World in the Balance

A counter in the Nova website tells us how many are born every second. It may just be a rough guide, but it does remind us that our population is growing. However, demograhpic disparities exist between countries, which may bring about global repercussio

Long ago, the life expectancy for a neanderthal male may be just over 20. Now people can be expected to live well over 60, a good yet bad thing i suppose. In the industrialized world- Japan, Europe and the United States, birthrates are dropping steeply while there seems to be more and more senior citizens. Pensions and decaying economic productivity can very well cripple a growing country. Yet little can be done to 'encourage' child birth, with the price of child rearing soaring and women seeking increasing marital independence in pursuit of a professional career.

In yet another demograhpic crisis would be Africa, where people are dying in the prime of their life, largely due to AIDS and sexually transmitted disease. How can a country fend for itself when all of its strongest members are either missing or not capable of working. Is the country expected to survive off the very young or the very old? Africa would be trapped in this vicious disease-ridden cycle of poverty for quite some time to come, and with no effective means to stop it, may stay that way.

China is now one of the fastest expanding economies in the world. As it strives for a higher standard of living for its people, this has taken its toll on the environment. Already the effects are felt as far as California in the states. However, China's relentless economic growth surges on.
If they were to reach the standard of living of a standard american citizen, we would virtually require 2 earths. Since one is all we have, we will try our best to make this one last.

National Day Rally

Through the National Day Rally, the prime minister has brought forth many interesting issues that have to be addressed.

Through the rally, the Prime Minister states that Singapore aims to grant every child top grade education by putting great emphasis on the quality of schools, not just that top ones, but all the nightbourhood schools. Education is undoubtedly important in determining the future of Singapore. Having a society consisting of highly skilled and educated people would be the first step in realizing Singapore's future. I believe that this step is a realistic one, something like breaking a big task up into small steps and this would be one of the steps, small, but essential.

The Prime Minister also raised the issue of citizens possesing a third language. People here tend to neglect mother tongues due to the greater use of English and changes in living environment. Incentives have been given now to encourage people to take up a third language. This is very effective indeed giving extra point for JC admission if a third language is present. Students would find this a great incentives and take up a third language. When this becomes the norm, having a third language would not be an advantage, but rather the norm.

In an effort to push our education levels further, there are plans to build a fourth state-funded university. I believe this is an ambitious step, but would prove to be extremely essential step in realizing our dreams. Much still has to be done before this is possible but there must a start to everything.

Blog commentary

Referring to Jeremy Su's blog (http://www.acidic-fiery-salamander.blogspot.com/) entitled "Giving Birth to Your Sister-Right or Wrong?", I would like to write a commentary.

The blog is regarding a controversial decision of a Canadian mother to donate her eggs to her daughter, who is suffering from Turner's syndrome, rendering her unable to develop eggs.

Jeremy believes that her decision to donate eggs has been unethical and believes that her decision has turned motherhood into merely conceiving and getting pregnant. To this point I may not agree. She has given her daughter a chance to give birth to a child and that alone is wonderful. It is true that giving birth to one does not make you an automatic mother, such is the case of surrogate mothers, but caring for the baby after birth as if the baby was fully yours, i believe, is one of the biggest parts of motherhood. Therefore, her actions of donating eggs does not confine motherhood to conceiving, but instead broadens its definition and does not confine the term 'mother' only to those who have a genetic child.

Another point raised by Jeremy is that the interestes of the child has not been taken fully under consideration as the child would possess reasonable messes up ties with other family members. This i would have to argree on. A child born of this method would acquire incorrect family ties. Such is this case as she and her "mother" have genetic makeup of that of a half-sister. Yet, there exist an age gap and she would grow up to know her genetic sister as 'mother'. This poses a problem when the child grows up to know her origins. The truth cannot be hidden from her throughout her lifetime.

However, I see many possibilities and benefits to this method. Just a Jeremy mentioned, this allows people cursed with such conditions to experience the miracle of childbirth and actually have a child to call your own. I believe that this method is a middle ground between having your own baby and adoption that has yet to be accepted by society as ethical and acceptable.

Virginia Tech shooting

On 16th April 2007, the world was shocked when the news of Virginia Tech massacre—the deadliest single-perpetrator mass shooting in modern US history came to their knowledge. It had killed 33 people, including the perpetrator himself, Seung-Hui Cho. He had a history of incidents at the school, including allegations of stalking, referrals to counseling, and a 2005 declaration of mental illness by a Virginia special justice. No doubt, this might be the key reason that caused the tragedy as reported by most of the mass media. However, this will not happened if he does not have weapons with him, which are the two guns he used to shot the students, professors and himself.

