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

Same-sex marriage, or homosexual marriages, would definately be a practical consideration in this age of globalisation due to a variety of reasons. The most important one would undoubtly be allowing homosexuals the right that have already been given to the rest of the population since ages past: the right to form a genuine, dignified, and an officially state-recognised family.

In the age of globalisation today, while more religious-inclined muslim and christian nations take more conservative approaches towards the subject of homosexuality, the more devloped countries today with significantly more open and liberal societies have come to recognise the value of the 'pink dollar', the metaphoric term used to describe the economic value of homosexuals, further emphasised by the claim that homosexuals are superior in terms of creativity and providing ideas or solutions. This claim may not be completely baseless, as seen from the tendency of finding large percentage of homosexuals in the entertainment and creative industries (although this may probably be subtly supported by homosexuals themselves to increase their chances of being accepted by society). Thus, legalising same-sex marriages, homosexuals would be attracted to migrate into the country to enjoy these rights instead of continuing to stay in their respective countries and either face discrimination or be denied marriage rights. Countries that pass these laws can also prevent existing homosexuals from leaving the country, thus helping to curb the much dreaded 'brain drain' where highly educated and skilled individuals leave their own country for another after their training, wasting their original country's resources into training them.

Another major point supporting homosexual marriage would be the human rights of these homosexuals themselves. Although many countries has come to recognised the economic potential of homosexuals (as my first point explained) and try to attract them into working in the country, areas regarding legalising marriage and the sexual activity of homosexuals continue to be ignored. However, what countries don't realise - with one good example being Singapore - is that although they may open the economic opportunities for these homosexuals and allow them to integrate into society somewhat comfortably, they may provide the monetary requirements of these people but the sexual and family needs of homosexuals continue to not be met. For homosexuals to truely be accepted into society, countries must learn to meet all of their basic needs, including their need to form families and sex. Surely such a response in thanks for the 'pink dollar' these homosexuals bring in to contribute to economic growth isn't too much of a request! These rights they desire are not 'special' in any case, but simply the same rights given to everyone else - albeit in a slightly different context.

One major factor against homosexual marriages would be the obvious inability to procreate - one of the originally most important purpose of a marriage traditionally. While many claim that adopting other children might be a solution (and it IS on an individual scale), on a macro level the problem remains completely unsolved as there are effectively no new offspring being produced - only a redistribution of children to new guardians. Should homosexual marriage be legalised and more and more such marriages become made - the possibility of the entire population dying out in the long run due to a lack of newborns becomes startlingly real! Yet one should note that hetrosexual marriages too does not guarentee babies, as can be seen from the rising trend of "double income with no kids" coupls in the devloped and more affluent societies. Also, banning homosexual marriages doesn't necessarily (if at all) equate to these homosexuals getting married with the opposite sex and producing offspring. Instead, they are likely to remain 'domestic partners' and continue to be childless. The arguement that legalising homosexual marriages would encourage people to turn homosexuals and thus further worsen the low birth rate problem can easily be dismissed, as sexual orientation has long been proven to be a genetic issue - and certainly no one will 'want' to turn homosexual given the general disapproval and discrimination from society.

Thus, same-sex marriages are definately a practical consideration in this age of globalisation. While this may turn off many, especially people more traditionally inclined or religious, should one take a closer look at the various disadvantages and benefits, one will tend to realise that the boons outweigh the banes by a fair amount, and most countries would certainly stand to gain by accepting these homosexuals and giving them the rights that they long for.

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle) Do you agree?

I would disagree to the statement, as revolution and crime are not only caused by poverty (although it is undeniable that poverty can lead to them), but also a variety of other reasons including greed, hate, or by the need for a political reform. Thus, to say that poverty is the 'mother of revolution and crime' would be incorrect as that statement can only stand if it is the sole reason.

There are many reasons for revolution, but history has shown that the most significant reason would be the need for political reforms. Cases such as in Germany with Hitler or in Russia with the Tsar all rose due to the general population being so unhappy with the rule of the moarchy or government that they planned a revolution to take over and remove incapable or unpopular leaders from the seats of authority. Although poverty among the people might be one of the reasons why there was the need for political reforms, it is merely one of many and therefore cannot be regarded as the root problem. For example in Germany's case, Hitler led a revolution through the unhappiness brought about by unemployment and war instead of simply the poverty of the people.

