aliltwist ♥

Rich benefit from the current food crisis. DYA

2008-07-07T15:27:00.004+08:00

The rich benefit from the current food crisis. To what extent is this true?

Lately, there has been a sharp rise in food prices globally. In fact, since 2005, food prices have risen a whopping 80 percent, pushing approximately 100 million people worldwide below the poverty line. This, is the current food crisis. It has all along been a controversial issue where many argued that the rich, the developed countries that control the world’s economy such as the G8 and the Multinational Corporation (MNCs), tends to gain economically, enlarging their profit margin, at the expense of the poor since they are the one who have greater power in terms of monetary values. Indeed, the rich benefit due to their abusing of market system through the pursuit of their unlimited wants. However, it is not always the case.

Due to the depletion of fossil fuels and to reduce its dependency on foreign oil to achieve self-sustainability, many developed countries have diverted corn from food to biofuels, resulting in global food prices shooting up by seventy-five percent. As the oil prices hit an all time high, above $145 per barrel, biofuels are another area where investors, assisted by governments giving biofuel production subsidies, can reap huge profits at the expense of hungry people. Indeed, the push for biofuels by developed countries today such as the United Sates worsens the current food crisis. In Washington, the government provides a subsidy of 51cents a gallon to ethanol blenders and slaps a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on imports, attracting more investors to the biofuels sector. Thirty percent of the corn production has been diverted into the production of ethanol in America, which has boosted demand for other staples. Not only that, other developed countries such as the European Union, India, Brazil and China all have their own targets to increase biofuels, decreasing the food supply. The percentage of corn used for the production of biofuel has increased from 6% in 1999 to 33% in 2008. The jump in ethanol production in 2007 alone has more than doubled the average annual growth in demand for the world’s grains that took place between 1990 and 2005. At this rate, it is estimated than half of the US corn yield has to be diverted to ethanol production by the end of 2008. The emphasis on increased of production of ethanol from corps has resulted in a sixty percent rise in corn prices in the past two years. Therefore, the rich in this case definitely benefit from the current food crisis since as more crops are used for biofuels, all the more are they able to maximize their profit margin through the subsidies provided by their government.

The rapid urbanization of the developing countries has inadvertently aided the current food crisis. The rich tends to gain in the long run as huge areas of farmland are gobbled up for development projects - some of dubious use such as the building of suburban style housing and golf courses for the wealthy. For example, Singapore-Vietnamese joint venture will soon build a 700 hectare industrial park and township, turning the rural area into a satellite city. One good example would be the alarming pace of farmland conversion in China. From the period of 2000 to 2005, there was an average annual loss of 2.6 million acres of farmland used for development, which resulted in a remarkable success in economic development over the past two decades. Hence, more farmlands are utilised for other purposes which tend to bring more economic benefits, as compared to agriculture. However, this drives the farmers in the rural areas to lose their jobs causing a dip in food supply. And with the rising long term demand, countries must import food from others, boosting the prices of staple food globally. The rich hence benefit from this current food crisis as the MNCs earn more revenue through the clearing of farmlands for profit oriented projects and people from higher income group now stand to enjoy greater standard of living with more luxury goods.

However, the rich does not stand to gain if the current food crisis is caused by natural disasters. Natural disasters play quite an important role in contributing to the current food crisis, cutting down the global food supply and resulting in an increased in the price of staple food. A cyclone in Bangladesh destroyed approximately about 600million dollars worth of rice crop in 2007, leading to an overall seventy percent increased in rice price. Also, grain yields have fallen tremendously due to the prolonged droughts in Australia, the second largest exporter of grain. In this case, both the rich and the poor suffer due to inflation, paying more for the same amount of food; however, the rich are better able to overcome the problem due to their financial capability. Hence in the short run, the rich may stand to lose too.

Rising affluence due to the effect of globalization causes the growth of middle class in several countries such as China and India. With the rising long term demand in countries like China and India, where millions of increasingly prosperous people are eating more, countries must import food from other others to meet the demand. This increasing demand for meat among the middle class is one of the causes of the increased in the price of food products such as corn and soybeans. For an example, the world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. However, in 2007, it was estimated to be over 284 million tons. In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last twenty years ago. All these contribute to the current food crisis as people are consuming more than what's being produced. Both the rich and the poor will suffer due to the increased in price of food products. However, the rich are still able to manage it more effectively due to their financial capability since they are able to pay more.