Although the sale of firearms to permanent residents in Virginia is legal as long as the buyer shows proof of residency, Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment. A gun in the hands of an enraged or desperate individual could be a sure recipe of disaster or tragedy. In addition, Virginia Tech has a blanket ban on possession or storage of firearms on campus. However, this policy has been challenged, how can Cho brought in the guns and no one realizes it? All this can be prevented if the school has strong security enforcement. Besides, the accessibility of firearms in US should be re-examining to as the mass shooting reminded us once again how disturbingly common guns fatalities are in the US.

When the citizenship of the shooter became known, South Koreans expressed shock and a sense of public shame. South Korea’s ambassador to the US even asked the Koreans living in America to fast for repentance in apparent reference to fears of possible reprisal attacks against Koreans in US. A minister official expressed hope that the shooting would not stir up racial prejudice or confrontation. News reports noted that South Koreans seemed relieved that American news coverage of Cho focused not on his nationality but rather on his psychological problem.

Poverty

I believe that poverty may never be eliminated.

Referring to Sarup, he believes that a country with an unfavourable geography, or culture, or economy or polity is severely handicapped to make sufficient technological advances that increase the wealth and living standards of its people. In his example, he states that a poor country may import technology from others as poor countries are incapable of developing their own tech. Yet, acquisition of tech costs a lot, far more than a poor country can afford. Thus, a country in poverty will be trapped in a vicious cycle where they can acquire neither of the required resources. This is particularly true in countries that have a handicap in the first place. They either have insufficient natural resources, or are unable to produce products of significant value for trade. There is no available way to generate a higher income per capita without having enough money to start with. Even with aid, it would be difficult for countries to push out of the cycle, and this is proven by the condition of the world as it is now.

Sachs believes that poverty can be removed completely if a step by step approach is taken, such as that of providing mosquito nets in an attempt to stop malaria.
In my opinion it is a worthy solution worth contemplating but poverty is far too wide spread to stop in such a short time. Not all countries face malaria as a problem and providing such aid may do little to alleviate their condition. Furthermore, he points out that few countries actually do as they promise in aiding poor countries, however little the amount. Poverty is something to be eradicated over period of time. Consistent aid must be given until a country breaks free from the cycle of poverty.

I believe that there will always be poverty just as there are smart and less intelligent people. It is somewhat important that there is a balance of the rich and poor. However, we should always try to help the poor when we can.

Capital punishment

After reading both articles and giving this issue some thought, i would have to be for the death penalty. Both authors gave some interesting points worth considering but Becker's arguments stood better.

Becker was on the dot regarding the point that arguments on this issue revolve around deterrence. He states that taking one's lives is considered very wrong, even if that person may be a murderer, however, if the action of killing may save more lives in return for one, then it can be justified. Through his examples, he has proven that the death penalty is considerably terrifying and serves well as a deterrent. More often than not, murder victim are socially more valuable than murderers and if killing one may deter few others from attempting murder, then that is the way to go. Through his article, i feel that capital punishment when matched with the severity of the crime and implemented properly, serves as an effective measure in deterring murder. The death penalty is something horrendous, but i see no reason in removing it as it is capable of stopping murder. I choose the lesser of two evils.

Cassese states in his article points for and against capital punishment but he himself believes that the death penalty goes againsts human rights. In his article, he mentions that even if death penalties were to be abolished, much action must be taken along with it. He believes that inhuman living condition along with poor treatment in prisons is no better than being sent to the gallows and these should be changed. Which brings me to my point; Imprisonment and capital punishment are supposed to be deter one from committing crime. If criminals are not to be subjected to the death penalty and what awaits them is a prison which fervently defends their rights, i myself see no deterrance to committing a crime. Criminals could commit crimes, and treat imprisonment as a small price to pay for being caught. One might even attempt crime right after release knowing that only imprisonment awaits them.

Embracing otherhood

It has came to light that Singapore is actually housing a good amount of foreigners, more than one out of four people you see here a foreigner. This condition will undoubtedly cause some challenges to arise.

