Sunday, August 14, 2011
Can Justice and Mercy Co-exist?
I feel that Mercy and Justice can co-exist, unlike what Portia claims in the Merchant of Venice. What Portia said was not true, and she only said that so as to persuade Shylock to forgive Antonio and give the judge more reason to support Antonio. If we look at the trial from a neutral’s perspective, what Portia did was unfair and although was because of mercy, it had no justice.
If this trial were to be judged entirely on justice and mercy, Antonio would have to give the pound of flesh to Shylock, in which the latter was in the right.
First of all, Antonio agreed to the bond and should not be pleading for forgiveness just because he wants to protect his life.
Secondly, Shylock has been insulted by Antonio before and if Shylock were to get justice, Antonio would have to be punished either way. Justice and mercy can co-exist together whenever judging a crime or sin or anything at all.
Justice can exist at all times, but there are a number of factors that determine whether mercy can exist. For example, the severity of the crime.
For example, if a boy steals something from a shop, he should be punished based on justice. But through mercy, he can have his punishment lightened, and instead of going to jail, can just be imposed with a fine. But if the crime committed is much heavier, such as murder, then it is up to the victim’s family to decide on the mercy.
This factor would be the something like the decision of the victim’s family. Another factor would be the intention of the crime. For example, if someone wants to help another person but ends up committing a crime, he should be forgiven based on mercy, although this act does not fully uphold justice.
This factor is related to the factor of the ‘committer’s past history’. If someone who has never committed a crime before is accused, he should be forgiven based on mercy and if the evidence is supporting him. However, if someone like a serial killer is suddenly accused of killing someone, yet only some evidence points to him, he should be punished if not jailed, based on justice and modern intelligence and a little bit of mercy.
The final factor would be the committer’s relation to the victim. If a stranger kills a person, the committer would most likely be guilty. However, if someone kills a close relative suddenly for no reason, he should be interrogated and put to jail or this case should be taken to court instead of immediately punishing the committer.
In conclusion, I feel that justice and mercy can co-exist, but there would be a balance between justice and mercy, and that they must be based on the above factors or more.
Do you think that Shakespeare is biased in terms of the portrayal of the main characters in The Merchant of Venice?
Do you think that Shakespeare is biased in terms of the portrayal of the main characters in The Merchant of Venice?
I feel that Shakespeare is not biased in terms of the portrayal of the main characters in the Merchant of Venice. While he portrayed Shylock as a mean, cruel and greedy Jew who was out for Antonio’s blood, he gave adequate reason to explain why Shylock had this personality, as Antonio was racist towards him and personally insulted him before. Jessica, Shylock’s daughter, who is also a Jew, is unlike Shylock, and is even ashamed of being his son and vows not to turn out like her full-of-hatred father. Antonio, seems like a decent man at the start of the book but later, is revealed by shylock to be a racist Christian who looks down on shylock and insults him with hurtful remarks. Thus, based on the saying that “nobody is perfect”, I feel that Shakespeare is not biased in terms of the portrayal of the main characters in M.O.V. as he shows both the positive and negatives sides of the characters.
I feel that Shakespeare is not biased in terms of the portrayal of the main characters in the Merchant of Venice. While he portrayed Shylock as a mean, cruel and greedy Jew who was out for Antonio’s blood, he gave adequate reason to explain why Shylock had this personality, as Antonio was racist towards him and personally insulted him before. Jessica, Shylock’s daughter, who is also a Jew, is unlike Shylock, and is even ashamed of being his son and vows not to turn out like her full-of-hatred father. Antonio, seems like a decent man at the start of the book but later, is revealed by shylock to be a racist Christian who looks down on shylock and insults him with hurtful remarks. Thus, based on the saying that “nobody is perfect”, I feel that Shakespeare is not biased in terms of the portrayal of the main characters in M.O.V. as he shows both the positive and negatives sides of the characters.
Term 3 Week 4 (Blogging Assignment)
You are required to respond to one of the questions in the Anti-Semitism handout. The question is as follows:
What do you think is Shakespeare's intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice? Support your opinion with examples.
