Recently, for Current Affairs my class held a debate on whether nuclear energy should or should not be used in the future. In this blog post, I would like to express my opinion on this issue.
Personally, I feel that nuclear energy can be used, but countries should not be dependent on it. There are several reasons why I feel this way. Firstly, fossil fuels are running out. Sooner or later, there is going to be no more petrol or coal for human's to burn. When this occurs, people will have to look to different sources of energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy. Out of these, nuclear energy is by far the most efficient. It produces much more energy than any other type, and it will be able to quickly meet the needs of the people.
Secondly, nuclear energy does not have the disadvantage of producing greenhouse gases. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear plants are completely free of greenhouse gases, and thus will not cause global warming. I think that this is quite a large advantage of nuclear energy, considering how serious the problem of global warming is becoming in the world today.
However, there are also several issues with nuclear energy that should be pointed out. The most obvious point would be: What happens if something goes wrong? A nuclear disaster is unlike any other. Firstly, it poses a dire risk to anyone exposed to the radiation. Radiation causes many health problems like cancer. Secondly, radiation is impossible to clean up. Unlike an oil spill, radiation cannot be removed, and it tends to linger in an area for a long time. The area around Chernobyl is still dangerous, even decades after the disaster. Third would be the impact on wildlife. Radiation could completely destroy the habitats of many wild animals. Last of all would be the cost. Nuclear plants are not cheap, and in the event that something goes wrong, there are huge losses incurred.
A second point would be that nuclear energy is not entirely "clean". Nuclear waste is extremely toxic and must be disposed of carefully. However, disposing of nuclear waste safely is costly, and if the nuclear waste is not sealed away properly, it can pollute water supplies, the soil and eventually harm the health of humans, animals and plants.
That said, nuclear technology has come a long way since Chernobyl decades ago, and there are now safer procedures and measures put into place to ensure that nuclear plants are safe. An example of a country that has successfully used nuclear energy would be France, with more than 10 nuclear plants. Training of employees has also improved greatly, minimising human error.
Nuclear technology has many good and bad points, but I feel that it will become a necessity in the near future, due to its high efficiency. Countries should still be careful not to be overly dependent on it, in the event that something really does go wrong. Proper safety measures should also be put into place, and citizens should be educated on what to do in the event of a nuclear disaster.
Xenophobia
Sunday, August 14, 2011
What is xenophobia? Xenophobia is described as the fear or hatred of strangers and foreigners or their culture. Xenophobia is different from other types of prejudice such as racism in that it does not have to be directed at a different race, only that the xenophobic person has to believe that the person is a foreigner. I think that xenophobia is a rather baseless fear, and that it is simply an excuse to hide a deep rooted prejudice. By using the word 'xenophobia', it makes prejudice sound like a medical term, something that is involuntary. I think this is a complete lie. In this post, I would like to talk about the main problems caused by xenophobia.
The main problem caused by xenophobia would be an increase in terrorist attacks. The most recent example would be the Oslo attacks, where Anders Breivik opened fire on a youth camp and bombed a government building, killing 77 people. The reason for this was that he wanted to prevent a "Muslim takeover" of Europe. Xenophobia sometimes has serious consequences, and people suffering from xenophobia are sometimes irrational and illogical. Would the 69 youths have died if Breivik did not suffer from xenophobia?
A second problem would be that xenophobia influences others. For example, if one's parents were rabidly against Americans, one would tend to have anti-American sentiments. This can influence one's actions in daily life, eg. bullying of classmates of different races. The root problem of these would be the parent's, and they might carry these irrational prejudices into their adult lives. Eventually, they will also spread xenophobia, and it only leads to more negative effects.
Third, I think that the most effective method of countering xenophobia would be to educate children. Children are the future of the nation, and through educating them effectively, xenophobia can be eradicated. An effective education can be accomplished through more interaction between different races. As children of different races get to know each other, they will understand that previously held prejudices are baseless. Also, when the children go overseas, they get to understand the cultures of other countries.
I feel that xenophobia is a very serious problem in today's society, and it is imperative that prejudices are removed and different races get to understand each other.
The main problem caused by xenophobia would be an increase in terrorist attacks. The most recent example would be the Oslo attacks, where Anders Breivik opened fire on a youth camp and bombed a government building, killing 77 people. The reason for this was that he wanted to prevent a "Muslim takeover" of Europe. Xenophobia sometimes has serious consequences, and people suffering from xenophobia are sometimes irrational and illogical. Would the 69 youths have died if Breivik did not suffer from xenophobia?
