"The news media should be blamed for the unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to the extremes for sensational news. How far do you agree?"
I disagree completely.
What are the possible factors of the ubiquity of the unhealthy paparazzi culture and the going to the extremes for sensation news? The news media, of course, is one of them. The readers is also a factor. And then there is the law.
It might be argued that the news media is being overly competitive and is trying to attract the attention of readers through sensational news. However, I would like to point out that nothing is not competitive in the current society, and as long as it is allowed, there is nothing wrong. Humans compete with each other for money; companies compete with each other for customers; countries compete with each other for dominance; and even animals compete with each other for food. It is almost impossible to find something in this world that is not competitive. The word "compete" is a social norm, which anyone at anywhere from anytime must follow in order to survive. Can you blame the news media companies for attempting to compete and therefore survive? Can you blame it for trying to protect the jobs of its workers?
The readers is another factor, though yet again I believe that the fault lies not in them. Humans have the intrinsic inquisitiveness - wanting to know things that they don't. Especially when they get a chance to know more about the private lives of famous people then - celebrities, people in power, etc. - I am pretty sure that they would grab the chance without hesitation. Again, I don't think they should be the ones to be blamed, for they are just being curious and, what's wrong with that? Curiousity might have killed the cat, but think of what good curiousity had done for mankind. Behind every discovery there is a scientist with a mind full of curiousity. Questions can only be answered when people never stop questioning.
The last factor here is the law. I think, that the law is the one to blame. A law should be set to prohibit the reportage of such news. Without such a law, news media is free to go around spreading news and literally spamming the newspapers with overly exaggerated reports on scandals and perhaps even the reportage of scandals that never actually existed. With such a law, famous people would not have to live under constant fear of being reported and have their freedom restricted as well. Uninterested readers would not be seeing over flooding of completely unimportant news that occupies the space for more important news. Gossipers might be disappointed, but I feel that they would not be overly so. After all, this type of news only serves to spice up their life and they could still live normally without these, unlike smoke addicts who might turn to drugs instead.
As a conclusion, though there are a variety of factors causing the unhealthy paparazzi culture, I do believe that the culture of the government is the one to blame.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Norway Shootings
I watch the video uploaded by Anders Breivik and could not resist but feel sad for him and also the people of Norway.
As the world goes towards internationalization, inevitably there would be a few people or groups of people that are radically conservative or perhaps even reactionary. This people will oppose any notions on internationalization and attempt to stop it through radical means such as bombing, massacres and so on. However, I believe that internationalization is one of the most important in today's society. With problems faced by mankind being more and more globalised (such as global warming, etc.), there is a need for people of different races, religions, and even languages to unite and solve these global problems together. It is necessary that we, as human beings, stop thinking about our differences and start thinking about something we share - we share the same problems. And we need to solve them together.
I think one of the important factors causing the shootings, other than the concept of internationalization, would be the similarly radical Islam groups. Anders Breivik probably witnessed how violent the Islamic terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda were and feared an attack launched on Norway.
Another one would probably be being stereotypical of Muslims. He saw how the terrorist groups in the Middle East constantly threatened Israel and linked it back to his own country, Norway. He found out that there has been a sharp rising trend in the number of Muslims in Norway and, based on the stereotype that all Muslims are jihadists and radical, concluded that the Muslims were plotting to overtake Norway and destroy Christianity in Europe, just like what they had attempted to do in Israel.
Last but not least, I feel that he is paranoid. He suspected that the European Union was another move by the Muslims to invade Europe.
As the world goes towards internationalization, inevitably there would be a few people or groups of people that are radically conservative or perhaps even reactionary. This people will oppose any notions on internationalization and attempt to stop it through radical means such as bombing, massacres and so on. However, I believe that internationalization is one of the most important in today's society. With problems faced by mankind being more and more globalised (such as global warming, etc.), there is a need for people of different races, religions, and even languages to unite and solve these global problems together. It is necessary that we, as human beings, stop thinking about our differences and start thinking about something we share - we share the same problems. And we need to solve them together.