One of them would be to actually let the people of singapore accept this. As the article pointed out, people here do not seem to see this matter in a good way. It may be the fact that a large intake of foreign talent will take up opportunities that may otherwise go to locals. This may be jobs, residential areas and even education. However we rarely look at the fact that foreign talent need not only encompass high end talent. Most blue collar workers are included in the term "foreign talent". If we are to stop their entry, who would be the ones to build us houses, clean the streets and toilets. Are the people here willing to clean a toilet after JC education.

Another challenge we may possibly face is a less than united society. Foreigners who come in usually take time to assimilate completely into the society. As a country, we must show a united front so as to not be exploited by others. How can we effectively call ourselves one when a quarter is missing. Both sides should understand each other well and be less-prejudiced. Then can the 'foreigners' be integrated into our society and called a Singaporean.

Much like Malaysia, when Singapore tries to bring in foreigners, the country itself becomes extrememly multi racial. In Malaysia, there have been racial riots caused by sensitive issues regarding race. Since then, laws have been erected to prohibit one from even touching on these topics. I believe that Singapore has less restrictions as racist jokes are still heard here. Even i myself only truly understood the true extent of "racist jokes" here in Singapore. These small things disturb the unity of a society and if possible should be avoided.

Blood Coal

I was recently reading through an issue of Time depicting the Chinese coal miners. It is said that officially 5000 coal miners died last year doing thier job, unofficially nobody knows. Human-rights activist think that as many as 20000 miners die in accidents a year and this count does not include the thousands more of China's 5 million miners who die of lung affliction and diseases every year. The awful conditions of the industry has earned it a name, blood coal. Aptly named indeed.

This issue highlights an important issue faced by Beijing:the inability of the central government to get local authorities to follow orders. The clash is between the central government's desires and the local authorities' pressing economic needs. 99% of the time, local wins.

This is a frightening prospect in a country whose future depends on how the economic boom is dealt with. If China continues on this path, its air and water will becime even filthier with its workers-many who work in appalling conditions-will never enjoy the fruits of the economic growth. No matter how enlightened the central government may be, if they fail to bend the local authorities to their wishes, all is still lost. When Beijing announced a plan to force the closure of thousands of small mines, it was ignored and actively blocked. Local authorities see mines as major capital resources. These small mines a re often subcontracted to individuals and with over 17000 mines, supervision by authorities is non-existent.

To maximize profits, mine owners ramp up production levels beyond the sanctioned limit and employ more than the regulated amount of mines while neglecting safety equips and procedures. Local officials are often bribed to turn a blind eye to this and corpses have been known to be shipped to other provinces to escape detection.

These are challenges that the state does not yet know how to meet. So long as China economic grows at its current blistering pace, the countrt's thirst for coal will continue. However there is still hope for the miners as they believe that the central government will do all it can to protect miners.

God vs Science

Brought up an atheist, i have never really believed in god but when things go my way, i still call it a god-sent miracle. When taught of the Darwinian theory of evolution, i swallowed it all up and sincerely believe that a few million years ago my ancestors were monkeys. Yet, many do not see it as i do, believing the Genesis story. The debate over whether there is God in the first place has raged for aeons, and has since escalated to an unprescedented levels with scientific publications regarding this issue flooding the market. Time recently had a debate held at their office.

Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion" was invited over, along with Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993, also author of "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" It is very clear which side they are on. Many of us prefer to be neutral, we cheer on the advancements in science, but still be humble on the Sabbath. We wish to believe in MRIs and miracles, trying to get the best of both worlds.However, the two experts strongly believe that science and God can never coexist.

In the case of the creation of humans, science had the Darwinian theory while God had the Genesis story. Dawkins believes that the Darwinian theory does more than simply contradict the Genesis story. For many centuries, the strongest argument for God's existence was the argument from design : Living thigs so beautiful and elegant and seemingly purposeful that only an intelligent designer could have created. Darwin provided a simpler explanation in that everything was done incrementally over millions of years to achieve more elegance, more adaptive perfection.

Universal constants are argued upon and seen in a way that i would have never bothered to. Collins argues that the gravitational constant if even off by one in a hundred million million would have made the expansion preceding the Big Bang not to have happened in a fashion where life could exist. It is difficult to assume that this- our existence actually happened by chance.

Collins believes that God is outside of space and time and that everything that is currently unexplainable can be explained by God. Which actually makes things very arguable as Dawkins counters by arguing that God may be Martians gods or even aliens from Alpha Centauri and not Jesus.

