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

Relationships can be classified under three types such as Gay, Lesbian and Straight. Being more educated, people know what they want to achieve for their future. They are certainly free to choose their life partners in this age of globalisation when the world is progressing and changing including our mindsets towards life partners.

With increasing connectivity of economies and more ways of life across the world, same sex marriage should be given the same right as heterosexual marriage. Many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. The children they raise are as good-mannered as straight couples' children. Hence, I feel that love and commitment of the parents do not depend on their gender. They are capable of loving children too.

Moreover, many businesses already do offer benefits to gay couples for sound business reasons. Since many firms have accepted homosexuals' existence, society should also allow same sex marriage. The effect on their costs for offering these benefits is minimal. The cost of benefits offered to gay couples has caused the business' benefits costs to rarely rise by more than 1.5%. Therefore, homosexuals have equal purchasing power as us; they are still bringing in revenue for Singapore. So why should we stop homosexuals from pursuing their happiness?

However, same sex marriage will result in a few disadvantages to society too. By allowing same sex marriage, some gay couples might abuse the right they have and change partners whenever they like. This is the one of the root causes of HIV diseases. Data released by the Ministry of Health on HIV last year showed two groups of men were responsible for approximately 83 per cent of HIV cases. 53 per cent were men who contracted HIV via unprotected high-risk heterosexual sex. As a result, AIDS may be spread through blood donation and other people's health will be threatened. In my opinion, homosexuals should sign an agreement that they will stick to only one partner after marriage.

In addition, children who are raised by homosexual parents will suffer from peer and public pressure. They will be ostracized by other children and thus lack childhood memories. Without proper care and concern by parents, children can break down. Our next generation might not be as tough when more gay couples get married. Furthermore, other countries might brand Singapore as a gay country which affects our reputation. Tourists will not visit Singapore. Hence, Singapore will experience a decrease in tourists and economic decline. From the government's point of view, they will not grant same sex marriage as it will affect Singapore's future.

In conclusion, society should come to an agreement on their tolerance level of homosexuals. We must stop discriminating people with different sexual orientations. They are Singaporeans with equal rights. They can be our colleague, our close friends or even family members. Therefore, we must not avoid them but respect their choice.

"The mother of revolution is crime and poverty"

A revolution is a successful attempt by a large group of people to change the political system of their country by force. I agree that the cause of revolution and crime is poverty.

The whole world is currently experiencing globalisation. People are improving themselves everyday. However, did we ever think of those who are lagging behind?

Singapore is a good example to illustrate this. Our system works on meritocracy. One's academic performance or merit determines his future. However, there are many lost sheep which we had neglected while progressing.

Some of them are to poor to afford education; some are drop outs after primary school and start to work. Without enough education, their pay will always hover around the lower end. Although Singapore's economy is booming, the problem of income stagnation still exists. The standard of living among most Singaporeans improves but incomes remain the same. For a group of cleaners and labourers, their average monthly starting pay fell 30 per cent between 1996 & 2006 - from $860 to $600.

Singapore is also inviting foreign talents and low-skilled foreign labour to work here. This provides more competition for low skilled locals and further decreases their incomes. With low income, they cannot improve their standard of living.

Moreover, Singapore pays no employment benefits, no pensions and has no legal minimum wage. The government only gives subsidies to first-time buyers of HDB flats. The ruling party does not approve of welfare system too. Therefore, the poorer are at a disadvantage. The privileges they enjoy are limited.

Further signs of class discrimination can be seen from the issuing of government scholarships. One in three students on government scholarships came from families with income more than S$6500 a month. I feel that this is very unfair to the lower income group. Students from lower income households only made up only 7 percent of scholarship winners as reported by The Straits Times.
The education disparity is clearly shown here which will lead to greater income gap in the future.

Hence, does that mean that there are no talents in the lower income group? In my opinion, that is not true at all. I disagree with the government for leaving out those talents in the poorer families and give those scholarships to people who can well afford education. I do not think that this is the most effective way of attracting local talents. The government should restrict the wealthier from signing up for scholarships and help those who have talent but could not afford it.

People will start to feel upset for not being treated equally. As this tension accumulates, people will start to overthrow the ruling party by violent means (crime) which is currently happening in other countries. The situation then will be out of control and the country will suffer from political and social instability. Economy will be badly affected too. This is how the downfall of a country begins.

Poverty breeds unhappiness, people feel that there are injustice in the system as they lead their lives with their basic needs not met. Unhappiness will then result in revolution and crime as people's tolerance is "overstretched". Education disparity and income gap will always be present unless the government revises their policies. The tension between the rich and poor will continue to increase.

In Singapore context, I feel that we should adopt Szilagyi's view. I agree that freedom of speech is one of democracy's characteristic and it is necessary in a democratic country. Citizens should have their own say but not in everything. However, they should consider the consequences of what they say and this brings in social responsibility. There are many races living together in Singapore, we must be sensitive towards others' feelings and respect their religion. Citizens have a right to have their own views but there might be implications caused by these views. Some implications might lead to political instability and adversely affecting the economy. Thus, the government must play a role to limit religious opinions. In my opinion, social responsibility should come before freedom of speech. For example, a man was caught expressing racial views on his blog and was charged. It may be just a comment from him about the other races, but it may be seemed as an insult to others. If things get worse, a similar 1964 racial riot might break out again.
I feel that citizens should have self-censorship if they want freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should exclude racial opinions. It might seem contrary but I feel that we could not handle the consequences of social irresponsibility, especially when Singapore is rather small in size and vulnerable. Any minor dispute or disruption will cause a huge impact on Singapore's fragile economy. This will lead to unemployment and perhaps hinder Singapore's progress. Singapore as a multi-racial country is very vulnerable to any racial disputes. Everyone is neighbours of one another. Freedom of speech can easily destroy a society. Therefore, we should not allow freedom of speech to destroy the close relationship among us. We might disagree on or dislike some of the things which others do, but we should learn to respect and adapt to their culture. Moreover, we must develop a responsibility towards society. Singapore's main assets are the people. It is inevitable that people have different opinions and therefore it is essential to sometimes keep our opinions to ourselves for the sake of society. Last but not least, I think that we should focus more on social responsibility than freedom of speech as safe and security of a country comes first.