A second problem would be that xenophobia influences others. For example, if one's parents were rabidly against Americans, one would tend to have anti-American sentiments. This can influence one's actions in daily life, eg. bullying of classmates of different races. The root problem of these would be the parent's, and they might carry these irrational prejudices into their adult lives. Eventually, they will also spread xenophobia, and it only leads to more negative effects.
Third, I think that the most effective method of countering xenophobia would be to educate children. Children are the future of the nation, and through educating them effectively, xenophobia can be eradicated. An effective education can be accomplished through more interaction between different races. As children of different races get to know each other, they will understand that previously held prejudices are baseless. Also, when the children go overseas, they get to understand the cultures of other countries.
I feel that xenophobia is a very serious problem in today's society, and it is imperative that prejudices are removed and different races get to understand each other.
Merchant of Venice
In this post, I would like to express my opinions on a few characters in Merchant of Venice, namely Antonio, Portia, Shylock and Bassanio.
Frankly, in the entire MOV, I feel that Antonio is the most dislikable person. I felt repulsed by his baseless prejudice against Jews. His life is already so much better than those the Jew's enjoy, and he is so much richer, yet he insults their religion and their way of life. It is not as if the Jew's have ever harmed him. I think that he should be more independent, rather than following the mainstream view of anti semitism. Shylock does not deserve to be spat on, or kicked at, and while i was reading the book, I felt considerably more sympathetic for Shylock than Antonio.
Next, I also do not feel Portia is a very morally upright person. In the last act, where she completely dismantled Shylock, taking away his assets, and even his religion. I felt that this was completely unneccesary, especially as she had already saved Antonio. I felt that Shylock need not have killed Antonio, but at the very least he should recieve his principal back. Shylock needs to make a living too, same as Antonio, and without any assets, how is he to do so? Portia has completely destroyed his life. By taking away his religion, she is adding insult to injury. No one deserves to be humiliated in such a manner, and for all his faults, Shylock is no exception.
Thirdly, I think that Bassanio is quite a upright person, and he is my favourite character. His laid back character and light hearted spirit lightened the mood, especially after Antonio's and Shylock's heavy and serious conversations. I think that during the trial, where Portia destroyed Shylock, he did the right thing by offering the money back. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, Shylock does not deserve to be treated in such a manner. However, I did not enjoy his antisemitic viewpoint, similar to Antonio's.
Finally, I think that out of all the characters in MOV, I sympathise most with Shylock. Throughout the entire book, his life was taken apart slowly, and at the end, he was left humiliated and bankrupted. The first blow came when Jessica left him, and went off with a Christian, a further insult to Shylock. During the trial, I really felt sorry for Shylock. Though some might say that Shylock deserved it by plotting to kill Antonio, I do not think that he did wrong. After all, Antonio could have turned down the deal. However, he decided to go with it, and agreed to gamble on his life. I think that the best outcome would be that Shylock receives three times his principle, and keeps his religion. I failed to see the significance of Portia forcing Shylock to change his religion. Does she really hate him that much? It was a needless humiliation, and I lost any remnants of respect for Portia at that point.
In conclusion, I think that MOV played the story out from a very biased viewpoint, and I also felt that the ending was not appropriate. I think that Shylock should not have been treated in such a manner, and if anyone deserved to be treated that way, it was Antonio.
Frankly, in the entire MOV, I feel that Antonio is the most dislikable person. I felt repulsed by his baseless prejudice against Jews. His life is already so much better than those the Jew's enjoy, and he is so much richer, yet he insults their religion and their way of life. It is not as if the Jew's have ever harmed him. I think that he should be more independent, rather than following the mainstream view of anti semitism. Shylock does not deserve to be spat on, or kicked at, and while i was reading the book, I felt considerably more sympathetic for Shylock than Antonio.
Next, I also do not feel Portia is a very morally upright person. In the last act, where she completely dismantled Shylock, taking away his assets, and even his religion. I felt that this was completely unneccesary, especially as she had already saved Antonio. I felt that Shylock need not have killed Antonio, but at the very least he should recieve his principal back. Shylock needs to make a living too, same as Antonio, and without any assets, how is he to do so? Portia has completely destroyed his life. By taking away his religion, she is adding insult to injury. No one deserves to be humiliated in such a manner, and for all his faults, Shylock is no exception.