I think Shakespeare’s intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice was to reveal the racism towards Jews and hopefully give the people in his time reason to stop being racist against the latter, with Shylock representing the Jew in his time.
Shylock is supposedly the antagonist in M.OV, yet his hatred and ruthlessness towards Antonio is understandable if viewed from a neutral’s perspective.
Shakespeare makes Shylock seem like a cruel, evil, greedy and money-minded Jew who is out for Antonio’s blood and his pound of flesh, yet also shows Shylock’s weaker side, the reason for his hatred towards Antonio.
Shylock explains in some parts of the book, that he hates Antonio as Antonio has personally insulted him several times just because Shylock is a Jew, such as calling Shylock a “devil” and a “cut-throat dog”, criticizing Shylock for lending money at interest and lending out money without charging interest himself so as to reduce Shylock’s profits. Antonio also hates Jews.
This is why Shylock hates Antonio so much, and when Antonio is out of money buts wants to help Bassanio woo Portia, Shylock seizes this opportunity to get revenge against Antonio, and lends Antonio a loan on the condition that if he is unable to return the money on time, Shylock has the right to cut off a pound of flesh from Antonio’s chest, near his heart, knowing that Antonio definitely would not be able to return the money on time as his ships are facing the dangers at sea.
Although Shylock may seem cruel and bloodthirsty in this scene, wanting to torture and kill Antonio by cutting off a pound of flesh from Antonio’s chest, he has understandable to do so as he has suffered the racism of being a Jew, especially after Antonio repeatedly insulted him personally.
Later on in the book, in the trial, Shylock again, faces unfairness as Portia persuades him to forgive Antonio and persuades the judge to decide based on mercy and not justice, which is not actually fair towards Shylock but is allowed in this trial as the judge too, wants Shylock to forgive Antonio, and even pleads for this indirectly.
In the end, Shylock faces unfairness once again as he did not managed to get that one-pound of flesh off Antonio’s chest.
What do you think is Shakespeare's intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice? Support your opinion with examples.
I think Shakespeare’s intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice was to reveal the racism towards Jews and hopefully give the people in his time reason to stop being racist against the latter, with Shylock representing the Jew in his time.
Shylock is supposedly the antagonist in M.OV, yet his hatred and ruthlessness towards Antonio is understandable if viewed from a neutral’s perspective.
Shakespeare makes Shylock seem like a cruel, evil, greedy and money-minded Jew who is out for Antonio’s blood and his pound of flesh, yet also shows Shylock’s weaker side, the reason for his hatred towards Antonio.
Shylock explains in some parts of the book, that he hates Antonio as Antonio has personally insulted him several times just because Shylock is a Jew, such as calling Shylock a “devil” and a “cut-throat dog”, criticizing Shylock for lending money at interest and lending out money without charging interest himself so as to reduce Shylock’s profits. Antonio also hates Jews.
This is why Shylock hates Antonio so much, and when Antonio is out of money buts wants to help Bassanio woo Portia, Shylock seizes this opportunity to get revenge against Antonio, and lends Antonio a loan on the condition that if he is unable to return the money on time, Shylock has the right to cut off a pound of flesh from Antonio’s chest, near his heart, knowing that Antonio definitely would not be able to return the money on time as his ships are facing the dangers at sea.
Although Shylock may seem cruel and bloodthirsty in this scene, wanting to torture and kill Antonio by cutting off a pound of flesh from Antonio’s chest, he has understandable to do so as he has suffered the racism of being a Jew, especially after Antonio repeatedly insulted him personally.
Later on in the book, in the trial, Shylock again, faces unfairness as Portia persuades him to forgive Antonio and persuades the judge to decide based on mercy and not justice, which is not actually fair towards Shylock but is allowed in this trial as the judge too, wants Shylock to forgive Antonio, and even pleads for this indirectly.
In the end, Shylock faces unfairness once again as he did not managed to get that one-pound of flesh off Antonio’s chest.
