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.