Thirdly, I think that Bassanio is quite a upright person, and he is my favourite character. His laid back character and light hearted spirit lightened the mood, especially after Antonio's and Shylock's heavy and serious conversations. I think that during the trial, where Portia destroyed Shylock, he did the right thing by offering the money back. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, Shylock does not deserve to be treated in such a manner. However, I did not enjoy his antisemitic viewpoint, similar to Antonio's.
Finally, I think that out of all the characters in MOV, I sympathise most with Shylock. Throughout the entire book, his life was taken apart slowly, and at the end, he was left humiliated and bankrupted. The first blow came when Jessica left him, and went off with a Christian, a further insult to Shylock. During the trial, I really felt sorry for Shylock. Though some might say that Shylock deserved it by plotting to kill Antonio, I do not think that he did wrong. After all, Antonio could have turned down the deal. However, he decided to go with it, and agreed to gamble on his life. I think that the best outcome would be that Shylock receives three times his principle, and keeps his religion. I failed to see the significance of Portia forcing Shylock to change his religion. Does she really hate him that much? It was a needless humiliation, and I lost any remnants of respect for Portia at that point.
In conclusion, I think that MOV played the story out from a very biased viewpoint, and I also felt that the ending was not appropriate. I think that Shylock should not have been treated in such a manner, and if anyone deserved to be treated that way, it was Antonio.
Moneylending
A couple of weeks ago, there was an uproar over the news of students being tricked by illegal moneylenders into distributing business cards and flyers. The students were eventually caught by the police. A few weeks later, an article came up in the Straits Times about moneylending practices in Singapore. I was surprised to find that moneylending services were legalised in Singapore, and also at the extremely high interest rates they were allowed to charge. I feel that moneylending in Singapore has many negative effects, and in this blog post, I would like to share my view.
Firstly, many moneylending services prey on people who do not have knowledge about the potential pitfalls involved in moneylending. I recall that in the Straits Times article, there was an example of a Singaporean who at first only borrowed $1000 from a moneylender, but soon, his debt snowballed to $4000. I think that this shows how moneylending can completely wreck people's lives. Since the Singaporean is unable to pay off his debt, and no bank will lend him money due to poor credit history, his only option will be to borrow even more money from a different moneylender. This causes a domino effect, and his debt will only get larger.
Secondly, moneylending services take advantage of people of lower socio economic backgrounds. As compared to banks, moneylenders can charge interest of up to 17% for people with low salaries, and there is no limit to the interest they can charge for people with higher salaries. The interest for bank loans is no where as high, however they are only willing to lend money to people with a good credit history. Needless to say, these people do not include those of poor socio economic backgrounds. By legalising moneylending, there is an added pitfall that is very easy to fall into for them.
However, there is also a good point to legalising moneylending. By legalising moneylending, there will be a lot less illegal moneylending firms, because most people will then turn to legal moneylenders, instead of going to loan sharks. I feel that this is a definite benefit because of the many cases of loan sharks vandalising and even setting fire to people's homes.
In conclusion, I feel that legalising moneylending has more negative sides than positive, and I think that people need to know clearly exactly what borrowing money from a moneylender entails.
Firstly, many moneylending services prey on people who do not have knowledge about the potential pitfalls involved in moneylending. I recall that in the Straits Times article, there was an example of a Singaporean who at first only borrowed $1000 from a moneylender, but soon, his debt snowballed to $4000. I think that this shows how moneylending can completely wreck people's lives. Since the Singaporean is unable to pay off his debt, and no bank will lend him money due to poor credit history, his only option will be to borrow even more money from a different moneylender. This causes a domino effect, and his debt will only get larger.
Secondly, moneylending services take advantage of people of lower socio economic backgrounds. As compared to banks, moneylenders can charge interest of up to 17% for people with low salaries, and there is no limit to the interest they can charge for people with higher salaries. The interest for bank loans is no where as high, however they are only willing to lend money to people with a good credit history. Needless to say, these people do not include those of poor socio economic backgrounds. By legalising moneylending, there is an added pitfall that is very easy to fall into for them.
However, there is also a good point to legalising moneylending. By legalising moneylending, there will be a lot less illegal moneylending firms, because most people will then turn to legal moneylenders, instead of going to loan sharks. I feel that this is a definite benefit because of the many cases of loan sharks vandalising and even setting fire to people's homes.