I think one of the important factors causing the shootings, other than the concept of internationalization, would be the similarly radical Islam groups. Anders Breivik probably witnessed how violent the Islamic terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda were and feared an attack launched on Norway.
Another one would probably be being stereotypical of Muslims. He saw how the terrorist groups in the Middle East constantly threatened Israel and linked it back to his own country, Norway. He found out that there has been a sharp rising trend in the number of Muslims in Norway and, based on the stereotype that all Muslims are jihadists and radical, concluded that the Muslims were plotting to overtake Norway and destroy Christianity in Europe, just like what they had attempted to do in Israel.
Last but not least, I feel that he is paranoid. He suspected that the European Union was another move by the Muslims to invade Europe.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Justice and Mercyyy
By the end of the trial scene, do you think true justice and mercy was achieved? Reflect and write on the following questions:
1. Is there true justice? Why?
2. Is there true mercy, as expounded by Portia? Why?
3. Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. Comment on this with reference to the text and other real-life cases and examples.
Definition of Justice: the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
Definition of Mercy: compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power
I think there was no true justice at the end of the trial scene. Although nothing at all on blood was written in the bond, and Portia's accusation of Shylock seemed logical and very valid, one must note that Antonio never thought of that as way to "launch a surprise counterattack" on Shylock. He simply accepted it because he was overconfident and believed that his ships would not sink. He had also been warned of the consequences by Shylock several times, and should have know better than to give Shylock a chance to take revenge on the insults he received from him. However, he accepted the bond without even a second thought. The fact that he never knew that the words on the bond could be used to "counterattack" Shylock as Portia did was proven by his speeches of despair in the beginning of the trial scene. Therefore, strictly speaking only from the views of the two (Shylock and Antonio) who signed the bond, the thought of blood being related to the bond never came across Antonio's mind, and Antonio can only blame himself for not being sharp enough and also, more importantly, being overconfident. One can consider all the events leading up to the trial scene as a Tic-Tac-Toe game, which both signers of the bond (Antonio and Shylock) are playing. By the time Antonio realised he was losing, it was too late, and it could be said that Shylock won the game fair and square (justice). However, a friend of Antonio, Portia suddenly comes in the picture and told Antonio another way to win the seeming lost game which Antonio himself never thought of. Antonio then won the game. If one were to compare the entire Tic-Tac-Toe game to the definition of justice, he/she would come to realise that true justice was definitely not achieved and if Antonio had lost, he deserved it. The only counterargument I can think of is that Antonio deserved to win as he was helpful and kind, and promised to help Bassanio and Bassanio was, coincidentally, the husband of Portia. But then again, it might be just because Antonio is proud.
I think that there is no true mercy at the end of the trial scene. The word "Mercy" means compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power. The word "Compassion" means a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. Let us look at Antonio in his "merciful release" of Shylock. Was he truly being compassionate? Was he sympathetic? Was he sorrowful? Was he really trying to "alleviate the suffering" of Shylock from the bottom of his heart?
Yes. In the text, Portia manipulates justice cleverly and subtly. In George Orwell's Animal Farm, the totalitarian dictator Napoleon manipulates the Law for his own good, for example changing the law from "No animal should sleep on bed" to "No animal should sleep on bed with sheets" in order to satisfy his own desire to sleep on beds.
1. Is there true justice? Why?
2. Is there true mercy, as expounded by Portia? Why?
3. Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. Comment on this with reference to the text and other real-life cases and examples.