Term 3 Week 4 (Blogging Assignment)
Read the following Newsweek article, How to Raise a Global Kid, byLisa Miller (July 18, 2011)
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/17/american-kids-immersed-in-chinese-asian-education.print.html
What is the main argument Jim Rogers is trying to make in this article? Do you agree with his argument? Justify.
Jim Roger’s main argument is that parents should not focus so much on raising their children up to be "brave, curious, hardworking, and compassionate" but rather raise them up and teach them to be “Global kids” who are able to view things with a global perspective, and are able to reach out to people of all languages.
He uses his daughter as an example, who is a blonde American who knows how to speak mandarin and understands the need for it, saying that it would make her “better and smarter.”
As China is becoming the world’s powerhouse in the 21st century’s economy and the many years to come, Jim Rogers and many other Americans are making their children learn the Chinese language and learning it themselves so as to be able to communicate with the Chinese if they ever have the opportunity to do business with them in the future. Some Americans, like Jim Rogers, deliberately employ Asian nannies so as to let their children naturally grow up speaking mandarin in ‘mandarin-speaking environment”.
Asia too, not only China, is rising up in the world. Countries like Japan, Korea, and even Singapore, are advancing in technology, business, service and many other fields. Jim Rogers and some other Americans can see this, although most Americans are still so arrogant that they don’t realize Asia is catching up with America, if not already overtaken them. Jim Rogers stated that, “ We think we’re (America) the world leader. But we’re not.” recognizing that America may no longer be or is already no longer the world’s strongest country, after Asia has caught up.
I agree with his argument. Even as a student, I can see that China is rising up in the world’s economy, advancing in technology, business, and many other fields, overtaking many European countries and maybe even America. Japan has also become one of the most advanced countries in the world. Japan is well known for its peoples’ high degree of discipline and politeness, and is now probably the best in the world in technology. China is rapidly urbanizing too, transforming rural villages into modern cities where everyone is rushing and working hard. As we can see from the article “How to raise a Global Kid” and many other real life examples, Asia is rapidly growing stronger and beginning to dominate the world’s economy and thus more Americas are seeing the need for their younger generation to learn mandarin so as to be able to communicate and work with the Asians in the near future.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/17/american-kids-immersed-in-chinese-asian-education.print.html
What is the main argument Jim Rogers is trying to make in this article? Do you agree with his argument? Justify.
Jim Roger’s main argument is that parents should not focus so much on raising their children up to be "brave, curious, hardworking, and compassionate" but rather raise them up and teach them to be “Global kids” who are able to view things with a global perspective, and are able to reach out to people of all languages.
He uses his daughter as an example, who is a blonde American who knows how to speak mandarin and understands the need for it, saying that it would make her “better and smarter.”
As China is becoming the world’s powerhouse in the 21st century’s economy and the many years to come, Jim Rogers and many other Americans are making their children learn the Chinese language and learning it themselves so as to be able to communicate with the Chinese if they ever have the opportunity to do business with them in the future. Some Americans, like Jim Rogers, deliberately employ Asian nannies so as to let their children naturally grow up speaking mandarin in ‘mandarin-speaking environment”.
Asia too, not only China, is rising up in the world. Countries like Japan, Korea, and even Singapore, are advancing in technology, business, service and many other fields. Jim Rogers and some other Americans can see this, although most Americans are still so arrogant that they don’t realize Asia is catching up with America, if not already overtaken them. Jim Rogers stated that, “ We think we’re (America) the world leader. But we’re not.” recognizing that America may no longer be or is already no longer the world’s strongest country, after Asia has caught up.
