Justice and Mercy:General discussion

Do you think that mercy and justice can co-exist?

(NOTE:For this question, write your response in about 300 words and post it on your blog.)

Although justice and mercy rarely co-exist, there are some occasions where they co-exist and I feel that there are certain requirements and different definitions for these two words for them to co-exist. If the definition of mercy is for the person in the wrong to totally not pay for his crime,one of the requirements is whether the person that is in the wrong is willing to change for the better. Should we not let these people go? If a person is willing to change for the better, in what way is there no justice to give him a chance to turn over a new leaf? There would be justice in this case because the person is willing to change for the crime he committed and would be the best result for a person that has committed a crime. There is also mercy in this case as since the person has done something wrong, he is given a chance to turn over a new leaf and not to pay for his crimes. Of course, there is also a possibility that his determination is fake but it depends on how the victim or judge decides his determination. Another requirement is for the crime to be small. It is almost impossible for justice and mercy to co-exist in these cases as it would definitely be justifiable to make him learn his lesson and it would not be possible to plead for mercy in this kind of circumstances, unless the mercy in this case is defined as making him pay less for his crime. Only then, can justice and mercy co-exist in these cases. Thus, the possibility of having justice and mercy depends on two things, which is the definition of these two words and the situation.

Term 3 Week 5 (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.

The main reason Shakespeare created Shylock in The Merchant of Venice is because he wanted to bring out the main themes in the merchant of Venice, where the two main themes are Justice and Mercy. With Shylock in the story, the characters in the story are then able to show acts of justice or mercy as Shylock, being the bad person in the story has sued the main character. Shakespeare also made a case that is debatable on who is right. This allowed the characters to fully bring out the themes in the story, thus achieving what he was aiming for when he was writing out this book. He also made Shylock a Jew as he knew that there was anti-semitism then and it made the story more realistic as almost everyone was against Shylock, the Jew. Without the justice, the Jew, Shylock, would definitely lose out badly in the court case, even though Antonio was the one that made the mistake at the start. Thus, Shakespeare has highlighted justice by making the whole court case being held together by justice and highlighted mercy by making Antonio merciful to this Jew that he was prejudiced against. In conclusion, this was only possible with Shylock, who was the one that was being targeted by everyone in the story, thus bringing out the themes of The Merchant of Venice.

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.

How to Raise a Global Kid

Jim roger's main argument is that merely American education is not enough to prepare the kids for the future, and that studying abroad would help to prepare them for the future. I agree with his argument as there are many more things that a kid can learn abroad than just learning in a local school. They would not only obtain new knowledge in education, they would also obtain knowledge in dealing with people. As different countries have people of different characteristics, letting kids interact with these people would certainly prepare them for the future as they would then know how to deal with these people. They would also learn different languages and that would help them the next time they interact with people that speak these languages in the future. By allowing the kids to obtain all these knowledge, it would definitely help them when they travel abroad in the future. This would also prepare them for the future as China's economy booms, the future leading country might not be the U.S. any more, thus, by knowing Chinese, it might also help them in the future.

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.

I agree with Janalle Lee's view on the education system in Singapore, and that may be the reason why our school has introduced the AAT/AAP program. With an education that allows us to learn more and vast rather than whatever is found inside our tests, it would certainly allow a better future ahead and develop first world leaders as we would have a good character if the education system emphasizes on developing characters, and i really agree that the more important aspect of life is to have a good character before having good results academically, and that good academic results should naturally come after having a good character. When people are taught to ask questions from young, they will be able to learn more things and have much more knowledge. This would then allow them to understand things that are not found in the test and this is the true meaning of education and I fell that we should not be restricted to things being tested just to get good marks as nowadays our academic results are very important to get good jobs. The author has highlighted an eminent problem, one that demands change, and I feel that this change is possible. After working our way through many years in which we were still a developing country, I feel that we should work together to achieve this change, where the next generation of Singaporeans would not be famous for 'kiasuism' any more. The main reason Singaporeans are like this is because they are not reflecting upon themselves, they are not thinking about their own actions, they are not questioning themselves in what way they have done wrong and do not care about the others. This is also one main problem that the flaw in the education system has caused. Thus, as we have reached the status of a developed country, why not try for this change, try to develop first world leaders where Singaporeans are known for good reasons,why not change our attitudes and teach the next generation how to ask questions in order to gain more knowledge? By doing this, the next generation would definitely be smarter and more orderly than the current generation as they question their behaviour and anything that they are unsure about. Education plays a very important part of our lives, whether we like it or not as we grow up with whatever we learn and we keep them for a life time and the only change we need to make is to teach the next generation how to ask questions. How then is this ideal education so difficult? Having the next generation learn to ask more questions would allow the technology to grow faster as they gain more knowledge, who knows, this change might just do much good to the people of the future. To conclude, I agree with Janalle Lee's argument and feel that the education system should change and it does not really take a lot to change the education system. By changing the education system, we would also do much good to the people of the future and thus, it is possible to have this ideal education and it would definitely have good effects.

