 911. This was what angered the public, because although phone hacking is not a rare thing, it normally affects only royalties, stars and other famous people, but this time the public was involved. Those famous people have to give up their privacy for their jobs, which is not the case for the ordinary people that are involved this time. Greed has a big part to play in this scandal as the News of The World leeched those very personal and private voice mails of the ordinary residents of Britain for their gossip news, in an effort to attract more people to buy their papers, especially those who like such genres of news, to make money. Another example is the news media in Hong Kong which has a great portion made up by gossip news. The media in Hong Kong go to very extreme means trying to get news to report, to the extent that they stalk some politicians and movie stars. Another example is also the death of Princess Diana. The media was blamed for the death of Princess Diana as it was the media scrutiny that Diana was trying to avoid that eventually made her enter the car that was driven by a drunken chauffeur, who lost control of the car, resulting to the crash and the death of Diana. However one might argue that it was the demand for such news by the paparazzi lovers that forced the media to go to extreme means to obtain news, but this is not that case in my opinion as what the people demand is not necessarily what they get, and that it was the initial burst of gossip news in the media that got the readers addicted, and this addiction was then made use of to make more money. Subsequently when the demand becomes increasingly higher the media then took the opportunity to earn yet more money through such disgusting methods so that there is a continual flow of gossip news to leech on and report about.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Blog Prompt 5: Justice & Mercy
By the end of the trial scene, do you think true justice and mercy was achieved? Reflect and write on the following questions:
1. Is there true justice? Why?
I think that justice in this case depends on the person’s point of view. In this scene, there are two obvious points of view, the Christians’ and the Jew’s, or particularly Shylocks. From the Christians’ point of view, justice is definitely met. At the Elizabethan Times, Christians generally discriminate Jews and this racism would affect their thinking and their perspective in this courting scene. It would be just deserts for Shylock to lose all of his possessions, and it would be like a gift from the heavens for the Christians to spare Shylock’s life and even convert him to Christianity, ending his life in misery in the eyes of the Christians. Justice would have been met also because, in the Christians’ eyes, Shylock has no right to demand for justice in the court, and Antonio, being a Christian, does not deserve to be punished by a Jew. However, Shylock would have felt that justice was not shown in this situation in his perspective. Firstly, the bond clearly stated in black and white that the pound of flesh is what he would get if three thousand ducats were not paid in three months, and he would have every right to take it, even if this was done in the means of vengeance. Secondly, Shylock would have felt that he was tricked deliberately by Portia’s clever manipulation of words, emotions and the law. Lastly, Shylock would have thought that there was no justice as nobody in the world can have the right to change his religion, which he have been believing for his whole life, and also to take away his hard earned possessions.
For me, I would say that justice was dealt accordingly in this scene. Firstly, the bond did not state that blood could be shed in the process of cutting that pound of flesh, and it clearly stated that it has to be one pound of flesh, no more, no less, which means that whatever Portia said in this scene was correct, theoretically. Secondly, Shylock was given many chances to spare Antonio and walk away with six thousand ducats, twice the amount he lent, and if he really craved for the law, he cannot argue if the law that he craves actually turns on him, because of his vengeance which blinds him. Lastly, the law clearly states that if the conditions in the bond were not met, he would have to be executed, and mercy was showed to him when Portia, the Duke and Antonio spared his life.
2. Is there true mercy, as expounded by Portia? Why?
Just like the previous topic on justice, this also depends on one’s perspective. In Shylock’s eyes, there would have been no mercy in this situation. He would have thought that since mercy was such a divine trait as Portia described, he should have been let to take the six thousand ducats in exchange for the bond, resolving the problem. Then, he was unexpectedly tricked by Portia’s clever words into being forced to be converted into a Christian, the greatest humiliation to him, and lose all his fortune. Although mercy might seem to be missing in this scene, the Christians must have thought that mercy was shown to Shylock. Shylock insisted on following the law, but was unaware that the law could turn on him, and his refusal to show mercy to Antonio resulted in him being punished accordingly by not being able to take the six thousand ducats and leave, but has to follow the law and die. Then, the Duke spared his life and Antonio was kind enough to let Shylock have half of his money back, but on the condition that he must be converted to Christianity.