Reading on, i can conclude that the debate could go on for quite a while if there were no time limit. It is impossible for me to comprehend some deeply engaging issues in this matter but being someone quite engaged in science, i do beleive that science may solve everything someday, but some people may think that that would have to be a miracle.

Commentary

Referring to miss angelin yeo's blog entry (http://www.angelinyeo.blogspot.com/) on freedom of expression, i would like to make a commentary of my own.

It is clear through her entry that she stands beside Szilagyi and her arguments, but i do believe that the scope of this 'freedom' we are talking about is too confined. It seems that freedom of expression has been limited only to the context of racial and sensitive issues. Not that i totally disagree with Angelin or Szilagyi for that matter, but actually removing freedom of expression just based upon this is insufficient. One may argue that words out of place can cause catastrophes but that is what laws are for. Freedom of expression isnt without limitations.

Another point i would like to raise is that, Szilagyi may detest too much of media freedom of speech, but she still believes in having this right. Her debate is actually on whether to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens or to protect the collective interests of society? It is said to be impossible to achieve both as too much of one leads to the possible decline of the other.
In her last paragraph Angelin mentioned that the government is to enforce a limit to freedom of expression such that people do not overuse or misuse it but for that to happen, the limits must really be big limits, making the word "freedom" an overstatement. So i come to the conclusion where freedom of expression is something where you either take all of it, or nothing of it.

Szilagyi does make a point in her article, but in a all or nothing situation, i would pick all. Freedom of speech wasnt acquired overnight. There were times when people couldnt talk without permission. Let us not chuck it away.

Freedom of expression

Freedom of expression is regarded as the freedom to voice out opinions and views freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. Through his article on the imprisonment of David Irving for denial of holocaust, Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential in any democracy and that with its absence, human progress will always come to a stand still. Freedom of expression, in his opinion, is for everyone to be allowed to say what they believe to be false, even if many find it offensive.

On the other end of the argument stands Szilagyi, who believes that it is more important to protect the collective interests in society. She suggests that the press should focus more on their responsibility in society, and not solely on freedom as the media do not alone, decide how their messages are interpreted.

Coming back to Singapore, where there is an abundance of cultures and religions, freedom of expression is going on in everyday life. I believe that here, freedom of speech should be allowed to run free within the limitations of the law. It is unavoidable that with the presence of this freedom, many may be offended but in the past, progress was often impeded due to lack of freedom of speech. Such was the case when Galileo tried to prove to the world that the sun was the middle of the solar system, contradicting theories from the Roman Catholic. It seems that progress will always come to a stand still as mentioned by Singer if people are not granted sufficient freedom to break out from what is regarded as "correct".

One may argue that excessive freedom will bring about chaotic occurences but freedom is not without its limits. Free speech is restricted if it was likely to incite imminent lawless action, libel and obscenity.

Szilagyi made a good point where messages from the media may undergo various manipulation and interpretation to serve political agendas thus generating a misusage of freedom of expression. However, if we are to limit ourselves to a fixed content of what can be said and what cannot be misused, the media is considered to be telling us what can be told and not everything that should be told. Therefore, i believe that Singapore should adopt freedom of expression that is not constricted by responsiblity.

Punishment

I believe that effective law and order comes with effective punishment as it is the back bone in justice. Punishment is already synonimous with any form of our law and order , all around the world. It can come in the form of capital punishment, prison, caning and to some extent torture. So what does punishment serve as in this world? Skhould it be there or not?


Firstly of course as a wonderful deterrent. Punishment aims to keep people from turning to criminals through fear of it. The death penalty plays on people's innate fear of death to work effectively. Punishment can be considered some form of retribution. An eye for an eye as they call it. Crimes they have commited are done unto them in the form of punishment to return what they hav done. This serves to appease victims of crimes and allow them to let go of what has been done to them. Lastly, it serves as a security measure to keep wrong doers off the streets and away from the innocent, whether through prison or elimination, the concept holds true.

The fact that punishment is needed in law and order is undisputed, for now. However the real issue is whether ANY punishment is justified in the name of law. Capital punishment reins supreme in this issue. Long has a debate raged on whether any crime in this world deserves death. Death is viewed so negatively as it is a terrible crime. However in my opinion, capital punishment will still rein supreme as the best deterrent and retribution for all. Instead of asking why someone is sentenced to death, do ask why not? Those sentenced to death are those who themselves have commited a crime that has destroyed many lives, whether through the murder of loves ones, or mental and psychological scars. So why is it wrong to take life of one who has taken many in order to stop many more from getting hurt?