Definition of Justice: the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
Definition of Mercy: compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power
I think there was no true justice at the end of the trial scene. Although nothing at all on blood was written in the bond, and Portia's accusation of Shylock seemed logical and very valid, one must note that Antonio never thought of that as way to "launch a surprise counterattack" on Shylock. He simply accepted it because he was overconfident and believed that his ships would not sink. He had also been warned of the consequences by Shylock several times, and should have know better than to give Shylock a chance to take revenge on the insults he received from him. However, he accepted the bond without even a second thought. The fact that he never knew that the words on the bond could be used to "counterattack" Shylock as Portia did was proven by his speeches of despair in the beginning of the trial scene. Therefore, strictly speaking only from the views of the two (Shylock and Antonio) who signed the bond, the thought of blood being related to the bond never came across Antonio's mind, and Antonio can only blame himself for not being sharp enough and also, more importantly, being overconfident. One can consider all the events leading up to the trial scene as a Tic-Tac-Toe game, which both signers of the bond (Antonio and Shylock) are playing. By the time Antonio realised he was losing, it was too late, and it could be said that Shylock won the game fair and square (justice). However, a friend of Antonio, Portia suddenly comes in the picture and told Antonio another way to win the seeming lost game which Antonio himself never thought of. Antonio then won the game. If one were to compare the entire Tic-Tac-Toe game to the definition of justice, he/she would come to realise that true justice was definitely not achieved and if Antonio had lost, he deserved it. The only counterargument I can think of is that Antonio deserved to win as he was helpful and kind, and promised to help Bassanio and Bassanio was, coincidentally, the husband of Portia. But then again, it might be just because Antonio is proud.
I think that there is no true mercy at the end of the trial scene. The word "Mercy" means compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power. The word "Compassion" means a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. Let us look at Antonio in his "merciful release" of Shylock. Was he truly being compassionate? Was he sympathetic? Was he sorrowful? Was he really trying to "alleviate the suffering" of Shylock from the bottom of his heart?
Yes. In the text, Portia manipulates justice cleverly and subtly. In George Orwell's Animal Farm, the totalitarian dictator Napoleon manipulates the Law for his own good, for example changing the law from "No animal should sleep on bed" to "No animal should sleep on bed with sheets" in order to satisfy his own desire to sleep on beds.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Education System
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/07/12/an-open-letter-to-the-education-minister-from-a-secondary-4-student/
1)To what extent do you agree with the issues that the student has raised here? Point out some issues of agreement and possible contention.
2)Examine her tone and attitude in this letter. Do you think it’s a well-crafted letter with the appropriate tone?
3)If you should write a letter to Minister of Education, what are some issues you would raise? Remember- your intention is to make the system better for society’s betterment via CONSTRUCTIVE ideas.
1)I agree to a great extent with her points.
She wrote in the letter that she preferred the Dictionary.com definition of education to the definition found in the most commonly used Cambridge dictionary. Yet, if we were to scrutinise the definitions, we would find out that they are basically the same.
Cambridge defined education as: the process of teaching or learning in a school or college, or the knowledge that you get from this. The key word here is LEARN.
What is to learn? Why is there a need to learn? How do we learn? And most importantly, what do we learn?
'Learn' is defined, by the Cambridge dictionary, as: to get KNOWLEDGE or SKILL in a new subject or activity. Dictionary.com defined it as :to acquire KNOWLEDGE of or SKILL in by study, instruction, or experience.
I experienced the education system before (and is still experiencing it) and there are countless examples on my education till now, many of which are similar to the ones she raised.
I remembered, for one of the science tests, there was a question: Why can't carbon form an ionic bond with oxygen (or something along those lines)? The answer (absurd-sounding to me) was that carbon is a group 4 element and that oxygen is one from group 6 in the periodic table. It made me ponder: Why can't the group 4 elements form an ionic bond with the group 6 elements? Is there some sort of qualities related to bonding of chemicals that classify elements into groups? Of course, school never thought me that, otherwise I would never have been asking myself that question. All we were told to do was to memorise, to cram the information into our poor minds.
Of course, though, I can raise some counterexamples. One would be that the when we ask 'why?' during the lessons, they would either give us an answer or (most probably) encourage us to research on that topic if we are interested. This shows that the teachers still do believe in satisfying the students' curiousity, by giving a logically valid answer, unlike the point she brought on the teachers only having a "Cambridge wants this, so we will give them this" attitude of teaching.