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.

I think that water should be treated as a human right and not as a commodity as having it as a commodity would be as though one can never live in this world without money. If water is treated as a commodity, does it mean that those that are poor do not have the right to live? We all deserve a place in this world, a right to live in this world, why then should water, a necessity in life, depend on others? We cannot live without water for around 2 days and that is a fact that every human must face. Unlike food, which we can survive without for much longer, can be a commodity as we still have a buffer time to earn enough money to survive or wait for the price to decline. However, if water is also treated as a commodity, would lives not be lost easily? Thus, I feel that water should always be treated as a human right and not a commodity as peoples' lives depend on it and it should not be in the hands of others. The worst case is when there is a rich person that is especially selfish. He can just increase the price of water and this would cause many people to suffer. Would you really want people to suffer just because of these selfish people? As humans, we should always spare a thought for other humans, and we should put ourselves into their shoes, and that is what makes us humans and that is also what we call humanity. We all have feelings and making water as a commodity would definitely cause some people to rebel, as they would then be fighting for their own lives. Well then, should we really treat water as a commodity even after knowing that the poorer people would definitely suffer?

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, they should be given a day off, but on a certain condition. The maids should treat their work seriously and to concentrate on doing their work. I feel that so long as they fulfill this condition, they really deserve a day off weekly. If a maid has done her best in performing her role, why does she not deserve a day off weekly? There are also some special cases in which the employers do not give their maids a rest when they know that their maids are working hard already. This is really a sad sight as I feel that people should be awarded according to their effort put into something. Some people might say that it is a right for maids to be able to take a day off monthly but in my opinion, this is not acceptable. The reason is that when maids decide that they are ready to be maids, they should be mentally prepared that the job of being a maid will definitely not be easy and thus, they should put their best efforts into it. Those that do not put in their best efforts and want to have a day off weekly are really taking the job of a maid too easy. Everyone has to work hard to strive for a better life, even those that are quite rich, as they have to work hard to be able to become richer and to be able to spend more money in the future. Even if some of us are not born with a silver spoon, we should accept the fact as we are just working towards a different goal from the rich, which is to live a happy life mostly without financial problems, and we should never take this goal easily and in order to achieve this goal, we definitely need to work hard. Thus in conclusion, I feel that maids should put in effort into their work if they want a day off every week.

Term 2 Lesson 4(Online Lesson) War - Living Hell

I feel really lucky to be a survivor of the Korean War as I have seen many of my comrades going down one by one. After living with them for quite some time, it really is sad to see some of them die right under your nose and there is nothing you can do to help them. When you think of their family background, it makes you feel even worse as without them, their family would really suffer. However, there were also some lucky survivors that survived the war and even got promoted due to their outstanding performance in the war. I respect these people as they have done their best to see less comrades going down through the war by eliminating many of the opposing side. If these people were not here, who knows, I might not even be here today!

The experience of going through the war was definitely not a good one as it was very chaotic and my comrades and I could barely hear our own voices during a war. Bombings were just occurring everywhere and it was very terrifying to be able to lose your life at any point of time in the battle field. The worst possible scenario is that you lose a part of your body. If that happens, our comrades have to bring us back to the camp and risk being killed themselves! Even if we survive, we would definitely not be happy as we lost a part of our body due to a war that was pointless. In the end, we were used as the third party to fight the war between the two "super powers" and I feel really frustrated at the thought of that. I hope people will learn from this war that nothing can be achieved by having war and that only families will be ruined through having war. Thus, we should never treat war lightly, and I really mean NEVER.