My opinion on this is that mercy was indeed shown in this situation, but mercy was being manipulated by Portia like how justice was manipulated by Shylock for vengeance. Portia did not let Shylock take the six thousand ducats but to me this was what Shylock deserves, as he himself did not want to show mercy, and this was just to let him have a taste of his own medicine. However, what happened next would be the clear indication of manipulation of mercy. Portia states that Shylock must die as he did not follow his bond, and then in exchange for his life, Antonio forced Shylock to convert to Christianity, and then have half of his possessions to be taken care by Antonio, and the other half to be given to Jessica and Lorenzo after his death, leaving him with nothing left in his life. Mercy was certainly shown in this context, but then it was used to force Shylock into choosing the condition that Antonio desired, which makes this mercy fake to a certain extent, and makes it more like a trap than showing mercy.
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.
I think that justice and law can be manipulated. In the text, justice and law was clearly manipulated by Shylock by using the law to get his revenge on Antonio, and for his personal vengeance. He used the law as a reason for him to kill Antonio, by using the bond, and his insistence was the sign of the manipulation and his motive, to claim Antonio’s life, and not the true justice that the law is set for. In real life context, justice and law can also be manipulated, especially by the ones in power. In the recent Dominique Straus-Khan scandal, where Straus-Khan was accused of sexually assaulting a maid at the hotel, manipulation of law and justice was obviously present. Straus-Khan is the likely candidate for the presidential elections of France, and after the scandal broke out, the one that got into trouble were the hotel room service personnel, Nafissatou Diallo. Straus-Khan was protected by skilled lawyers and politicians which helped him speak, giving little to no light to this case, which produced another side of the story that the sexual contact was consensual. This protection, which Diallo did not have to luxury of having, was what let Straus-Khan leave with clean records, and Diallo under arrest. This is certainly an example of how the powerful can get around the law, and how the people tend to believe the ones in power because of their power.
Blog Prompt 4: Letter To The Minister Of Education
1) To what extent do you agree with the issues that the student has raised here? Point out some issues of agreement and possible contention.
Actually, I do agree with the issues raised by the student. It is sad to say that the education system now is ineffective and it promotes the pure memorising of facts as a mean to succeed. Well, one good example would be the Integrated Humanities module and term test. The test is split up into two sections, construction explanations and inference questions. There were cases whereby people scored full marks for their inference questions, but as a result of their inability to memorise score low marks for their explanation question, failing the test. In the future, would memorising or inference skills be more important? I guess that most of you would say inference, so why is this happening? What the current educational system is doing is forcing facts, morals and politically correct ideals into people’s minds, so that they would be able to rise to the top in the future at work. However, is this “memorising technique” relevant to the future? Another thing I would like to say is that the current education system does not go by our interests and talents, and what we are learning might not be applicable in the future. I have a cousin that is talented in the areas of cooking, but he is currently not able to cope with the education system in Singapore, and as a result is considering moving to England to study. Would this education system be backfiring and sending talents at areas not tested and thus claimed not “important” to other countries to develop? This is highly likely. I think that one’s passion for learning and desire to improve is what is going to bring success to him in the future, and not the constant fear of failing and being trampled on in the race of life, which results in people working hard, but in the end, the hard work is for no reason. Many students in Singapore have the mentality of working hard so as to have a decent job next time, and this materialistic mindset would only “mechanise” them into robots that work for their wants, but not to work for their passion to want to do something with their lives. Now, the current education system just require one to remember facts and follow certain rubrics of formats to be able to do well, but in life, such rubrics and formats would not exist, and no one would tell you what to memorise, and it is in this type of situations where the real successful people, able to be flexible, creative, mentally strong and morally upright, would appear, standing on the heads of the robots that the educational system is currently churning out, and mass producing.