Till now, you must have realised that there are still 2 questions on learning that are yet to be answered.
I believe, that if there were to be a question in any sort of test paper that asks "Why is there a need to learn?", the model answer would probably be: Because we are students. But if you were to think deeply, you would come to the answer that: Because we are the future of the world.
Future of the world, so what do we need? Apart from knowledge, we need skills. Lots of skills. Analytical skills, critical thinking skill, etc. We also need good morals. How do we learn to have a good character? By watching acts of the morally upright, in this case teachers, parents and seniors must set good examples, and emulating them, which brings us to another point that I agreed with her: The flaw of the Civics and Moral Education in the timetable.
Which leaves us with one last question: How do we learn? And the answer should be: Through our education system.
2)I believe that it is a fairly well crafted letter, though there are still flaws in my opinion.
The structure of the letter is rather flawed. She should, in my humble opinion, place the example of how the education is placing the importance of factual memorisation over the usage of skills and creative thinking in the foremost part of the letter. The she can go on with explaining how important curiousity is. Also, i think that she did not explain how curiousity (or any other skills that she did not mention) is important in the development of a first world country. She should also give some examples on the education of technologically advanced first world countries like Japan and Korea. As for her second point, I feel that she did not state the right way to teach students to be morally upright people in the future.
Next, regarding the tone of the letter, though the way she put it is rather rude considering that the receiver of her letter is an education minister, I ind it fairly acceptable.
3)I will raise the issues she did.
1)To what extent do you agree with the issues that the student has raised here? Point out some issues of agreement and possible contention.
2)Examine her tone and attitude in this letter. Do you think it’s a well-crafted letter with the appropriate tone?
3)If you should write a letter to Minister of Education, what are some issues you would raise? Remember- your intention is to make the system better for society’s betterment via CONSTRUCTIVE ideas.
1)I agree to a great extent with her points.
She wrote in the letter that she preferred the Dictionary.com definition of education to the definition found in the most commonly used Cambridge dictionary. Yet, if we were to scrutinise the definitions, we would find out that they are basically the same.
Cambridge defined education as: the process of teaching or learning in a school or college, or the knowledge that you get from this. The key word here is LEARN.
What is to learn? Why is there a need to learn? How do we learn? And most importantly, what do we learn?
'Learn' is defined, by the Cambridge dictionary, as: to get KNOWLEDGE or SKILL in a new subject or activity. Dictionary.com defined it as :to acquire KNOWLEDGE of or SKILL in by study, instruction, or experience.
I experienced the education system before (and is still experiencing it) and there are countless examples on my education till now, many of which are similar to the ones she raised.
I remembered, for one of the science tests, there was a question: Why can't carbon form an ionic bond with oxygen (or something along those lines)? The answer (absurd-sounding to me) was that carbon is a group 4 element and that oxygen is one from group 6 in the periodic table. It made me ponder: Why can't the group 4 elements form an ionic bond with the group 6 elements? Is there some sort of qualities related to bonding of chemicals that classify elements into groups? Of course, school never thought me that, otherwise I would never have been asking myself that question. All we were told to do was to memorise, to cram the information into our poor minds.
Of course, though, I can raise some counterexamples. One would be that the when we ask 'why?' during the lessons, they would either give us an answer or (most probably) encourage us to research on that topic if we are interested. This shows that the teachers still do believe in satisfying the students' curiousity, by giving a logically valid answer, unlike the point she brought on the teachers only having a "Cambridge wants this, so we will give them this" attitude of teaching.
Till now, you must have realised that there are still 2 questions on learning that are yet to be answered.
I believe, that if there were to be a question in any sort of test paper that asks "Why is there a need to learn?", the model answer would probably be: Because we are students. But if you were to think deeply, you would come to the answer that: Because we are the future of the world.