In conclusion , the rich indeed benefit from the current food crisis as they are part of the main culprit behind the current food crisis, gaining benefits through unfair means, neglecting the poor in order to obtain their wants. The rich benefits in terms of monetary values as their profit are increasesd significantly from the production of ethanol and development projects. Furthermore, in a free market, producers always sell their products to those who are able to pay, which are the rich as they have more money votes and greater say.

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-6-6/71540.html
http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/PubDetail.aspx?pubid=913
http://files.tikkun.org/current/article.php?story=20080521081510344
http://www.actionaid.org/main.aspx?PageID=1110
"No Grain, Big Pain" Time Mag.

2008-07-04T16:27:00.005+08:00

The rich benefit from the current food crisis. To what extent is this true?

Definition:
Rich
-Macro level: developed countries which controls the world’s economy (WTO, UN, G8)
-Micro level: businessmen, MNCs in individual countries, higher income group
Benefit
– gain advantage

Yes
1. The push for biofuels by developed countries such as United States
- due to the depletion of fossil fuels and to reduce its dependence on foreign oil ie. self-sustainability
- incentives provided by governments to further push for biofuels
- eg. ‘Washington provides a subsidy of 51 cents a gallon to ethanol blenders and slaps a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on imports. In the European Union, most countries exempt biofuels from some gas taxes and slap an average tariff equal to more than 70 cents a gallon of imported ethanol.’ –the New York Times, ‘The World Food Crisis’, 10 April 2008
- eg. ‘The International Monetary Fund estimates that corn ethanol production in the United States accounted for at least half the rise in world corn demand in each of the past three years’–the New York Times, ‘The World Food Crisis’, 10 April 2008
- eg. ‘the growing diversion into ethanol has resulted in a 60 percent rise in corn prices in the past two years’ –The Canadian Press, ‘ethanol demand to push food prices 5% higher next year: economist’, 22 october 2007
- developed countries benefit from reduction in taxes, and become more self-sustainable
- MNCs benefit due to globalization
http://www.actionaid.org/main.aspx?PageID=1110

2. unfair trade agreements
- main source of income for poorer countries is agriculture
- The dominance of the richer nations and companies in the international arena has had a tremendous impact on agriculture. A combination of unfair trade agreements, concentrated ownership of major food production, dominance (through control and influence in institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and the World Trade Organisation) has meant that poor countries have seen their ability to determine their own food security policies severely undermined.
- Poorer countries made to remove trade barriers but richer countries seldom remove theirs in return.
- In addition, most poor countries were strongly encouraged to concentrate more on exporting cash crops to earn foreign exchange in order to pay of debts.
- Poorer farmers made to give up on their jobs, reducing the supply of food.
- Food dumping (while calling it aid) by wealthy nations onto poor countries, falling commodity prices (when many poor countries had to compete against each other to sell primarily to the rich), vast agricultural subsidies in North America and Europe (outdoing the foreign aid they sent, many time over) have all combined to have various effects such as forcing farmers out of business and into city slums.
- Rich nations benefit from the unfair trade agreements

3. Asia's rapid urbanization.
Source: Time magazine. "No Grain, Big Pain".
"- In Vietnam's Bac Ninh province, paddy fields are now bisected by a four-lane highway
- Singapore-Vietnamese joint venture will soon build a 1700-acre (700hectare) industrial park and township, turning this rural area into a satellite city.
- Vietnam is losing about 99.000 acres of rice paddies every year to construction of cities, highways and industrial zones. "
MNCs benefit as they are able to earn profit.

No
1. current food crisis caused by natural disasters
- natural disasters destroy agriculture fields
- eg. A 2007 cyclone in Bangladesh destroyed approximately 600 million dollars worth of its rice crop, leading to rice price increases of about 70 percent (The Daily Star [Bangladesh], February 11, 2008). The drought last year in northcentral China combined with the unusual cold and snow during the winter will probably lead the government to greater food purchases on the international markets, keeping the pressure on prices.
- both the rich and poor suffer due to inflation, but the rich are better able to overcome the problem due to their financial capability. Source: http://files.tikkun.org/current/article.php?story=20080521081510344

2. rising affluence
- rising affluence due to globalisation, causing the growth of middle class in several countries such as china and india.
- the increasing demand for meat among the middle class is one of the causes of the increase in prices of food products such as corn and soybeans, as the use of maize and soy to feed cattles, pigs and poultry has risen sharply to meet this demand.
- eg. the world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. in 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last twenty years alone.
new york times, january 27, 2008.
- like the above example, both the rich and the poor suffer due to the increase in price of food products, both from grains and meat. however, the rich are able to manage the inflation more effectively due to the financial capability.

