WELCOME
When our time is up,
When our lives are done,
Will we say we've had our fun.
Will we make a mark,
This time.
Will we always say we tried.
Standing on the rooftops,
Everybody scream your heart out.
SHESAYS
Saturday, October 13, 2007, 3:53 AM
Okaay. I know this is a GP blog and this post is probably going to look weird above those entries on democracy and death penalty but seriously - i doubt anyone still remembers this rotting blog and i so need to rant.
I just feel so disillusioned. Maybe it's just me being overly idealistic, maybe it's time for me to face the fact that life was and never is going to be fair. In the end, I'll only be striving for something that will never happen. You probably thought nothing about the careless comment you made but you know what? At that instant it really made me felt
downright stupid.
Fine lar. Since it was not my duty, it was
my fault for being so extra all this while right? Since the other person don't even mind, why should i feel indignant instead? Ahh. All this makes me feel totally moronic, simple-minded and..FEATHER BRAINED.
BLAH. I'm just not going to care anymore.
So much for everything.
Labels: rants
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Thursday, July 5, 2007, 7:26 AM
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, I think that both views are valid to a certain extent.
I agree with Singer that freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes and that some views if not “fearlessly discussed will become a dead dogma, not a living truth”. Singapore, being a democratic society should hence allow a restricted level of freedom of speech to citizens so that they can speak unreservedly about certain issues or policies. However, one condition would have to be the comments must be of constructive nature and not have any hidden malign motives. This is important because citizens may abuse this freedom of expression and risk the stability our society now enjoys. There may be blurred boundaries between freedom of speech and respect for a certain race or religion. Any view expressed without consideration of possible consequences would then be justified by the so-called “freedom of speech principles” as brought up by Singer.
In addition, we have to consider the fact that Singapore is a multi-racial and multi-religious society. On one hand, we can draw strength from our rich diversity but on the other hand, these are also our natural fault lines in the sense we cannot take the present trust and tolerance between different races for granted. If freedom of speech is unrestricted, irresponsible racist comments may just tear our society’s delicate social fabric that has been built over the past few decades. For example, a riot may start just like the one in July 1964 where Malays attacked the Chinese and vice versa. In fact, unintended consequences may arise when people speak “too freely” just like how the Danish and Norwegian newspapers that published the cartoons had no intention of setting off mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts of their products in the Middle East. If there is total freedom of expression, I fear similar cases might just happen in Singapore.
Moreover, I agree strongly with Szilagyi that words in print can be interpreted differently. The same words can send a different message across to different people according to their own personal opinions and beliefs. This brings up the question –is every citizen mature enough to discern between facts and untruths that may evoke unhappiness in certain race or religion? Why should we put the peaceful and comfortable race and religions relations to risk by allowing unrestricted freedom of speech? In my opinion, it is simply foolish to allow unrestricted freedom of expression just for the sake of complying with the nature of democracy while watching the computer disintegrate before our eyes.
In conclusion, while freedom of expression should be given to ensure the growth and progress of our society, it should be restricted. Emphasis must be placed on social responsibility rather than just personal human right to express oneself freely.
Labels: freedom of expression
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Monday, May 14, 2007, 2:24 AM
The death penalty is highly controversial and comprises of both arguments for and against with regards to the use of it.
People who are against the use of death penalty will probably criticize the inhumane methods used to end the life of the convict. For instance, the use of the electric chairs in the United States of America is undoubtedly brutal in my personal opinion. The idea of sending electric currents through the body of an otherwise perfectly healthy person, who is totally defenseless as he or she is most likely strapped down, simply reeks of pure cruelty.
Furthermore, the death penalty is also against reformation in the sense the convict is not given a second chance. But isn’t it only human to err? This is akin to condemning the criminal more than the crime committed itself. The convict will then no longer have the chance to repent no matter how much he or she is willing to turn over a new leaf and lead a better life. I thus believe that the death penalty is not only retributive but militates against human freedom and dignity too. In any case, I feel that imposing the death penalty on any convict is not only punishing him or her but his or her family members and loved ones as well because they will suffer the pain of losing the convict. For example, the children of the convict will have to grow up in a single parent family while parents of the convict will witness the death of a child they painstakingly brought up for a few decades.
Certain religions such as Christianity are also against the death penalty as people with these religions firmly believe that every human being has the right to live and no one possesses the authority to deprive another of his life.
On the other hand, advocates of the death penalty will justify its use in the name of justice. Convicts put to death are usually criminals who had committed extremely serious crimes such as kidnapping, drug trafficking and murder. These heinous crimes had harmed other innocent people and so it is only fair that they are made to pay back. After all, is it not right to get an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? Also, in the case of murder, even though imposing the death sentence on the convict will not bring back the dead, I feel that at least the family members of the victim will find comfort in knowing that justice is being done.
Imposing the death penalty on the convict can also appease the fury of the general public, especially if the crime committed is very much featured in the newspapers such as the ‘Huang Na’ case in 2004. Many people who did not know the young girl personally felt for her tragic death and I believe if the murderer was given a lighter sentence than the death penalty, much commotion would arise regarding the fairness of the sentence.
The death penalty also acts as a form of deterrence. I believe that potential crime offenders will think twice before committing the crime as a result of fear of such a punishment. This will hopefully decrease the number of murder cases for instance.
Labels: crime
1 Comments:
Hilo!!!:)
I totally agree that the DP involves inhumane methods. Executions have a risk to be botched, thus leading to gory and disgusting scenes. The process also involves extreme pain, though it is for a short period of time if the whole thing works without flaws. Some inhumane methods used in the past are burning at the stake, sawing and boiling. How can a person can subjected to death when he cannot even defend himself? This is a blatant act against the most basic of human rights - the right to live.
I also agree that the DP disallows the offender to be able to reform. Not all offenders have the intention to commit those crimes, especially murder. It might just be a mistake on their part. We must understand that humans are bound to make mistakes as no one is perfect. How can we execute a person if he has done a mistake without the intention of doing so, and is willing to change for the better?
I do not believe that the 'eye for an eye' concept should be followed. This basically constitutes to revenge, which leads to hatred, and to vengeance. The cycle shall then continue without stop. If we are to follow the concept, why don't the law punish arsonists with causing the offenders to suffer burns, or to punish rapists by being raped? This concept is not feasible because it merely means revenge. We have to learn to forgive each other's mistakes. The worst punishment for the offender is actually the guilt, which he carries forever, that he had caused the loss of a life.
Although the victim's side might be appeased with the offender being executed, what can the former gain in the end? There will be a huge loss of a life incurred by both sides.
Imposing the DP will most likely appease the fury of the general public. However, how can the public be 100% sure that the person executed is TRUELY guilty? You never know. An innocent person can be executed as well, which brings me to the inhumaneness of the DP.
I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the DP is an effective deterrent to offenders.
The following blog has reliable statistics to prove that: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168
It is an organisation which contains facts about the DP. Although it is about America, it still proves that the DP is not a deterrent at all. This is because no sane person will have the passion to commit murder. There is always a reason behind every acts, be it hatred (probably due to provocation), provocation, poor state of mental health, etc.
DP is a subset of violence as it involves torture, psychologically and physically. We must never use violence to handle issues. Violence will never solve anything. Instead, it just aggravates the whole situation more.
Post a Comment