2) Examine her tone and attitude in this letter. Do you think it’s a well-crafted letter with the appropriate tone?
I think that this letter is rude. The writer was constantly aware of the commotion she would kick up, but she constantly excuses herself with lame excuses like “I am too young” and at the same time treating the minister like her servant. Her tone was almost like demanding the minister to so something about the system. She was totally unaware of her tone when she was writing this letter by addressing the minister impolitely, using the caps lock button and criticizing the system by not clearly stating her rationale. Although the issues that she brought up might be correct, but sadly, her tone would make people take her words lightly and render her as another idealistic teen trying to change the world, but obviously failed.
3) 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 would like to tell the Minister of Education that although the current education system can prepare the students for the future, but it neglects many other aspects, such as moral and character build up, and it stifles the student’s ability to explore their talents and their creativeness and curiosity. I would suggest the Minister of Education to implement an all rounded education system such that students can choose what they want to learn, and explore what they want to do in their future. The Ministry of Education can start by giving more CCA choices, and lowering the bar for recruitment and the level of competitiveness altogether such that the students can truly learn what they want to learn, and not win what they want to win. The MOE can also offer elective courses like we had for our Chinese curriculum, for us to choose what we want to study in a certain subject, and then go ahead to implement a system whereby students only need to take the subjects that they desire, and they have the freedom of choice about what they want to learn, after experimenting with the elective classes. This would lead to students being more independent and they can also take charge of their own lives better, at the same time having to learn and explore their passion, and give the conditions for their talents to bloom.
Actually, I do agree with the issues raised by the student. It is sad to say that the education system now is ineffective and it promotes the pure memorising of facts as a mean to succeed. Well, one good example would be the Integrated Humanities module and term test. The test is split up into two sections, construction explanations and inference questions. There were cases whereby people scored full marks for their inference questions, but as a result of their inability to memorise score low marks for their explanation question, failing the test. In the future, would memorising or inference skills be more important? I guess that most of you would say inference, so why is this happening? What the current educational system is doing is forcing facts, morals and politically correct ideals into people’s minds, so that they would be able to rise to the top in the future at work. However, is this “memorising technique” relevant to the future? Another thing I would like to say is that the current education system does not go by our interests and talents, and what we are learning might not be applicable in the future. I have a cousin that is talented in the areas of cooking, but he is currently not able to cope with the education system in Singapore, and as a result is considering moving to England to study. Would this education system be backfiring and sending talents at areas not tested and thus claimed not “important” to other countries to develop? This is highly likely. I think that one’s passion for learning and desire to improve is what is going to bring success to him in the future, and not the constant fear of failing and being trampled on in the race of life, which results in people working hard, but in the end, the hard work is for no reason. Many students in Singapore have the mentality of working hard so as to have a decent job next time, and this materialistic mindset would only “mechanise” them into robots that work for their wants, but not to work for their passion to want to do something with their lives. Now, the current education system just require one to remember facts and follow certain rubrics of formats to be able to do well, but in life, such rubrics and formats would not exist, and no one would tell you what to memorise, and it is in this type of situations where the real successful people, able to be flexible, creative, mentally strong and morally upright, would appear, standing on the heads of the robots that the educational system is currently churning out, and mass producing.
2) Examine her tone and attitude in this letter. Do you think it’s a well-crafted letter with the appropriate tone?
I think that this letter is rude. The writer was constantly aware of the commotion she would kick up, but she constantly excuses herself with lame excuses like “I am too young” and at the same time treating the minister like her servant. Her tone was almost like demanding the minister to so something about the system. She was totally unaware of her tone when she was writing this letter by addressing the minister impolitely, using the caps lock button and criticizing the system by not clearly stating her rationale. Although the issues that she brought up might be correct, but sadly, her tone would make people take her words lightly and render her as another idealistic teen trying to change the world, but obviously failed.