Future of the world, so what do we need? Apart from knowledge, we need skills. Lots of skills. Analytical skills, critical thinking skill, etc. We also need good morals. How do we learn to have a good character? By watching acts of the morally upright, in this case teachers, parents and seniors must set good examples, and emulating them, which brings us to another point that I agreed with her: The flaw of the Civics and Moral Education in the timetable.
Which leaves us with one last question: How do we learn? And the answer should be: Through our education system.
2)I believe that it is a fairly well crafted letter, though there are still flaws in my opinion.
The structure of the letter is rather flawed. She should, in my humble opinion, place the example of how the education is placing the importance of factual memorisation over the usage of skills and creative thinking in the foremost part of the letter. The she can go on with explaining how important curiousity is. Also, i think that she did not explain how curiousity (or any other skills that she did not mention) is important in the development of a first world country. She should also give some examples on the education of technologically advanced first world countries like Japan and Korea. As for her second point, I feel that she did not state the right way to teach students to be morally upright people in the future.
Next, regarding the tone of the letter, though the way she put it is rather rude considering that the receiver of her letter is an education minister, I ind it fairly acceptable.
3)I will raise the issues she did.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Love vs Money
1)In your opinion, is money important in a relationship? Consider the 'transactional' element observed in the relationships between the couples.
2)Do you think there is an upward trend of relationships and marriages valuing money over other qualities? Provide examples for your responses.
1)I feel that, although money is an important factor to consider in a relationship, I do not think that it is most important.
I believe, the essence of whether of not to be in a relationship is whether you would be happy. After all, you would most probably be living with that person forever. If you do not truly love that person and do not feel happy when being together with him/her, the marriage would be pointless, and you will spend the next half of your life locked up in chains of regret.
A true couple must be one where both people are willing to sacrifice their own interests for each other. However, when you value money over anything else in a relationship, then it would be incredibly one-sided, with the other party(provided he/she actually truly loves you) constantly supplying you with money and you doing nothing in return. Of course, you would love the truckloads of cash entering your bank account, but soon you will become more and move ambitious later and eventually you would remarry to another person with more money, with the obvious purpose of being a parasite - feeding on his/her money. Is that called true love? Would you be truly satisfied by just being with that person?
Furthermore even if you truly love that person, just that you place money over love, that person would be working all day and night just to satisfy your desires. We all know, love takes time to actually manifest itself, and if your lover has absolutely no time to spend with you as all his/her time is wasted on trying to earn money, would you be truly happy in the end? Probably after a few years both of you would, despite being a couple, hardly speak to each other anymore, and the love gradually fades.
Of course, in the materialistic society of today, money is definitely required, whether to satisfy the basic needs or the perhaps unnecessary wants, but I still believe, that happiness and love is the ultimate goal of a relationship.
2)Yes, I do. As our society becomes increasingly materialistic, where people would work all day just to earn a few pieces of metal, true love is definitely becoming more and more overlooked. Romance and stuff like Romeo and Juliet would probably be laughed at by people, thinking that love is a foolish, unwanted and completely redundant feeling. As for examples, I think statistics speak for themselves. As people get more and more affluent, they would get faster cars, larger houses. However, the gap between the rich and poor would widen dramatically and cause the poor to have worse living conditions than before. Choosing between having a partner as a rich and as a poor would basically be equivalent to choosing between heaven and hell.
2)Do you think there is an upward trend of relationships and marriages valuing money over other qualities? Provide examples for your responses.
1)I feel that, although money is an important factor to consider in a relationship, I do not think that it is most important.
I believe, the essence of whether of not to be in a relationship is whether you would be happy. After all, you would most probably be living with that person forever. If you do not truly love that person and do not feel happy when being together with him/her, the marriage would be pointless, and you will spend the next half of your life locked up in chains of regret.
A true couple must be one where both people are willing to sacrifice their own interests for each other. However, when you value money over anything else in a relationship, then it would be incredibly one-sided, with the other party(provided he/she actually truly loves you) constantly supplying you with money and you doing nothing in return. Of course, you would love the truckloads of cash entering your bank account, but soon you will become more and move ambitious later and eventually you would remarry to another person with more money, with the obvious purpose of being a parasite - feeding on his/her money. Is that called true love? Would you be truly satisfied by just being with that person?