Research

2008-03-28T12:48:00.004+08:00

Globalisation
According to Wikipedia: Globalization in literal sense is the process of globalizing, transformation of some things or phenomena into global ones. It can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and functioning together. This process is a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces. Globalization, as a term, is very often used to refer to economic globalization, that is integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and spread of technology. The word globalization is also used, in a doctrinal sense to describe the neoliberal form of economic globalization. Globalization is also defined as internationalism, however such usage is typically incorrect as "global" implies "one world" as a single unit, while "international" (between nations) recognizes that different peoples, cultures, languages, nations, borders, economies, and ecosystems exist.

Globalization and its impacts on:

01. Environment
Globalisation & Environment blog
Environment and Globalization

- "Although the contemporary debate on globalization has been contentious, it has not always been useful. No one doubts that some very significant global processes—economic, social, cultural, political and environmental—are underway and that they affect (nearly) everyone and (nearly) everything. Yet, there is no agreement on exactly how to define this thing we call "globalization,” nor on exactly which parts of it are good or bad, and for whom. For the
most part, a polarized view of globalization, its potential and its pitfalls has taken hold of the public imagination. It has often been projected either as a panacea for all the ills of the world or as their primary cause. The discussion on the links between environment and globalization has been similarly stuck in a quagmire of many unjustified expectations and fears about the onnections between these two domains."
- How globalization impact the environment and how environment impact globalization.

02. Culture
Globalization bulldozing other people's cultures
Impact of globalization on Indian culture, employment and social values

03. World Economy
Globalization of the world economy

04.Political Relations
Globalization and Politics

05. Social Issues

2007-09-10T12:06:00.000+08:00

Research.

01. Globalization and Culture

Globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres.

Globalization and Culture
In Praise of Cultural Imperialism? Effects of Globalization on Culture
The effects of globalization on culture in Africa through the eyes of an African woman
Globalization and culture*
How does globalization affects us?
Globalization and the institutional deficit

02. Environment & Biodiversity, Sustainable Development

Biodiversity is the variety of life: the different plants, animals and micro-organisms, their genes and the ecosystems of which they are a part. Australia is one of the most diverse countries on the planet. It is home to more than one million species of plants and animals, many of which are found nowhere else in the world.

Sustainable development is defined as balancing the fulfilment of human needs with the protection of the natural environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but in the indefinite future.

Sustainable development
Sustainable defvelopment in UK
Sustainable development (ASEAN)
Indonesia, forest conservation
Sustainable Development
Biodiversity as a key-factor for sustainable development

03. Terrorism and War

Terrorism in the modern sense is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or utterly disregard the safety of non-combatants. Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.

America's war against Terrorism
Talking about Terrorism and War

Same-sex marriage

2007-09-06T16:09:00.001+08:00

Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalization?

According to Wikipedia, Same-sex marriage is a term for a governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family. Other terms for this type of relationship include "gay marriage", "gender-neutral marriage," "equal marriage," "lesbian marriage," "homosexual marriage," "single-sex marriage," and "same-gender marriage".

Full marriage is presently available to same-sex couples in seven countries. The Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001. Same-sex marriages are also recognized in Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain, and the U.S. states of Massachusetts and in dispute in Iowa as of early September 2007. Canada and Spain are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriage, though South Africa is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws. Other nations all have residency requirements that apply to same-sex marriage that do not apply to opposite-sex marriage.

It is estimated that somewhere between 5 to 10 percent of the general population is homosexual (and the number is growing), slightly more gay men than lesbians.

Many people feel that same-sex marriage is not practical in this age of globalization as same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. However, they are wrong. Gays can raise normal kids, just like "normal parents" do. A researcher at the University of Virginia says that nobody can tell the children (whether being raised by gays or heterosexual parents) apart using standard psychological tests. Furthermore, there is no scientific research to prove that if a gay's child is heterosexual, the lesbian mother is able to make him gay. Psychologists feel that what makes the difference (in raising children) is the love and commitment of the parents, and not their gender.

01. 90% of the lesbian co-parents assumed the common child-raising tasks. Only about 37% of the fathers in heterosexual couples, however, took an active role.

02. In disciplining the children, 60% of the lesbian co-parents took an active role, while it was only 20% of the fathers in heterosexual families.