3) 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 would like to tell the Minister of Education that although the current education system can prepare the students for the future, but it neglects many other aspects, such as moral and character build up, and it stifles the student’s ability to explore their talents and their creativeness and curiosity. I would suggest the Minister of Education to implement an all rounded education system such that students can choose what they want to learn, and explore what they want to do in their future. The Ministry of Education can start by giving more CCA choices, and lowering the bar for recruitment and the level of competitiveness altogether such that the students can truly learn what they want to learn, and not win what they want to win. The MOE can also offer elective courses like we had for our Chinese curriculum, for us to choose what we want to study in a certain subject, and then go ahead to implement a system whereby students only need to take the subjects that they desire, and they have the freedom of choice about what they want to learn, after experimenting with the elective classes. This would lead to students being more independent and they can also take charge of their own lives better, at the same time having to learn and explore their passion, and give the conditions for their talents to bloom.
Blog Prompt 3: Money And Matrimony
In your opinion, is money important in a relationship? Consider the 'transactional' element observed in the relationships between the couples. Do you think there is an upward trend of relationships and marriages valuing money over other qualities? Provide examples for your responses.
In my opinion, I think that money should not be the basis of a relationship, but it does play a part in relationships one way or another. In Merchant of Venice, one good example of money playing a part in a relationship would be Bassanio and Portia. Bassanio was at the beginning of the play a rich man that squandered his fortune, leaving him in heavy debt. He then borrowed money to go to Portia, a lady from a rich family, in order to marry her. However, this relationship is not solely built on money but true love between the two can be seen before the casket scenes and the moment when the letter from Antonio was sent. In the modern society, it is sad to say that money plays a part in everything, even relationships. Newly weds have to face many problems like buying their house, raising their kids and saving up for their future, which all involve money. This shows that money has the capability to influence the choice for relationships. In the increasingly materialistic society, money’s influence in a relationship definitely increases. More and more people are being blinded by the wealth of their partners into having the urge to start a relationship, and then forming a family which would forever bind the two together. The materialistic nature of the people nowadays also means that they tend to seek partners who are at least financially stable, and would prefer the wealthy than the poor, and this materialistic nature is often undetectable by the person himself, which make him unknowingly attracted to the partner’s wealth instead of companionship.
In my opinion, I think that money should not be the basis of a relationship, but it does play a part in relationships one way or another. In Merchant of Venice, one good example of money playing a part in a relationship would be Bassanio and Portia. Bassanio was at the beginning of the play a rich man that squandered his fortune, leaving him in heavy debt. He then borrowed money to go to Portia, a lady from a rich family, in order to marry her. However, this relationship is not solely built on money but true love between the two can be seen before the casket scenes and the moment when the letter from Antonio was sent. In the modern society, it is sad to say that money plays a part in everything, even relationships. Newly weds have to face many problems like buying their house, raising their kids and saving up for their future, which all involve money. This shows that money has the capability to influence the choice for relationships. In the increasingly materialistic society, money’s influence in a relationship definitely increases. More and more people are being blinded by the wealth of their partners into having the urge to start a relationship, and then forming a family which would forever bind the two together. The materialistic nature of the people nowadays also means that they tend to seek partners who are at least financially stable, and would prefer the wealthy than the poor, and this materialistic nature is often undetectable by the person himself, which make him unknowingly attracted to the partner’s wealth instead of companionship.
Blog Prompt 2: Evolution Of War
In your opinion, how has war evolved from the past to the present? Please use examples to justify your opinions.