Furthermore even if you truly love that person, just that you place money over love, that person would be working all day and night just to satisfy your desires. We all know, love takes time to actually manifest itself, and if your lover has absolutely no time to spend with you as all his/her time is wasted on trying to earn money, would you be truly happy in the end? Probably after a few years both of you would, despite being a couple, hardly speak to each other anymore, and the love gradually fades.
Of course, in the materialistic society of today, money is definitely required, whether to satisfy the basic needs or the perhaps unnecessary wants, but I still believe, that happiness and love is the ultimate goal of a relationship.
2)Yes, I do. As our society becomes increasingly materialistic, where people would work all day just to earn a few pieces of metal, true love is definitely becoming more and more overlooked. Romance and stuff like Romeo and Juliet would probably be laughed at by people, thinking that love is a foolish, unwanted and completely redundant feeling. As for examples, I think statistics speak for themselves. As people get more and more affluent, they would get faster cars, larger houses. However, the gap between the rich and poor would widen dramatically and cause the poor to have worse living conditions than before. Choosing between having a partner as a rich and as a poor would basically be equivalent to choosing between heaven and hell.
Monday, July 11, 2011
The evolution of war
Points
Who?
Soldiers: No fixed army (even mercenaries) -> Professional soldiers (NS)
- Recruitment: Anyone welcome -> Satisfy specific requirements
- Organisation: No organisation -> Complex organising of soldiers
Civilians: Neutral -> Occasionally siding a group
Where?
Location: Land -> Land, air, sea
- Specific location: Within continent -> World wide (WWII)
-- Battles: Targeting cities -> Targeting cities and key resources(oil fields)
--- Location: Anywhere -> Edge given to the defenders (high ground)
What/How?
Strategies: Not much tactical maneuver -> deceptive wars
Technology: Relatively weak equipment -> Much stronger equipment
- Weapons: prehistoric weapons (sword) -> modern weapons (rocket launchers)
-- Types: Melee, ranged -> Ranged and other deadly weapons (bio weapons etc)
- Communications: Shouting -> Codes
Why?
Purpose: World domination -> Defending of territories
-- Peace: When both sides are unable to fight on -> Whenever if possible (peace keeping agencies)
Conclusion:
- technological advancements
- More experience with wars
- evolution caused by more wars
Who?
Soldiers: No fixed army (even mercenaries) -> Professional soldiers (NS)
- Recruitment: Anyone welcome -> Satisfy specific requirements
- Organisation: No organisation -> Complex organising of soldiers
Civilians: Neutral -> Occasionally siding a group
Where?
Location: Land -> Land, air, sea
- Specific location: Within continent -> World wide (WWII)
-- Battles: Targeting cities -> Targeting cities and key resources(oil fields)
--- Location: Anywhere -> Edge given to the defenders (high ground)
What/How?
Strategies: Not much tactical maneuver -> deceptive wars
Technology: Relatively weak equipment -> Much stronger equipment
- Weapons: prehistoric weapons (sword) -> modern weapons (rocket launchers)
-- Types: Melee, ranged -> Ranged and other deadly weapons (bio weapons etc)
- Communications: Shouting -> Codes
Why?
Purpose: World domination -> Defending of territories
-- Peace: When both sides are unable to fight on -> Whenever if possible (peace keeping agencies)
Conclusion:
- technological advancements
- More experience with wars
- evolution caused by more wars
Monday, June 27, 2011
Patriotism
Q1. We need young men to do national service annually. Why do you think national service is compulsory in Singapore and why is this important?
Q2. In the above poem, the speaker expresses his love for his country, England. Do you have this same spirit of patriotism towards Singapore? Why?
Q3. Do you find this same spirit of patriotism in Singapore?