I agree with his argument. Even as a student, I can see that China is rising up in the world’s economy, advancing in technology, business, and many other fields, overtaking many European countries and maybe even America. Japan has also become one of the most advanced countries in the world. Japan is well known for its peoples’ high degree of discipline and politeness, and is now probably the best in the world in technology. China is rapidly urbanizing too, transforming rural villages into modern cities where everyone is rushing and working hard. As we can see from the article “How to raise a Global Kid” and many other real life examples, Asia is rapidly growing stronger and beginning to dominate the world’s economy and thus more Americas are seeing the need for their younger generation to learn mandarin so as to be able to communicate and work with the Asians in the near future.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Term 3 Week 3 (Blogging Assignment)
Read the following letter:
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/07/12/an-open-letter-to-the-education-minister-from-a-secondary-4-student/
(1) Comment on the Janalle Lee's view on the education system in Singapore.
(2) Is an ideal education possible? Explain.
Post your 500 word response on your blog.
LA blog assignment: Open Letter on Singapore’s education system.
(1) After reading her open letter to the Education Minister, I feel that Janelle Lee’s view on Singapore’s education system is very critical and unsupportive. She feels that the education system in Singapore is “stifling to a child’s inquisitive and curious mind”, training young children as students, not to question, against Albert Einstein’s principle of never losing curiosity and never stop questioning. She rants that the education system in Singapore is basically just forcing students to memorize facts over and over again to be able to ace the examinations easily and not learning and understanding facts that they have memorized. She uses the example of a question from her science examination paper, which states, “Why is carbon a non-metal?” saying that the correct answer would be because the scientific periodic table was divided between metals and non-metals by a staircase line, and that metals and non-metals took part in metallic bonding. However, she highlights a very crucial flaw in Singapore’s education systems with this example. Although the answer to the question was true, she was never taught and explained why carbon was actually a non-metal, but only forced to remember the above answer, not knowing the true reason. This may not seem important but it actually has a “wide-reaching” effect, as she mentions. If this is how the Singapore education is like, then its students are not actually really learning. Although education in Singapore does include accurate and true answers in subjects such as science, it often does not explain to the students its answers and emphasizes way too much on memorizing the answers.
(2) I feel that an ideal education is not possible, and will never be. So long as there is an education system, people, especially parents of students, would always find fault with it, and they are not necessarily wrong all the time. Different schools have different education programs, and there is no ‘best’ one. Even though the education system is very integrated nowadays, it is still not specific enough to suit each and every student’s own study methods. Some students who are not suited to the hectic integrated program would not be able to cope and forced to transfer schools. Too much integration in the education system in Singapore may also result in a backfire, students finding it too hard to cope with all the different subjects and requirements and becoming less and less motivated to do well. In conclusion, I feel that although the education system now in Singapore is still okay, there would never be an ideal education system. Even now, there are still people complaining about the current education system in Singapore.
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/07/12/an-open-letter-to-the-education-minister-from-a-secondary-4-student/
(1) Comment on the Janalle Lee's view on the education system in Singapore.
(2) Is an ideal education possible? Explain.
Post your 500 word response on your blog.
LA blog assignment: Open Letter on Singapore’s education system.
(1) After reading her open letter to the Education Minister, I feel that Janelle Lee’s view on Singapore’s education system is very critical and unsupportive. She feels that the education system in Singapore is “stifling to a child’s inquisitive and curious mind”, training young children as students, not to question, against Albert Einstein’s principle of never losing curiosity and never stop questioning. She rants that the education system in Singapore is basically just forcing students to memorize facts over and over again to be able to ace the examinations easily and not learning and understanding facts that they have memorized. She uses the example of a question from her science examination paper, which states, “Why is carbon a non-metal?” saying that the correct answer would be because the scientific periodic table was divided between metals and non-metals by a staircase line, and that metals and non-metals took part in metallic bonding. However, she highlights a very crucial flaw in Singapore’s education systems with this example. Although the answer to the question was true, she was never taught and explained why carbon was actually a non-metal, but only forced to remember the above answer, not knowing the true reason. This may not seem important but it actually has a “wide-reaching” effect, as she mentions. If this is how the Singapore education is like, then its students are not actually really learning. Although education in Singapore does include accurate and true answers in subjects such as science, it often does not explain to the students its answers and emphasizes way too much on memorizing the answers.