Another reason for revolutions would be for power and/or a dynastical ambition. This is seen predominantly in ancient China where people often planned revolutions against the Emperor for the sake of power and in hope that they would in turn become the Emperor and leave the empire to his descendents after they pass away. Thus, pure greed is also another reason why people plan revolutions even in cases where no reform is need. One should note that in such cases, the widespread chaos and instability caused cannot never be justified.

Crime, too, has many reasons for being committed. Once again, one cannot deny that poverty can lead to people committing crimes in order to survive, yet to assume that this is the primary reason would be naive. There are a multitude of reasons crimes are committed, with hate, lust, greed and more among the list.

One reason why crimes are committed is simply hate. Murders, kidnaps, and even robberies can be committed due to hate that can be based on a personal level or even due to the victim's race, religion or beliefs. Lust is another factor that can lead to crime, namely that of rape or molestation. Greed can also lead to people attempting robberies or kidnaps even if they aren't living in poverty as they may desire great wealth and deem their current financial situation not satisfying. Thus, there are multiple reasons as to why crimes are being committed.

Of course, as the statement suggests, poverty can lead to crimes being committed. People that are unable to even meet the basic requirements for a suitable standard of living naturally turn desperate and may turn to crime in order to earn the money needed to stay alive and feed one's family. In such cases, these people may turn to peddling drugs or selling pirated goods in order to get by.

In conclusion, to claim that the sole and/or primary reason that revolutions and crimes occur is due to poverty would be a fairly wrong statement, as it fails to recognise that although poverty plays a part, there are countless other factors worth considering. As such, my stand once again would be that i disagree to this statement by a fair extent.

Freedom of expression or Social responsibility?

In the multi-racial society of Singapore, we often face the dillemma of the choice between the freedom of expression and social responsibility. The "freedom of expression" is basically everyone's right to express opinions and thoughts without any form of hinderance. It is the foundation of democracy that declares all humans equal and with equal rights starting right from the freedom of speech. Social responsibility, however, is restricting one's actions to avoid social conflicts from arising in order to keep peace in society. These two values are both extremely important but will inevitably rise into conflict - which should be given more importance than the other?

The freedom of expression originated as the first amendment in the US and is one of the most basic democratic rights of people as it is believed that for a man to be free, one of the first things he is allowed to do must be to speak liberally. However, when that man begins to speak of things that offends others and create anger among different groups of people, should he still be allowed to say them? While many may feel that it would be wise to ban such speech in order to keep peace in society, this thought may not be exactly correct. If the state was to ban unpopular speeches (eg. "indians are smelly" would be v unpopular among indians) and only allow popular speeches, would use would this 'right' of expression have? Popular speeches support by majorities certainly require no such protection. This entire 'right' would break down and become useless if the state used such an approach.

Yet, the issue of social responsiblity cannot be denied, especially in a multi-racial society like Singapore where groups of different races live side by side with each other. Should a full-scale conflict break out between races, the country would eventually fall into ruins. Thus, it becomes important to protect the peace by preventing provoactive speech from being spread through the mass media. This, therefore, is the paternalistic and pragmatist approach that Singapore uses. The conflict between the opposing values of freedom of expression and social responsibility becomes startling clear when the consequence of social conflict in tiny Singapore is widespread destruction as shown from previous events in our country's history. Thus, the Singapore government's strong measures to punish any irresponsible speech is strongly justified.

One should note, however, that this justification will soon no longer be good enough. As society advances and matures, the general public beings to understand that they cannot be swayed merely by irresponsible speech due to the heavy consequences. They also mature in thought and will no longer be easily influenced by others. Slowly, but steadily, the Singapore government must understand that they have to correct this balance and relax its laws in order to allow the people to enjoy geniune freedom.




(who is Singer and Szilagyi?? i lost those papers so i didnt write abt'em)

The Death Penalty isn't a deterrent, it is murder. Do you agree?

I do not agree with this statement to a fair extent as i believe that the death penalty is a justified and suitable deterrent in order to keep the crime rate down, especially organized ones.