(Readers Digest, 1999)

Now, right at this moment, many children all over the world are in need of loving homes. However, everyday, gay and lesbian parents are afraid of losing custody of their precious children due to their sexual orientation. Hence, we should not permit unreasonable prejudice to risk the well-being of these children or their families. By letting gay and lesbian partners to adopt and have the same parental rights as heterosexual parents, it will significantly increase the number of adoptive homes available to foster-care children. Isn't that killing two birds with one stone?

Marriages are for procreation and to ensure the continuation of the species. Partly. If not, why are infertile couples allowed to marry? Marriage. It is not just purely for procreation. It is for love and companionship, sharing and commitments. According to a major new survey about relationships, which has found more than two-thirds of Australians continue to believe that people marry to signify a long-term commitment to each other.

Pink dollar. A term used to describing the purchasing power of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people in the United States. Surprisingly, gays have spending power that can contribute to a nation's economy in one way or another. In an article found in "Today" newspaper entitled "What price, the pink dollar?" that was written on 19 May 2007, it showed how, in Singapore, many businesses are eyeing the "pink dollar". One good example would be the well-known fashion chain in town, NewUrbanMale, which recorded $6 million in revenue last year. Believe it or not, half his design team is gay. Gays account for up to 20 per cent of takings at Hotel 1929 near Chinatown. If gays are bringing in money for the country, why not accept them?

However, same-sex marriage is not practical consideration in this age of globalization because most people are just not comfortable with the idea, thinking that it is something against nature. For many years, society has promoted the idea that a marriage between members of the same sex is ridiculous. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all. It would further weaken the traditional family values essential in our society and also weakening the respect for the institution of marriage.

On top of that it violates religions. Christian denominations, Islam and Orthodox Judaism are unsupportive of gay marriage. Some people argues that children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. Furthermore it threatens social fabric of family structure and overturns anthropological order. Also, some people believe that by allowing same-sex marriage, it would change traditional marriage, bringing about destructive consequences for social stability.

Most Singaporeans cannot accept gays. This can be seen from the figure below.

In the TODAY survey, those with higher education seemed less resistant towards legalization. Opposition was strongest among Malays, Indians and Others polled, with 73 per cent of each group disagreeing with the notion of legalizing homosexuality.

Many various research and studies have shown that gay and lesbian parents possess just as good parenting skills and are as capable as heterosexual parents. Furthermore, studies have also shown that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are no more likely to grow up being gay or lesbian and that they are just as healthy and well developed as children raised in straight households. They bring economic growth to one's country too. Many orangizations such as American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association and National School of Psychologists feel that sexual orientation is natural and not chosen. So, why not give them a chance? They have the right (basic human rights) to pursue their happiness. And, most important thing is that they don't hurt or harm the society or anyone in particular.

2007-08-06T11:58:00.001+08:00

BLOG TASK
"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty" Do you agree?

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty", a quote by Aristotle. Personally, I agree to this statement to a small extent. Indeed, poverty is one of the causes that leads to revolution and crime. However, I believe that there are many other roots that contribute to revolution and crime, such as the lack of education, for power and status and even racial/religious inequality in the countries.

According to Wikipedia, Poverty is a condition in which a person or community is deprived of or lacks the essentials for a minimum standard of well being and life. Under the effects of poverty, there are human trafficking, high crime rate, increased risk of political violence; such as terrorism, war and genocide. Hence, we can see that poverty is associated with revolution and crime.

One of the reason why poverty leads to crime is because people, in desperation, take the risks to meet their necessities. Frustration, desperation, fear and the need for the necessities to live (such as food, water, shelter etc.) lead to criminal behaviors. From a website that I had found, it says, "In some cases, poverty undoubtedly motivates people to commit crimes, although it may not be the only factor involved. For example, to obtain money some poor people commit the crime of selling illegal drugs; others may steal to obtain the money to buy drugs on which they are dependent." The need to live (a breeding ground for hopelessness) often leads to people, feeling despair, doing things (which includes committing crimes) as long as these allow them to survive. Since legal channels are blocked, people tend to shift naturally to illegal activities.

On top of that, due to poverty, the people in the country might feel that it is their government's fault, that the government is inefficient. In that case, revolution will start when the people, with a common goal, come and gather together. One such example would be, Suharto, former president of Indonesia. He was overthrown by his people, and was replaced by an opposing party led by Megawati. Another example would be revolution that took place in Russia in 1905. It started when the non-noble class asked for an improvement in their poor standard of living. When the Czarist government failed to do so, they revolted in 1905 and 1917, by which Czardom was finally overthrown.