(2) I feel that an ideal education is not possible, and will never be. So long as there is an education system, people, especially parents of students, would always find fault with it, and they are not necessarily wrong all the time. Different schools have different education programs, and there is no ‘best’ one. Even though the education system is very integrated nowadays, it is still not specific enough to suit each and every student’s own study methods. Some students who are not suited to the hectic integrated program would not be able to cope and forced to transfer schools. Too much integration in the education system in Singapore may also result in a backfire, students finding it too hard to cope with all the different subjects and requirements and becoming less and less motivated to do well. In conclusion, I feel that although the education system now in Singapore is still okay, there would never be an ideal education system. Even now, there are still people complaining about the current education system in Singapore.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Term 3 Week 2 (Blogging Assignment)
An article entitled 'The Religion of Water' was published in The Straits Times on 7 July 2011. In the article, it was mentioned that ' within countries, there is debate over whether water should be treated as a human right or as a commodity, access to which is determined by the market.' Please read the article.
Is there a difference between treating water as a human right and as a commodity? In your opinion, should water be treated as a human right or as a commodity?
Post your 300 word response on your blog.
In my opinion, water should be treated both as a human right and also be charged like a commodity. Water is something humans and all living things require to survive, and if the government in Singapore makes water a commodity with a high charge, those who are unable to afford it would turn to dirty water, and that would result in sicknesses and diseases, eventually leading to death.
As the government, knowing that water is a human right, required for all living things (especially humans) to survive, if they can’t even provide water for their people, or charging too high a price for water, then isn’t that indirectly killing their own people?
However, although the government is responsible for the country’s supply of clean drinking water, they have the right to charge it, especially in a country like Singapore, where water is scarce, a resource we have to pay for constantly as we have no other renewable resources yet. As our local Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, “You have to get the price right so people understand that this is a scarce resource and will value it.” He also added, “If you make it free, nobody will bother to turn off the tap… They can leave it once since someone else is paying the price…” I agree with what he says strongly. Singapore has to price its water at a level that would make its people understand its worth and understand the need to treasure it. If Singapore wants to save water, it has to start with its people’s mindset.
Most people in Singapore have the mindset that their water supply is unlimited, and that they can use it freely. We can't blame each other for that, as the amount of money we pay for water is so minimal that we don't even feel that we're actually paying our water bill. I was not an exception, especially when I was young, as I always forgot to turn off the tap and took long showers.
But after learning about the importance of saving water in Singapore, I made it a point to use as little water as possible, and adopted water-saving methods such as using less water when I shower, turning off the tap when I finish washing my hands or when I’m soaping my hands, washing fruits in a plate of water instead of with running water and turning off the tap when I rinse while doing the dishes.
In conclusion, I feel that water is a human right that everybody deserves, but they should pay a price for it so as to remember to save it. If everybody puts in the effort to save water, especially in Singapore, then water, a scarce resource, may have its price reduced!
Is there a difference between treating water as a human right and as a commodity? In your opinion, should water be treated as a human right or as a commodity?
Post your 300 word response on your blog.
In my opinion, water should be treated both as a human right and also be charged like a commodity. Water is something humans and all living things require to survive, and if the government in Singapore makes water a commodity with a high charge, those who are unable to afford it would turn to dirty water, and that would result in sicknesses and diseases, eventually leading to death.
As the government, knowing that water is a human right, required for all living things (especially humans) to survive, if they can’t even provide water for their people, or charging too high a price for water, then isn’t that indirectly killing their own people?
However, although the government is responsible for the country’s supply of clean drinking water, they have the right to charge it, especially in a country like Singapore, where water is scarce, a resource we have to pay for constantly as we have no other renewable resources yet. As our local Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, “You have to get the price right so people understand that this is a scarce resource and will value it.” He also added, “If you make it free, nobody will bother to turn off the tap… They can leave it once since someone else is paying the price…” I agree with what he says strongly. Singapore has to price its water at a level that would make its people understand its worth and understand the need to treasure it. If Singapore wants to save water, it has to start with its people’s mindset.