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

Death Penalty is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences according to Wikipedia.

The different types of death penalties are electric chair, hanging, lethal injection, firing squad and gas chamber, etc. These punishments are being used on murderers, drug traffickers, terrorists and people who try to threaten the national security.

Compared to the past, I do not think that capital punishments are more humane. In my opinion, it is just a longer route to death and to torture the criminal more. Back to the topic, I think that death penalty is a deterrent rather than a murder.

Death penalty is a deterrent warning to others, thus preventing repeat offences. It also sets an example of the felon. In the case of the australian drug trafficker who was sentenced last year, the whole of australia protested against the act of Singapore Government. They thought it was rather inhumane to give him the death penalty just because he was a drug trafficker. However, I feel that it is rather a good warning to others that drug trafficking is a straight death sentence, no matter who you are. Death penalty also brings justice for the victim and his family for example the murder of Huang Na. Moreover, it assures public that the felon no longer poses a threat to the society. This applies to terrorists whose have disrupted peace of country, creating fear in the citizens. Thus, preserving national security. In a country's economic point of view, it is better to execute the prisoner than to keep him in life incarceration. People will be complaining that the crinimal is living off their hard-earned money.

On the other hand, death penalty can be a murder too. Although death penalty suggests the existence of law and justice, I feel that death penalties should be considered by cases. A person who is once a drug trafficker does not mean that he will forever be one. I think that he should not be blacklisted for life. Two wrongs do not make one right, I feel that criminals should be given a second chance before giving him the death penalty such as counselling the criminal.
Death penalties should not be used to punish criminals with mental instability. No doubt they took innocent lives or disrupt the order of society, we should look at the motives behind the crime. If the crime is convicted on purpose, I will definitely support the death penalty.

The US university gunman, Cho Seung-Hui should not be sentenced to death if he was still alive. He committed the crime because of the humiliation he got from the rich and discrimination from the whites. As time passed, his mental condition becomes unstable and suffers from depression. He should be given a chance to change his mindset.

Death should be quick and less suffering, however modern methods of execution are definitely defying it. Thus, I think that death penalty is a murder to some extent which is irreversible. Those who are innocent might also become scapegoats. Shouldn't we be finding out the truth first before doing anything that might cost an innocent life?

In conclusion, I feel that death penalty should only be used when the criminal committed the crime on purpose. However, the question of whether he is mentally unsound is another area that we should focus on. Death penalty is tricky, should a person who commited a capital crime to be sentenced or should he not? Government practice death penalties just to protect the nation's security while death penalty might not be the ultimate solution to all crimes.

Everything has two sides to it, therefore we should look at these two perspectives before we can decide on anything.

Censorship is self-contradictory. It had its role to consider but at the same time, it must think about the consequences of censoring media.
I feel that censorship is necessary as there will be negative influence by the free media. For example advertisements on drugs might influence teenagers to gain interest in sniffing glue. Shows which contains violence scenes might change a person's character for the worse. Thus, moral values will be tarnished. Religious information shown will offend many groups of people, resulting in chaos. In my opinion, censorship is able to protect general audience as well as national security. Censorship is able to prevent conflicts from happening.
However, censorship can be unnecessary too. Without censorship, audience can learn more as horizons broaden. Moreover, they deserve the right to know the truth of everything. Early exposure might not be a bad thing afterall. It can be used to educate the young and preventing accidents from happening due to ignorance. Censoring might cause people to be paranoid and sensitive on certain issues.

In conclusion, I feel that censorship is necessary as people will be able to get alot of negative messages from the media in which they might follow after it. Although there will be more learning without censorship, some things should still be taught through an adult's guidance such as sex.

Only after reading the article, I get to see the big and real picture of the situation in Iraq.. As an audience, I felt betrayed by the media. I always thought that USA was trying to help Iraq to recover from war and USA soldiers were even sacrificed during the process. USA is always portrayed as the "Big Brother", helping other smaller countries. Never did we know that it was not the truth at all. What we see from the news is just a medium used to "glorify" the USA.
In my opinion, the reason why the media behaves like this is because of the great influence of USA. They knew USA could not be offended as it will bring major consequences such as mass attacks.Thus, they can only choose the safer way out. That is to support USA.
Moreover, the media might be afraid to stir up people's feelings which might inflict trouble and caused social instability. Thus, they do not want to bear the responsibility for it and chose to remain "silent".
However, this situation must not go on forever as truths and falsehoods might not be portrayed correctly. The righteous will never get their innocence back. Media will then serve as a propaganda tool for a so-called "democratic" based world.

Hello!! This is Violet, owner of this blog. I am quite a talkative person if I get to know you well. However, I can be quiet when I need to, perhaps a listening ear. I like to gossip sometimes, thats girls' "talent". I love to listen to Chinese Pop music. Thus, I welcome all who share the same interest as me. Haha. I am in AJ for the first three months. My former class is 32/07 which is a fun-loving class, alot of happy moments there and a very nice PDG tutor, Miss New! I am sure 18/07 will be the same too! Im currently taking the combination of chemistry, maths, economics & chinese lit. All H2 haha, start to wonder if I can cope. Anyway, lets work hard 18/07!!=D Nice to meet you all.