Another point to take would be the presence of interesting yet seemingly effective punishmenes. There are those who believe that dipping your hand into a pot of boiling oil can prove your innocence, or your guilt. Most of us will squeal at the thought of it, but yet there are those who believe in its amazing powers. So the question is, does what the punishment do actually justify the fact that us humans are putting faith in oil 450C hot? Hmmmm i would say yes and no. Yes by the fact that if it works, use it. No by the fact that we are civilised creatures, jury maybe, but oil, never.

In conclusion, i believe that such an extensive topic is not for me to discuss. But, i do know that punishment is needed in society, as we have yet to achieve a model society where none is reequired

Money

I recently read an article in ST and found it extremely amusing. It was entitled " Why the rich act like idiots". Apparently, the overly rich in the world has done a few less than intelligent actions that have been made public.

The one such incident was someone driving a nice and glossy Ferrari Enzo into the wall and happily walked away unhurt as if nothing happened. I suppose that they have yet to understand that the car is about 1000 times the monthly salary of say, an office worker. So that would make out to about 80 or so years worth of salary, totally impossible for him to acquire in his lifetime. But then again, i have asked many a wealthy friend why they actually spend like that. Same answer : They can. Really, it is not about the reason they spend, usually it is because they can.

Aside from the obvious reason of being a status symbol, i dont see a point to getting a mansion so big where it is impossible to make full use of it. Besides, there is a certain point where enough is enough and more money practically wont make a difference, unless you enjoy ramming Enzos into the wall. However, their strongest defence would be that it is their money and they can do anything about it. So calling them idiots is a very big insult. This is the same as you having lots of water and pouring it in a hole and calling it a pool. I suppose this results from having too much of something.

It is also said that too much money can go to your head. In some sense it can be true. But i dont see Bill Gates acting silly. Probably the word to use is eccentric. Money may make someone act so but only in amounts that we probably cannot imagine. Having mad money in life is a do or dont thing. No in between. Either you have endless cascades of it or you dont. So eccentricity can therefore be a rare attribute acquired by an elite few, and not exactly a bad thing. Variety once in a while is good.

Money is a wonderful thing to have, but let us not let that get to our head. Wealth is great, but it isnt the only great thing in life.

Nuclear Warfare

The United States, with assistance from the UK and Canada, designed and built the first atomic bombs under the "Manhattan Project". This pretty much started the ball rolling for development of more powerful nuclear weapons. Some incidents in which nuclear weaponry have been employed was during World War 2 where the nuclear bombs "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" detonated respectively over the skies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is estimated that 220000 people died in both bombings. Such was the power of nuclear weaponry and opened the eyes of people around the world to fear it.

Thus from this, nuclear warfare was born. It truly puzzles me that humans pursue the development of weapons that could pretty much destroy the Earth and everyone on it. During the Cold War, the United States and the USSR increased their nuclear stockpile drastically, letting it serve as nuclear deterrence. The goal to this was of course to achieve second strike status - the ability to respond to a nuclear attack with some of its own, and subsequently strive to acquire first strike status, where one is in a position to destroy an enemy's nuclear arsenal before they even retaliate. During the peak of the Cold War, there was more that enough nuclear weapons to blast the Earth to oblivion, yet more was made and many still coming.

The use of nuclear if at all should be carefully debated upon, such that lives are not lost withiout reason. In the case of the Japan bombing, nuclear attacks were preferred as it was argued that many lives would be lost in an invasion. Furthermore, Japan might not surrender without sufficient military pressure. However, many argue that the bombings were immoral as many innocent civilains were killed and the attacks were unnecessary for tactical and military reasons. Amidst all the arguements, none can prove each other wrong; what is done is done. No one would have known the outcome if the United States were to abort the bombing.

Due to the immense power of nuclear weapons, laws have been imposed so as to limit the use and creation of such weapons. Nuclear-weapon-free zones have been declared all over the world and weapons developtment is prohibited through signing of treaties. As recently as 2006 a Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone was established amongst the former Soviet republics of Central Asia prohibiting nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are not the pinnacle in military might, with the advent of fusion or hydrogen bombs, the world may very well be heading towards a superweapons war. Much care must be taken or regret we will over our actions.