Most people in Singapore have the mindset that their water supply is unlimited, and that they can use it freely. We can't blame each other for that, as the amount of money we pay for water is so minimal that we don't even feel that we're actually paying our water bill. I was not an exception, especially when I was young, as I always forgot to turn off the tap and took long showers.
But after learning about the importance of saving water in Singapore, I made it a point to use as little water as possible, and adopted water-saving methods such as using less water when I shower, turning off the tap when I finish washing my hands or when I’m soaping my hands, washing fruits in a plate of water instead of with running water and turning off the tap when I rinse while doing the dishes.
In conclusion, I feel that water is a human right that everybody deserves, but they should pay a price for it so as to remember to save it. If everybody puts in the effort to save water, especially in Singapore, then water, a scarce resource, may have its price reduced!
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Term 3 Week 1 (Blogging Assignment)
Veteran labour leader Halimah Yacob recently called for the legislation of weekly days off for maids working in Singapore. This has sparked off an intense debate amongst Singaporeans. In your opinion, should the giving of weekly days off be legislated in Singapore?
Post your 300 word response on your blog.
In my opinion, the giving of weekly days off should not be legislated in Singapore and should be decided within each family. For example, if a maid has been working very long for a family and has grown close to them, and if the family treats her as part of the family and even takes her out with them for dinner or takes her along wherever they go, she would not feel stressed working for them and would not require a day off, and both parties would be happy with the decision (maid and family). Many families allow their maids to mingle in the evening with other maids when they take their pets for a walk or accompany the elderly for a healthy walk, and this is also a form of a short break, which should be enough for the maids. On the other hand, if a family is very strict with their maids, working their maids over the limit and taking away their freedom, then these maids deserve a break and these maids should approach their “Madame” to discuss on appropriate breaks. However, if the “Madame” is stubborn and refuses to give the maids any rest at all, then I believe that the maid would be independent enough to request a change in environment from the maid agency. In many cases, families have to have maids all the time because they need someone to take care of the elderly who are not independent. It is not that the working adults are not filial, it is just that they are simply too busy with their work to be able to find time to take care of their parents. Unfilial working adults would dump their parents in any old folks home and not care about them anymore, while filial working adults would choose a maid to take care of and accompany their parents. If the giving of weekly days off for maids is legislated in Singapore, it would disadvantage many families. For example, working mothers with newborns and preschool kids will not be able to rest over the weekend if they have to take care of the kids fully. Families with handicapped adults or elderly will not be able to manage on their own. These people truly need a helper to take care of the elderly and help out in housework all the time.
Post your 300 word response on your blog.
In my opinion, the giving of weekly days off should not be legislated in Singapore and should be decided within each family. For example, if a maid has been working very long for a family and has grown close to them, and if the family treats her as part of the family and even takes her out with them for dinner or takes her along wherever they go, she would not feel stressed working for them and would not require a day off, and both parties would be happy with the decision (maid and family). Many families allow their maids to mingle in the evening with other maids when they take their pets for a walk or accompany the elderly for a healthy walk, and this is also a form of a short break, which should be enough for the maids. On the other hand, if a family is very strict with their maids, working their maids over the limit and taking away their freedom, then these maids deserve a break and these maids should approach their “Madame” to discuss on appropriate breaks. However, if the “Madame” is stubborn and refuses to give the maids any rest at all, then I believe that the maid would be independent enough to request a change in environment from the maid agency. In many cases, families have to have maids all the time because they need someone to take care of the elderly who are not independent. It is not that the working adults are not filial, it is just that they are simply too busy with their work to be able to find time to take care of their parents. Unfilial working adults would dump their parents in any old folks home and not care about them anymore, while filial working adults would choose a maid to take care of and accompany their parents. If the giving of weekly days off for maids is legislated in Singapore, it would disadvantage many families. For example, working mothers with newborns and preschool kids will not be able to rest over the weekend if they have to take care of the kids fully. Families with handicapped adults or elderly will not be able to manage on their own. These people truly need a helper to take care of the elderly and help out in housework all the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)