However, there are many reasons to show why poverty and crime do not go well with one another. Firstly, people often say that poverty causes crime, then, why are crime rates lower in poor third world countries than in wealthy states? Isn't that ironic? According to this blog, "Chinatowns are among the poorest areas in the United States, but have little crime. Similarly, rural areas are poorer than urban areas, but have less crime. And West Virginia is one of the poorest, but also has relatively little crime." This shows that poverty does not link with crimes, as people who are wealthy are more prone to crime instead. It does not really matter whether you come from poor or rich families when you are exposed to regular criminal behaviors, as you will most likely to be engaged in criminal activities. Another reason to show why poverty does not link with crime is that "studies have proven this, for example middle class children who have been exposed to criminal behavior in the home are just as likely as poor children who have been exposed to criminal behavior in the home to become criminal themselves."

Another reason that leads to crime is the lack of education. Being illiterate, they cannot and will not have the chance to obtain stable jobs. This is supported by an article on July 28, 2007, entitled "S'pore's dirty secret". In the article, it states that Madam P. Devi, 60, a cleaner, feels that she has no right to be unhappy because she is illiterate. Her pay dropped from $500 to $440 per month, and furthermore she is supporting two children who are still studying. Another cleaner, Madam Sharon Kong, 50 and a mother of two sons, aged 22 and 25, earns $300 a month, which is just enough to buy food to cook and feed the family. Standard of living has increased over the years, hence, income should have increased too. But apparently, it did not. Hence, people are more prone to commit crimes since they need the money to feed and support the families. However, if a person comes from a poor family, with education and determination, he might make it to some big companies, become successful and out of poverty. Hence, it is because of the lack of education that leads to poverty, which then leads to crimes. Lack of education is the main cause of crimes, not poverty.

By saying poverty leads to crime is just like saying gun leads to murder. Furthermore, it is crimes that lead to poverty! For example, once person A becomes a criminal and is being convicted of a crime, then it will be so much harder for him to get a good job to feed his family and so forth.

In conclusion, poverty is not the mother of revolution and crimes, perhaps a catalyst instead. As not all crimes are linked to poverty, and that there are various factors that lead to revolution and crimes.

https://rru.worldbank.org/Discussions/Discussion.aspx?id=32
http://www.cheathouse.com/essay/essay_view.php?p_essay_id=25402

2007-08-06T11:54:00.000+08:00

Research task
Lookism, Ageism, Disablism and Discrimination against Foreigners (Xenophobia).

Lookism
According to Wikipedia, Lookism is discrimination against or prejudice towards others based on their appearance. The term is not in widespread use, though it appears in major English-language dictionaries. Lookism has received scholarly attention both from a cultural studies and an economics perspective. In the former context, lookism relates to preconceived notions of beauty and cultural stereotyping based on appearance as well as gender roles and expectations. Important economic considerations include the question of income gaps based on looks, as well increased or decreased productivity from workers considered beautiful or ugly by their co-workers

01. The Look Of Abercrombie & Fitch
02. Overweight and underpaid as "lookism" sweeps the world
03. 'Lookism' a growing global trend, says Eversheds

Ageism
According to Wikipedia, Ageism is stereotyping and prejudice against individuals or groups because of their age. The term was coined in 1969 by US gerontologist Robert N. Butler to describe discrimination against seniors, patterned on sexism and racism.

Employment
Discrimination against younger workers
Like race and gender discrimination, age discrimination, at least when it affects younger workers, can result in unequal pay for equal work. Unlike race and gender discrimination, age discrimination in wages is often enshrined in law. For example, in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Minimum wage laws allow for employers to pay lower wages to young workers. Many state and local minimum wage laws mirror such an age-based tiered minimum wage. Outside of the law, older workers, on average, make more than younger workers do. Firms may be afraid to offer older workers lower wages than younger workers.
Labor regulations also limit the age at which people are allowed to work and how many hours and under what conditions they may work. In the United States a person must generally be at least 14 years old to seek a job, and workers face additional restrictions on their work activities until age 16. Many companies refuse to hire workers under 18.
Discrimination against older workers
While older workers benefit from higher wages than younger workers, they face barriers in promotions and hiring. They may also encourage early retirement or lay off disproportionately older/more experienced workers.
Age discrimination in hiring has been shown to exist in the United States. Joanna Lahey, Economics professor at Texas A&M, found that firms are more than 40% more likely to interview a younger job applicant than an older job applicant.
In a survey for the University of Kent, England, 29% of respondents stated that they had suffered from age discrimination. This is a higher proportion than for gender or race discrimination. Dominic Abrams, Social Psychology professor at the University, concluded that ageism is the most pervasive form of prejudice experienced in the UK population.