I read with interest with regards to the recent construction of the "Creationism" museum – a museum in Cincinnati USA which showcases the evidence for creationism in an attempt to provide a more balanced account on the origin of species. "Now where have I heard such a story before?" I asked myself. "Probably in 1001 Arabian Nights", my cynical side remarked. The reality is, this "war" has gone on for centuries. From the incarceration of Galileo Galilei in the Middle Ages to the recent banning of Darwinism in American Schools, this war is far from new, and equally far from over.
Science and religion has always been mutually exclusive, made worse by the centuries of prosecution from those who oppose science. In the past, persecution has been the form of denial through the creation of non-violable dogmas. Excerpts from an ancient tome bandied about as the absolute truth and any thing not in accordance with it must automatically be false. Now, with time, it has progressed to lobbying and political pressure on the educational system and as the "creationism" museum will attest to – the use of science in religion.
Science has always been the unbiased study of nature. The key to science is to never stop questioning, to ask, to seek and to answer. Theories in science are rarely carved in stone. It can be verified over and over again through experiments. Old theories are discarded as new one emerges. Progress is readily observable, from the likes of the gramophone to the current shiny ipods so many of us own.
Religion on the other hand, as its synonym suggests, depends on faith. And from sayings such as "leap of faith, have some faith etc", it is easily deducible that faith is the unquestionable belief in a concept or thing regardless of the nature of its truth. We must believe that God created this world; we must believe that the Red sea once existed as two entities and that lepers were cured and feet once trod on the surface of body of liquid water. Faith is the only ingredient required – no more, no less.
Back to the soon to be functional Creationism Museum, this museum shall fly in the face of the "truth" it so yearns to protect. Faith does not need evidence, it does not need proof. Worst of all, it does not need a concrete monument displaying evidence that mainstream science has not validated. Monuments and the money funding it cannot constitute evidence, constant experimentation and questioning does. It is the ultimate tragedy - attempting to validate faith thru science, for both cannot co-exist. Forcing this unholy union leads only to the loss of integrity on both sides, and while new scientific theories can emerge to replace the old, the same thing cannot be said about the other.

The optimist sees the doughnut, the pessimist sees the hole

"The optimist sees the doughnut, the pessimist sees the hole". All too often, we hear such quotes regarding optimism and pessimism. It is interesting to note that optimism is often praised and extolled as a virtue whereas pessimism is seen as something to be avoided. This suggests that one should be as optimistic as they possibly could and this is in itself a good thing. I find this view rather one sided and ignores the fact that optimism and pessimism sits on either end of a single spectrum. Optimism should not be seen as a virtue in itself because in actual fact it is not. Pure optimism is recklessness and in psychiatry this can be termed mania. The world is not a fairy tale and though we very much like it to, it is not full of good. There is evil everywhere and one cannot be too careful. Applying the same reasoning, pure pessimism ignores the good that potentially exist and hinders appreciation of the beauty the world has to offer.
Thus, saying that the optimist seeing the doughnut and the pessimist seeing the hole is not entirely accurate. One must realize that a doughnut without the centre hole is just a circular bun whereas a hole without the surrounding pastry, is just empty space. It is only through a measure of both qualities shall we be capable of seeing a doughnut for what it is. Optimism is not a virtue, it is a characteristic which needs to be balanced by some measure of pessimism. To pursue one without the other is unbalanced.
It is said that one needs to hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I agree. This concept mixes optimism with pessimism. We cannot thrive without having both. Ultimately, half full, half empty, doughnut or hole, one cannot exist without the other. It is only with both that one can be complete. So next time, when someone asks if you are an optimist or pessimist, the answer should be neither. For all of us should be a pessimistic optimist or an optimistic pessimist, with the former replacing what we know as a pessimist and the latter the optimist. To be the extreme is to be insane.

Torture

The history of torture goes back to a long time ago. It can be considered one of the most effective ways in extracting information from anyone. As time progresses, torture is considered a cruel and uncivilized way to acquire information, even in the context of terrorists and criminals. But when the situation demands it, is it justifiable to perform it?

The issue of torture becomes apparent in the interrogation of al-Qaeda operatives. Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002. Among some notable techniques authorised are the ‘cold cell’ where prisoners are doused with cold water in a cell kept at 50 degrees and the infamous ‘water boarding’ where prisoners are tied head down on an inclined board and poured with water. Fear of drowning soon kicks in followed with instant pleas for the treatment to stop. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. There is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. Torture is considered bad interrogation, if it is bad enough, you can make people confess to anything at all. As is the case of Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, where he made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say that he did not intentionally misinform investigators, but instead wanted to please them.