Q1. Singapore is small and without natural resources to sustain itself, therefore it can be viewed as vulnerable to attacks and sieges. Constantly forcing young men to do national service can strengthen the military forces so as to be able to fend off attacks. National service also imbued a sense of willingness to defend Singapore, as the men would go through hardships together and bonds would be forged between them. They would finish off their service as good friends, and would be more than willing to defend their homeland, where their families and friends belong. Lastly, national service pushes these men to their physical and mental limits, training their endurance and therefore allowing them (as the future of Singapore) to be better equipped to empower their country and to allow it to soar into greater heights.
Q2. In the poem, the poet conveys a sort of radical and perhaps exaggerated view of patriotism. His patriotism went as far as to declare that his homeland, England, is heaven. Perhaps that might not be his actual thoughts, since he wrote that poem just to urge his comrades to defend England with all their might, and inorder to achieve this objective, exaggeration might be necessary. Since the poem might be an exaggeration, it is obvious that I would not share such radical sentiments, however i do feel a sense of patriotism towards Singapore, undeniably.
Q3. Today is a special day. As one walk on the pavement of a typical neighbourhood, he would be able to see people, clad in red shirts and white shorts, walking about. As one looks up, apart from the familiar sights of bamboo poles sticking out of the towering HDB flats, he would be able to see flags hanging out of every unit. Red on top, white below. A moon on the left of the red portion, right of the moon there are 5 stars, arranged in such a way that if there were lines to connect them together, one would be looking at a large star, or even a pentagon. As one walks past his neighbour's unit, he would be able to hear cheers. if he were to be piqued by curiousity, and were to look the screen of the neighbour's television, he would be looking at large groups of people, marching in an orderly manner. Some of them in the army costume, some in the police uniform, some carrying banners. When he suddenly began wondering what day is it, and why it is so special, he would take out his phone and take a look at the calendar. Then, the date, obviously, is 9 August.
That, is patriotism in Singapore
Q2. In the above poem, the speaker expresses his love for his country, England. Do you have this same spirit of patriotism towards Singapore? Why?
Q3. Do you find this same spirit of patriotism in Singapore?
Q1. Singapore is small and without natural resources to sustain itself, therefore it can be viewed as vulnerable to attacks and sieges. Constantly forcing young men to do national service can strengthen the military forces so as to be able to fend off attacks. National service also imbued a sense of willingness to defend Singapore, as the men would go through hardships together and bonds would be forged between them. They would finish off their service as good friends, and would be more than willing to defend their homeland, where their families and friends belong. Lastly, national service pushes these men to their physical and mental limits, training their endurance and therefore allowing them (as the future of Singapore) to be better equipped to empower their country and to allow it to soar into greater heights.
Q2. In the poem, the poet conveys a sort of radical and perhaps exaggerated view of patriotism. His patriotism went as far as to declare that his homeland, England, is heaven. Perhaps that might not be his actual thoughts, since he wrote that poem just to urge his comrades to defend England with all their might, and inorder to achieve this objective, exaggeration might be necessary. Since the poem might be an exaggeration, it is obvious that I would not share such radical sentiments, however i do feel a sense of patriotism towards Singapore, undeniably.
Q3. Today is a special day. As one walk on the pavement of a typical neighbourhood, he would be able to see people, clad in red shirts and white shorts, walking about. As one looks up, apart from the familiar sights of bamboo poles sticking out of the towering HDB flats, he would be able to see flags hanging out of every unit. Red on top, white below. A moon on the left of the red portion, right of the moon there are 5 stars, arranged in such a way that if there were lines to connect them together, one would be looking at a large star, or even a pentagon. As one walks past his neighbour's unit, he would be able to hear cheers. if he were to be piqued by curiousity, and were to look the screen of the neighbour's television, he would be looking at large groups of people, marching in an orderly manner. Some of them in the army costume, some in the police uniform, some carrying banners. When he suddenly began wondering what day is it, and why it is so special, he would take out his phone and take a look at the calendar. Then, the date, obviously, is 9 August.
That, is patriotism in Singapore
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)