01. Ageism hits generation x?
02. US courts invite more ageism suits
03. Ageism

Disablism
Also known as Ableism. Ableism is a neologism of American coinage, since about 1981. It is used to describe inherent discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not disabled. An ableist society is said to be one that treats non-disabled individuals as the standard of ‘normal living’, which results in public and private places and services, education, and social work that are built to serve 'standard' people, thereby inherently excluding those with various disabilities.

01. Blogging against disablism day 2007

Discrimination against foreigners
Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of foreigners or strangers. It comes from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "foreigner," "stranger," and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear." The term is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self.
01. Japan's fear of Brazilians
02. Bath house in hot water
03. International Migration, Racism, Discrimination and Xenophobia

2007-06-20T20:53:00.000+08:00

Blogging task

http://www.freewebs.com/vivloh/juneblogtask.htm
Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted? Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.

According to Wikipedia, freedom of speech is "the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used."

For Peter Singer, he believes that freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and that means including the freedom to express what everybody believes to be false, even when many people may find them too offensive. "We must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock." He strongly believes that every human being should have the freedom to express himself or herself, instead of being punished for saying things that is not acceptable (too offensive); and that it is needed for a country to grow. He felt that "We cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures but that it should be a criminal offense to deny the existence of the Holocaust. I believe that we should stand behind freedom of speech. And that means that David Irving should be freed."

I feel that to certain extent, freedom of expression is necessary as human beings have the right to express what they believe in. With freedom of speech, the government will have a better understanding of the needs and wants of their people, and that makes a better nation. However, if the freedom of speech is misused, it will create more chaos than anyone can ever imagined. For example, if people just throw sensitive insults at one another, it will be chaotic and the country might collapse.

For Zsofia Szilagyi, it's different. He believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. "There is no doubt that freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy. But when newspapers insist on this right, they have to understand that they do not - alone - create the context and lifespan of their messages. Freedom of speech has never been a static value, and the responsibilities of the press evolve with every new social and political development around the world - requiring the limits of media output to be subjected to constant review. The press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it needs to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom." He feels that the media should foresee the consequences and responses of the audience first before they publish something. And that, the media has a heavy social responsibility.

In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I feel that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted. In a multi-racial country like Singapore, we have to avoid sensitive stuffs such as religious and racial issues. This is important as it helps to maintain peace and order. Singapore is very vulnerable when it comes to these issues because it being small, it may collapse easily when there is conflicts, riots and tensions. Hence, social responsibility is important in Singapore. In the 1964 racial riot, lives were lost and buildings were damage. Hence, in this case, it would not be hard to see the reason why the government wanted to control the freedom of speech; to prevent another riot from blowing up back again. Maybe because as most of us belong to this new generation entering the adulthood, we never have the experience of any racial riots, resulting us not to see how important social responsibility really is. Singapore is a country made up of people with different races, cultures, beliefs, religions and backgrounds. The 1964 racial riot had taught us an important and painful lesson that we should never ever take racial harmony for granted. On top of that, we can see that social responsibility is emphasized as Racial Harmony Day is commemorated in schools to "help our young appreciate the value of racial harmony and mutual understanding in a society which considers its cultural diversity an asset". Therefore, social responsibility is more appropriate in Singapore, compared to freedom of expression.

2007-05-05T10:58:00.000+08:00

"The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is a murder". Do you agree?

According to wikipedia, Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is “the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences.” In the past, the execution of criminals and political opponents was used by nearly all societies—both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent. In most places that practice capital punishment today, the death penalty is reserved as punishment for premeditated murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice.

Capital punishment is a controversial issue. Supporters of capital punishment feel that it deters crime and is the correct form of punishment for serious crimes such as murder or kidnap. However, opponents of capital punishment thinks that it does not help to deter criminals as it violates human rights, leads to sentenced to death of some who are wrongfully found guilty, and discriminates against minorities and the poor.

Presently, there are five methods of capital punishment. They are the electric chair (prisoner is literally cooked internally, and death may require multiple shocks), gas chamber (the suffering caused is deliberate and plain to see: writhing, vomiting, shaking and gasping for breath for many seconds), lethal injection (losing consciousness in 10 to 15 seconds, followed by pancuronium bromide, which blocks respiration and finally potassium chloride to stop the heart), hanging and firing squad. Although the methods are horrific, however, it is to inculcate fears in would be criminals. It serves as a deterrent warning to others against the consequences. A person is less likely to kill, if he fears a possible sentence for his action.