In conclusion, I feel that legalising moneylending has more negative sides than positive, and I think that people need to know clearly exactly what borrowing money from a moneylender entails.
Swear words
Quite recently, NTU valedictorian Trinetta Chong shocked the public by using a swearword during the graduation ceremony. None of the people present took offence, however, when the video of her swearing went online, many netizens took offence, critisizing her for her use of language, calling it inappropriate and ungraceful. However, I feel that there should not be such a large fuss over such a small matter.
Firstly, one has to take into consideration the current culture in Singapore. The times have changed since 20 years ago, and swearwords are no longer so frowned upon. It is common nowadays to hear primary school children saying "damn" and "shit". I am not saying that this is good, but swearwords are no longer taboo in today's society. I think people need to become less rigid and more accepting of this kind of behaviour, because it will only become more common in the future.
Secondly, the swear word was not even used in an offensive manner. "Congratulations to the graduating class of 2011. We f****ing did it!". In this case, the swear word was just used to emphasize her point, not to insult someone else. I feel that in such cases, a line needs to be drawn. A swear word used against someone else is clearly wrong, however, in this case, I do not think swearing is wrong.
That said, I also think she should have judged the moment more appropriately. The graduation ceremony is a serious occasion, and there were many teachers and parents in the crowd, who may not have felt amused by such a profanity. In a private place, when she is talking to her friends, I do not think that there is anything wrong with swearing.
In conclusion, I think that netizens should not overly critisize her, and they should also look at her achievements before judging her.
Secondly, the swear word was not even used in an offensive manner. "Congratulations to the graduating class of 2011. We f****ing did it!". In this case, the swear word was just used to emphasize her point, not to insult someone else. I feel that in such cases, a line needs to be drawn. A swear word used against someone else is clearly wrong, however, in this case, I do not think swearing is wrong.
That said, I also think she should have judged the moment more appropriately. The graduation ceremony is a serious occasion, and there were many teachers and parents in the crowd, who may not have felt amused by such a profanity. In a private place, when she is talking to her friends, I do not think that there is anything wrong with swearing.
In conclusion, I think that netizens should not overly critisize her, and they should also look at her achievements before judging her.
England Riots
Just a few days ago, widespread rioting and looting occurred in England, in response to the death of Mike Duggan, who was shot and killed by police. There are also several more causes, such as the economic crisis, which caused high unemployment, poverty and a lack of social services. An initially peaceful protest turned violent due to a lack of response by the police. In this post, I would like to voice my thoughts on the protests.
The riots highlight the the rampant poverty suffered by many of the British. I think it also showed effectively the discontent towards the government felt by many citizens. The government is clearly not efficient in meeting the needs of the people.
However, the riots also encouraged opportunists to come forward and take advantage of the chaos in London. Even though they were not poor or unemployed, they were greedy and simply rioted for their own gain. I think that these people are frankly quite pathetic. You already have money, a home, a job. Are you so desperate for free goods that you descend to looting?
The prime minister of Britain made a proposal that the rioters be evicted from subsidized housing. I think that this is a step in the wrong direction. The citizens are rioting because they are dissatisfied with the government. Would this move not cause even more dissatisfaction? Eventually, it might spark off more riots. There have already been several casualties in the riots, and it would be tragic to have even more.
Personally, I hope that the government of Britain will be able to meet the needs of its citizens in future, to prevent more of such incidences occurring.
Singapore vs Malaysia in World Cup Qualifiers
I was overjoyed to hear that Singapore managed to enter the World Cup 3rd round qualifiers, edging Malaysia out 6-4 in aggregate. Singapore rarely has any accomplishments in soccer, and I felt that this occurance ought to be celebrated. However, the Malaysian's reactions dampened the mood. Soon after Singapore defeated Malayisia, pictures circulated online of Malaysians defacing the Singaporean flag, calling Singaporeans "losers". I think that this shows one of the negative sides of sport, as well as the overemphasis some people put on sporting events.
I feel that while the Malaysians need not feel happy for Singaporeans, they should at least maintain a certain level of dignity. They should accept that they were defeated fairly and move on, rather than harp on the loss. Does losing a football game warrant defacing the opponents national flag? I think that that behaviour shows a lack of maturity. I think that too many people place an overemphasis on sporting events. It is the norm to support your own country, but the problem lies in going too far in your support. By being a "sore loser" and refusing to accept defeat, one is only embarrassing one's own country.