I think that war has evolved from the past to the present in a few ways, and the most obvious change would be in technology. Technological breakthroughs are often made during wars, from the discovery of bromine to the infamous Enigma’s coding abilities. Everyday technology has progressed much from the past to the present, so did war technology. At the dawn of time, in the regions of present day India, the art of sword making and steel weapons were perfected, then in Roman times, the state of the art weapons were like the trebuchet and the crossbow, until the Chinese started playing with three chemicals that would revolutionize the way wars were fought. These three chemicals were potassium nitrate, charcoal and sulphur, when mixed in a ratio of about 70: 14: 16 form gunpowder. Gunpowder sprung many technological breakthroughs in wars. Gunpowder’s first usage was for entertaining purposes in fireworks, but gradually found itself into being the propellant for lethal projectiles. The first weapon that involved gunpowder was small handheld gourds filled with gunpowder that when ignited would produce a huge burst of flames. Then gunpowder started being used in gradually more and more scary weapons. The first effective use of gunpowder in wars was in rockets. Ancient day rockets were more like firecrackers than anything else, but it made a huge impact in war. Those rockets were used as psychological weapons to scare soldiers, but mostly cavalry to scatter their formations. Then gunpowder gave rise to inventions like the cannon and the handheld version of the cannon, the gun. Guns were widely used only in the 14th century, and soon evolved into many forms of devastating weapons that become symbolic with war. First there were “hand cannons” that shot round rocks down range, and then there were muskets and handguns, and then rifles and shotguns. These weapons came a long way from throwing stones and shooting arrows, and they revolutionized warfare in the process.
Another visible evolution in war is in the war tactics. The first wars were fought much like what you would see in a gang fight, no tactics, and just wild crashes between men. War tactics progressively got more advanced and sophisticated. Rome was the ancient superpowers of the past, and war tactics were the trademarks of Rome. Rome devised a formation of lines upon lines of men, forming a big square, which charged into enemy forces, cutting them down. Cavalry started to make its mark in Rome too, and the use of cavalry as a force in war cannot be seen more evidently in the Punic Wars. Hannibal used cavalry in a very clever way by putting them at the flanks of his “C” shaped formation, harassing the enemy forces with their speed. The cavalry charge remained unchanged for about a century until the invention of the musket. In Japan, 1575, the Battle of Nagashino changed war tactics once and forever. General Oda Nobunaga cleverly came up with a strategy that would solve the problem of slow reloading of the musket. He made his man stand in three rows, with the front row shooting, and after he shot his round, he would run to the back of the line to reload his rifle, letting the second person step forward to fire his loaded rifle. Tactics changed dramatically more recently after the American Revolution when people still charged in lines, which brought massive casualties. Modern wars are fought strategically with small specialized forces being deployed to either encircle or wipe out the enemy forces all at once. Just like how weapons have evolved dramatically from past to present, the tactics in war also evolved in a similar magnitude.
I think that war has evolved from the past to the present in a few ways, and the most obvious change would be in technology. Technological breakthroughs are often made during wars, from the discovery of bromine to the infamous Enigma’s coding abilities. Everyday technology has progressed much from the past to the present, so did war technology. At the dawn of time, in the regions of present day India, the art of sword making and steel weapons were perfected, then in Roman times, the state of the art weapons were like the trebuchet and the crossbow, until the Chinese started playing with three chemicals that would revolutionize the way wars were fought. These three chemicals were potassium nitrate, charcoal and sulphur, when mixed in a ratio of about 70: 14: 16 form gunpowder. Gunpowder sprung many technological breakthroughs in wars. Gunpowder’s first usage was for entertaining purposes in fireworks, but gradually found itself into being the propellant for lethal projectiles. The first weapon that involved gunpowder was small handheld gourds filled with gunpowder that when ignited would produce a huge burst of flames. Then gunpowder started being used in gradually more and more scary weapons. The first effective use of gunpowder in wars was in rockets. Ancient day rockets were more like firecrackers than anything else, but it made a huge impact in war. Those rockets were used as psychological weapons to scare soldiers, but mostly cavalry to scatter their formations. Then gunpowder gave rise to inventions like the cannon and the handheld version of the cannon, the gun. Guns were widely used only in the 14th century, and soon evolved into many forms of devastating weapons that become symbolic with war. First there were “hand cannons” that shot round rocks down range, and then there were muskets and handguns, and then rifles and shotguns. These weapons came a long way from throwing stones and shooting arrows, and they revolutionized warfare in the process.