Capital punishment is essential in today’s society because not only does it lowers the murder rate, it’s value as retribution alone is a good reason for handing out death sentences. Capital punishment deters murder by inculcating fear of death into would be killers. He or she, when think about the how he/she would be punished for what he/she has done would be less likely to do something foolish. 'Support for the death penalty in the U.S. has risen to an average of 80% according to an article written by Richard Worsnop, entitled "Death penalty debate centres on Retribution", this figure is slightly lower in Canada where support for the death penalty is at 72% of the population over 18 years of age, as stated in article by Kirk Makir, in the March 26, 1987 edition of the Globe and Mail, titled "B.C. MPs split on Death Penalty".'

Capital punishment is necessary because it helps to bring justice to the victim and his family. We should think of the families that are broken apart now because of the ruthless acts of these criminals. They should be punished for what they had done. If we give up our punishing a deadly criminal, then the society will turn in to chaos and criminals are able to do things freely. Everybody will live in fear, as nobody knows when somebody would put himself to death, and then freed to go about and do the same crime again to the others. Hence, because of capital punishment, it assures public that the felon no longer poses a threat to the society.

However, capital punishment does not stop murder. It only prevents the killer to kill more innocent people. It is not an effective punishment as it is a cost of hard earned tax dollars and it takes years. For every process, it requires about between 500,000 to 1,000,000 dollars annually.

Throughout its existence, the death penalty has been racially bias, class bias, sexisum, performed on the innocent, and administered cruel and unusual punishment. Racism is a point used by death penalty advocates. In the U.S. 16 out of 1000 whites arrested for murder are sentenced to death, while 12 of 1000 blacks arrested for murder were sentenced to death. 1.1% of black inmates on death row were executed, while 1.7% of white inmates will die. Another cry for racism, as according to Ehrlich, that is raised by advocates of the death penalty is based on the colour of the victim, for example "if the victim is white, it is more likely that the offender will get the death penalty than if the victim had been black". This is true, if you look at the actual number of people who are murder. More people kill whites and get the death penalty, than people who kill blacks and get the death penalty.

Besides that, some people thinks that humans should not play god. One such example would be Angel Nieves Diaz who was executed by lethal injection in Florida, USA, Dec 2006. The injection was done wrongly and it took him 34minutes to die (at 24minutes, he was still able to move), whereby normally, it will only take about 10 to 15 minutes. Imagine the amount of pain the person had to suffer! Wouldn't it be considered murder in this case?

Also, there is a possibility of executing an innocent person. "Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence". We are bound to execute an innocent person, and this is extremely saddening. Don't you think that it is better to risk saving guilty person than to condemn an innocent? On top of that, “murder rates are actually higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it”.

Furthermore, I feel that the criminals would have already known the consequences of the crimes committed; and is mentally prepared and not afraid of the punishment. In this case, capital punishment is not a deterrent at all and is not effective. Human beings would die one fine day, and capital punishment is just helping the criminal to die in a more “painful” and faster manner. Death is quick and it causes less suffering than a long jail term. I feel that life imprisonment would be a better punishment, as they will suffer more (emotionally and physically) and bear the consequences.

Therefore, I agree to a large extent that capital punishment is not a deterrent, but a murder.

Sources: http://www.123helpme.com/search.asp?text=capital+punishment

Censorship

2007-04-26T20:52:00.001+08:00

CENSORSHIP

Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is necessary/unnecessary.

Censorship. A sensitive (and popular) issue that makes the world goes upside-down. Each and every one of us has different values and thoughts regarding censorship. For me, I feel that censorship is indeed necessary, important and essential in today's society.

According to Wikipedia, censorship is "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body". Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist too.

Why is censorship necessary in today's world? Well, firstly, it is to prevent any sensitive issues (such as racial, religious and political) being raised through the media. We don't wish to stir up any unnecessary troubles for ourselves. Singapore, being a multi-racial country, is still able to live in peace and maintain harmony and I think that one of the main reasons is probably due to censorship. With censorship, it helps to prevent tensions and riots raised among the different racial groups as it ensures that there are no discrimination and criticism among them. This is very important and vital to Singapore because without censorship, Singapore probably would not have make it to today; she would have collapsed.