However, in such conditions, there is one argument in favour of their use: time. In the early days of al-Qaeda captures, it was hoped that speeding confessions would result in the development of important operational knowledge in a timely fashion. Knowledge could save many more lives when used and applied properly and as such, can be considered morally right.

New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability?

The age of globalization also brings about the period of mass media where everyone is a click away. With the advent of the internet and introduction of web log or better known as “blog”, people have been given great abilities to express themselves but is this power too much to handle?

Blogging has truly been a major phenomenon in the last few years. Number of bloggers are staggering and still rising. However blogging is not limited to only authoring blogs and maintaining it but also to simultaneously transcribe events on television. Bloggers are free to express their opinions in their own personal space any way they wish with no interference. Comments given can be used constructively. But with their increasing numbers, who is to stop them from posting illegal, sensitive or propaganda through the net. Even with government censorship, it would be a logistical nightmare to sift through loads of e-mails, blogs and websites brought about by this new media.
Furthermore with the presence of forces trying to fight back censorship of online materials, the very essence of stability is made more prone. Mindless propaganda, riots inducing sensitive messages can be circulated in the web for ages before officials can detect it. Through this perspective, new media is indeed a threat.

On the flip side, one can argue that people should have freedom of speech; however there are limitations to what we can say. New media has given great power to people of today but too much of it would be a big threat to stability. The situation now is constantly viewed from a one-sided perspective resulting in imbalance. Over censorship would defeat the purpose of blogging in the first place while having non-existent censorship would mean that bloggers have no limit to what they can write. Therefore there is a need for greater censorshipto come after efforts are done to improve freedom of speech to remove them. . Proportionate amounts of freedom and censorship would guarantee some equilibrium.

The media has always been tasked with bringing in news and information to the masses but can they truly be trusted in conveying the truth and only the truth?

The accuracy and reliability of the media is greatly influenced by many factors and the biggest among them would have to be profit. In the world of media, where possible contenders are many, companies tend to attempt in getting an edge or advantage over competitors. This in turn leads to news being altered or manufactured in order to make them potentially more interesting. Interviews and news clips are often edited before being aired in an effort to raise ratings and profit. This in turn seriously compromises the truth of news that the public will eventually come to view.

Prejudice over certain matters can severely alter the outcome of news regarding a certain matter. The media can certainly be seen as a prejudiced group as news is often reported in a one-sided matter where the other side has no say in the matter. In the recent Iraq war, pro-war events and interviews were seen to flood the American media while news regarding fallen soldiers and dying civilians were nowhere to be seen. How is the public expected to understand the true scale of the war when they are given such information? The masses may believe the war has ended well when they are viewing the celebration of President Bush on an aircraft carrier but will they still if they viewed rows of coffin draped in American flags being sent back?

Trust in media has apparently gone up in a recent poll by BBC but hopefully the trust is well placed and carefully considered.

Influential person

Ang Lee can be considered a hero in the entertainment world having made such a big splash in this field. His movies have been watched by millions world wide and he is still going strong. Among them like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, a Chinese-language movie, mesmerized Western audiences in 2000 and his more recent film, Brokeback Mountain, yet another unimaginable success, both with critics and audiences, he captivated the entire world and reached the pinnacle of moviemaking.

Director Ang Lee’s great influence in this field comes from his ability to create great cross-cultural masterpieces. His Taiwanese upbringing, which kept him deeply rooted in the Chinese way of being and living, combined with his well-informed understanding of Western filmmaking techniques have allowed him to speak to the east and the west in a way no other director has. Ang Lee has the ability to erase all cultural lines and have its profundity understood at a universal level. The characters that he creates are able to draw in an audience no matter what language they speak.

Through the views of younger film makers and actors, Ang Lee can be of utmost influence. Actor Zhang Ziyi was one of them who was touched by him. Being only 20 and having only took part in one movie, director Ang Lee still gave Zhang Ziyi a chance in his movie Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. He understood what Zhang was capable of and was willing to allow her a go at it. This was the act that made Ang Lee so influential in his field and he probably did not regret his choice at all.

Ang Lee is someone who never limits himself. We would still see many great things from him to come.