I think that this incident also highlights the negative side of sports. Sport is supposed to bring countries closer together, strengthening international bonds, but sometimes the reverse occurs. A strong competitive spirit and a lack of sportsmanship cause incidents like this to occur. The losing side refuses the accept defeat, calling the winners cheats, and in the end, the atmosphere for both sides is ruined.
Sporting events should be kept clean, both sides should play fairly, and when the game is over, both sides should be able to say "good job" to the other.
Oslo
Recently, Anders Behring Breivik killed 69 people at a popular campsite on the island of Utoya. The world was stunned by the brutality and the atrocity of the event, condemning Breivik for his actions.
I think that what is most shocking here is that Breivik may escape capital punishment. Norway has not suffered such a high number of casualties since World War 2, over 60 years ago, and such violence is unheard of there. In 1988 Norway agreed to abolish capital punishment during peacetime. However, I sincerely hope that an exception will be made here. Can someone who has killed 69 people simply get a jail term? I think that there is a definite lack of logic there. It would be an injustice to those killed, as well as to their relatives, to let Breivik off.
I think that this also highlights the importance of not taking peace for granted. Norway is an extremely peaceful country, and after so long without conflict, many Norwegians took the peace they enjoyed for granted. Breivik managed to pull off 2 terrorist attacks in 1 day without being caught. I was stunned to read that he managed to plant a bomb outside government buildings, killing 8 people.
However, I was dumbfounded at his motive for ending the lives of so many people: to prevent Muslims from taking over Europe. I failed to see the connection between his motive and his actions. How does opening fire on a youth camp prevent Muslims from coming to Europe? I feel that his Islamophobia is completely irrational, considering one of his childhood friends was Muslim. There is nothing different between a Muslim and anyone else.
I feel that the Oslo attacks could definitely have been avoided, and it is a great tragedy that it occured.
Penny Low
Recently, Member of Parliament Penny Low was photographed looking at her handphone during the National Day Parade, while the national anthem was being played. Singaporean netizens immediately critisized her as being "unpatriotic" or "disrespectful". I would like to voice my view on this subject.
I think that Ms Low was definitely in the wrong here. It is common knowledge that one is supposed to stand at attention during the national anthem. By looking at her handphone, she is being disrespectful to Singapore.
That said, I feel many netizens are also being a bit too opportunistic in critisizing the PAP. Many of the comments on Temasek Review said that she was a poor role model, and that she should "practice what she preaches". I feel that this is a bit far fetched. To be honest, how many people really look to their MP's as "role models"? Do we really idolize them to that point? I think that it is enough to say she was being disrespectful.
Ms Low quickly gave an explanation for her behaviour, claiming that she was caught up in the moment and wanted to take a picture of the fireworks. I do not think that this explanation is very convincing. Was she so enthralled by the fireworks that she forgot the basic mark of respect every child learns at school?
I think that Ms Low should have known better than to act in such a way during the singing of the national anthem, but also I feel that netizens should not blow this incident out of proportion. Yes, she made a mistake, but I think it is forgivable.
National Day Parade
A couple of days ago, I watched the National Day Parade live. However, after the parade, I felt distinctly underwhelmed. I felt that this years parade was not very well planned, and it failed to capture the proper emotions that should be present on Singapore's birthday. In this post, I would like to talk about both the good and the bad points in this year's NDP.
Firstly, I felt that this year's NDP lacked creativity. The NDP started off well enough, with the usual marching etc. but when it progressed into the story, I completely lost interest. The storyline was simplistic, and also cliche. I do not think many people were able to connect with the skit. I also feel that the "growing up" story is overdone and fails to "wow" citizens. The acting was also not very good, and it conveyed very little emotion to me.
Secondly, I do not think that this years NDP captured the "Singapore spirit" at all. The dancing char siew bao's added some humor to the performance, but the play was needlessly long, and most of the audience tuned off halfway through. I think that there are much better ways to show the "Singapore spirit".
However, a good point was that I felt the actors and the dancers were all enthusiastic about what they were doing. I think that enthusiasm is very important as well, and the performers accomplished that well. The actors in the play looked as if they enjoyed themselves, and their attitude definitely improved the play.
In conclusion, I do not think that this year's NDP was as good as last year's, but I enjoyed most of the performance :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