Secondly, the important of censorship is to protect the youngsters and weak-minded. We don't want any negative messages to be sent across. Censorship, in this case, can act as a shield. As a nation, we would want our young children, our country's future leaders, to be literate, thoughtful and caring human beings. However, we also need to control what they read and think as we need to "protect" them from dangerous or disturbing stuffs (such as violence, sex, horror, drugs, things that are morally wrong). This is because they are still at the stage whereby they cannot differentiate what is morally right or wrong. By just watching people fighting one another (violence), kids, being curious, would imitate and probably learn and try it out on their siblings. It can also be seen from newspaper articles that the media is constantly affecting and influencing the teenagers (negatively). In the article entitled "Does Rap Put Teens at Risk?", it states that children who viewed gangsta videos for at least 14hours per week were far more likely to practice numerous destructive behaviors. They were three times more likely to hit a teacher, and over 1.5 times more likely to get a sexually transmitted disease, use drugs or drink alcohol. Also, in "Rap music blamed for teen pregnancy", studies have shown youngsters are easily influenced and there is an increasing rates of sexual activity which leads to contracting sexually transmitted diseases more easily. All these real life examples show how serious and important it is to have censorship in today's world. What would happen to the youths if there were no censorship? It will be chaotic!

However, censorship may not be that necessary too. It has its demerits. Why? It does not show reality, which we humans have the right to know nothing but the truth. Furthermore, we should be given freedom of expression as we have the rights to express our feelings and thoughts. Another reason is that there are a great variety of other sources out there available for us. Hence, what is censored will sooner or later be exposed. So, why censored? We should be given exposure in order to grow to become more matured.

Secondly, self-censorship. "The act of censoring or classifying one's own blog, book(s), film(s), or other works, out of deference to the sensibilities of others without an authority directly pressuring one to do so". People have the responsibility of self-censorship. We are educated enough, and hence we know what is (morally) right/wrong. So, censorship is unnecessary at this extent.

In conclusion, I personally feel like censorship should be exercised in this society. It "protects" the people and maintains peace and harmony. We can see that the merits of censorship clearly outweigh the demerits. Can we really imagine the world without censorship? Picture it; and you will shudder at the thought of it.

2007-04-16T03:38:00.000+08:00

Mass Media

TVBS scandal points to credibility problems in Taiwan's media industry.

According to Wikipedia, credibility is the "believability of a statement, action, or source, and the propensity of the observer to believe that statement". In this article, it talks about a journalist who was fired because of his irresponsibility; hiding the true source of the video he acquired because of fears over his own safety. This had sparked protests and public debate on the increasingly lax editorial standards in Taiwan's media. And worse, it is not the first time TVBS has been in the media spotlight for its reporting standards. This leads us to many questions regarding the impact of the mass media and how we can change it. Can we get accurate reports from the media? And, is mass media really that important?

Media has a huge impact in our everyday's lives, it has the ability to convince and persuade, influence our perceptions on certain things. The society doesn't always get the correct or full information; the media is controlling the society.

In Taiwan, it is probably due to high competitions. Since there are seven round-the-clock news stations and over a dozen newspapers, each of them would want to increase their sales by reporting interesting stuffs that will attract the attention of their audience/readers. And their so-called interesting stuffs? They had taken to "unveiling scandalous allegations soap opera style". This has caused a dip in trust of the Taiwanese towards the media. Only 1% of major business stakeholder groups trust Taiwan's media. From this, we can tell how serious the credibility problem is.

Credibility is important in mass media. People have the rights to know the truth. But how do we solve the problem of media credibility? I think the only solution, for now, is legislation.

What have you learnt here about the media in the way they present what is perceived over what is real?

The media doesn't always present what is real. In this case, the United States uses its media to "brainwash" its people regarding the reason why they invade Iraq (in agreement of the administration). To compound these "creative untruths", more and more lies have been told to justify the war after it began. For example, the war is perceived as somehow lawful, or at least not illegal, and that oil is not a motivation factor for the Iraq war. The truth? The US oil industry has been an early and enthusiastic war supporter! The media is used (in this case) as propaganda. It only shows the positive side of the issue, and covers up the mistakes and stuffs. People must have felt being cheated. The media has always been working hard with the administration; what they should report and what they should not. It faces pressure from the government (freedom of speech is not really recommended).

From this article, I can also people are indeed very influenced by the media. We always think that the reports are true. The media is the most powerful and fastest method to acquire information. Hence, I think that readers should know how to differentiate between what's right and wrong. They can do that by gathering a variety of sources of information (such as radio, books, magazine, newspaper etc).

2007-03-30T14:27:00.001+08:00

Hellooooooooo, people :D
/Waves.

This is my GP blog!