Another visible evolution in war is in the war tactics. The first wars were fought much like what you would see in a gang fight, no tactics, and just wild crashes between men. War tactics progressively got more advanced and sophisticated. Rome was the ancient superpowers of the past, and war tactics were the trademarks of Rome. Rome devised a formation of lines upon lines of men, forming a big square, which charged into enemy forces, cutting them down. Cavalry started to make its mark in Rome too, and the use of cavalry as a force in war cannot be seen more evidently in the Punic Wars. Hannibal used cavalry in a very clever way by putting them at the flanks of his “C” shaped formation, harassing the enemy forces with their speed. The cavalry charge remained unchanged for about a century until the invention of the musket. In Japan, 1575, the Battle of Nagashino changed war tactics once and forever. General Oda Nobunaga cleverly came up with a strategy that would solve the problem of slow reloading of the musket. He made his man stand in three rows, with the front row shooting, and after he shot his round, he would run to the back of the line to reload his rifle, letting the second person step forward to fire his loaded rifle. Tactics changed dramatically more recently after the American Revolution when people still charged in lines, which brought massive casualties. Modern wars are fought strategically with small specialized forces being deployed to either encircle or wipe out the enemy forces all at once. Just like how weapons have evolved dramatically from past to present, the tactics in war also evolved in a similar magnitude.
Blog Prompt 1: Patriotism
1) Why do you think National Service is important to Singapore?
I think that National Service (NS) is important to Singapore as it brings the nation’s men together to form bonds and at the same time protect our country. As seen in the Japanese Occupation, the presence of a local army is very important to the defence of our country. NS was brought up to solve this very problem by training men of age 18 and above for military exercises to protect our country. By having NS the nation can be safe and her people can have a sense of security that if something happens to Singapore, the young soldiers of Singapore would defend them to their grave. NS is also important to keep our people bonded as a nation as through the rigorous and intense training in NS the young gentlemen of Singapore would forge bonds that last a lifetime and also help solve the problem of racism as in NS, all races are treated equally
2) In the above poem, the speaker expresses his love for his country England. Do you have the same spirit for patriotism towards Singapore? Why?
I do not have this sense of patriotism towards Singapore. I think that many people of the same age as me are focused on their studies more than anything else and this makes us unable to find something for us to stand up for and protect, which is the reason behind such patriotism. As life goes on, one would gradually grow wiser and their roots also go deeper. Would I be a patriot when I get older? Frankly, I do not know myself. At this point of time I only look at the world through my small window of my own, which would expand through time, and this limitation of thoughts and lack of personal experience would mean that patriotism is unlikely to be found in me.
I think that National Service (NS) is important to Singapore as it brings the nation’s men together to form bonds and at the same time protect our country. As seen in the Japanese Occupation, the presence of a local army is very important to the defence of our country. NS was brought up to solve this very problem by training men of age 18 and above for military exercises to protect our country. By having NS the nation can be safe and her people can have a sense of security that if something happens to Singapore, the young soldiers of Singapore would defend them to their grave. NS is also important to keep our people bonded as a nation as through the rigorous and intense training in NS the young gentlemen of Singapore would forge bonds that last a lifetime and also help solve the problem of racism as in NS, all races are treated equally
2) In the above poem, the speaker expresses his love for his country England. Do you have the same spirit for patriotism towards Singapore? Why?
I do not have this sense of patriotism towards Singapore. I think that many people of the same age as me are focused on their studies more than anything else and this makes us unable to find something for us to stand up for and protect, which is the reason behind such patriotism. As life goes on, one would gradually grow wiser and their roots also go deeper. Would I be a patriot when I get older? Frankly, I do not know myself. At this point of time I only look at the world through my small window of my own, which would expand through time, and this limitation of thoughts and lack of personal experience would mean that patriotism is unlikely to be found in me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)