While some crimes may be done on impulse, others are well organized and prepared beforehand. The death penalty - the ultimate price one can pay - will thus deter these potential criminals by the serious consequences they will have to face upon doing the crime. Thus, through this potential threat, crimes will be discouraged to a fair extent as people would be afraid of getting the death penalty if they were caught. This prevention indirectly saves a lot of money and lives, and it is also economically cheaper to kill criminals instead of jailing them for life, thus the death penalty is a very economically friendly method for governments to control crime and criminals. This concides perfectly with the pragmatist approach the Singapore government tend to use.

However, there are situations where the death penalty is used as a form of revenge, thus making it morally unethical. However, is it totally wrong for the families of victims to feel a sense of injustice and the need for revenge? They should be given this right - but should not have the final decision in their hands. Therefore it is important to pick a Judge or jury made up of people that are not prejudiced or emotionally driven.

Certain cases also cause great suffering to the criminal before he dies and thus is regarded as inhumane, especially in certain methods such as the poison gas chamber. Yet, they fail to compare death to lifetime imprisonment where the criminal spends his entire life devoid of freedom. It may be subjective, but a fair majority may feel death might actually be the easier way out. The process might be ugly, yet the pain is only momentarily as compared to lifelong torment.

Others claim that no one has the right to play god - no one should be able to decide who should live and who should die. Yet, would they rather letting the criminal go free and await his just deserts god will give him? This not only would be unfair but it also gives the chance for the criminal to harm more people. If no one has the right to kill another - then no one should have the right to imprison another either.

Therefore, i feel that the death penalty is a fair detterent to protect society against crime - especially organized ones as they would take the full punishment into consideration and thus would be intimidated, hopefully persuading them to not commit the crime. Mistakes might occur in deciding if a person is guilty and deserving of the death penalty, or they also may happen should the process of the death penalty have a mistake and cause the criminal to suffer pain, but this is a small factor when compared to the benefits: a extremely strong detterent and a way to mete out justice to the victims. No one denys the death penalty kills criminals, but no one should overlook the number of lives and dollars indirectly saved through it.

the merits and demerits of censorship and if it is neccessary

In my opinon, censorship should be used and is neccessary as it has many positive points.

One reason why censorship is neccessary as it protects our youth against negative social habits such as drinking, a pormiscuous sexual lifestyle, smoking, drugs and gangsterism, among other undesireable values. Censorship is vital in protecting our youth who are still not mature enough to watch these without becoming negatively influenced and learning the wrong social values.

Censorship of advertisements can also help steer the economy from luxery goods to capital goods and thus make it more productive, especially to a young one. For example, by censoring beauty advertisements and promoting other ones such as for homes, people will be encouraged to own homes instead of going for plastic sugery. This home they have allows them to have capital that for example can be used to get loans from banks. Censoring advertisements in the medical and law field also ensures that costs are kept down so that consumers are paying not for the image put on television but rather for the service instead.

However, there are exceptions to this. Censorship should never be used for political control or propoganda. One example would be in N. Korea now, the only dictatorship left in the world, where people are not allowed to get any news of the outside world. Other examples would be Germany or China in the past during the time of Hitler and Mao Zedong respectively.

Thus, censorship is neccessary except only in certain exceptions, mainly to protect our youth and to steer the economy.

Response to "spilling blood with oil in Iraq"

I learnt that what the media reports may not be true as they can be manipulated into presenting wrong information for the political purposes. The article is a good example of this.

The article, "Spilling Blood with Oil in Iraq", shows one example of this manipulation as it clearly aims to dissuade the reader from supporting the war on iraq. Examples of this would be "After just 18 days, the US invasion destroyed more of the country that Saddam Hussien ever did in more than 20 years." This sentence alone shows that the author is strongly against the war, as he immediately disclaims one of the main justification of the war on iraq: to liberate the people from Saddam.

However, the article, although one-sided, has its positive points as well. It shows us how the media was used in a political battle to gather support for the Iraq war, such as how "Colin Powell (secretary of state) accused Iraq of planning to use chemical weapons" and that US officials claimed that some US PoWs were executed when no such thing seemed to had happened.

In conclusion, one should keep an open mind and not be too easily influenced by what he reads or sees on television. Having access to many different forms and sources of media allows one to maintain a better understanding of the situations as well.