Blog Response 6: The case for Euthanasia (or go to the pdf version with a snazzy picture)
(start word count)
Euthanasia. At first glance, it seems like a fairly simple affair. The person wants to kill him/herself to relieve pain and suffering, let him. Throw a few jabs and hooks from "sanctity of human life" and "moral grounds" and we get a highly debatable topic.
VE (voluntary euthanasia) is generally considered suicide. However, I believe there is a vast difference between the two. When a person commits suicide, he is usually under psychological stress, but still has the potential to do something after the stress. It is generally immoral as they do not take into account the hardship others have to go through. However, when a person is suffering and can barely be able to do anything, his (voluntary) death is known to the rest of his family, and lessens their emotional pain. It also ends his suffering and therefore the family will not have to see him/her suffer.
Suicide is universally thought to be a rash decision, made with disregard for others. VE however, will only be conducted after a person has decided that they can do nothing else to increase the value of their life. Does society have a place for these "useless" people? If they themselves think they are suffering for nothing, why leave them in their agony?
Life is presumably "holy" and the loss of life should be decreed by the "supreme creator". People have been fighting for human rights for centuries, many times gaining it. Why not the right to death (to end suffering)? If the views on these issues is truly secular, we should not be using theological views. In the past, it has deterred progress. If we are going to look at such topics statistically and scientifically, why bring religion (where God has not been scientifically proven to exist) into the picture? The Church, for one, has made exceptions to many things. In many cases, they have led to progress and been universally accepted as "good" things. Why not euthanasia? I am not entirely sure about the theological views on euthanasia (being a non-Christian, and not understanding Buddhism's stand), however, is it not also our own right to choose when to end our lives, especially when suffering?
Euthanasia is also, in many cases, moral. Ending one's own life does not (as the article says) affect other people physically. Not to mention, if the person's relatives agree to it, it is all the more moral, since everyone is trying to end their suffering and it leads to happiness, and by Virtue Ethics, is a good thing. (take for example, Ramón Sampedro)
With society becoming more liberal and people gaining more freedom, i do not see why euthanasia should be illegal. Many will argue that there is always a possibility that they can still do something about their lives. But, sometimes there really is no point waiting. If we truly have freedom of choice, let death be one of them. We have been trying to increase the value of life for centuries now, why not the value of death?
(end word count)
504 words.
The case for Euthanasia
Ankus 'R us.
Heritage Competition Thing
Elephant goad (ankus) from late 19th - early 20th centuryAn ankus is a tool (still used today, although less ornate) to train elephants. This one is made of brass and steel and has been expertly crafted with intricate carvings and the sculpting is marvelous.
With such beauty, there is no doubt that it was not owned by just any mahout (elephant trainer). It shows that this was used in royal ceremonies (that involved elephants) and the mahout was definitely under the King (who sat on the elephant).
The exquisiteness of this almost insignificant tool shows the King's need to flaunt his riches. The fact that the king was the only one who was allowed to breed elephants also shows that the elephant was seen as a "royal" animal, one that could portray the majesty of royalty. By making everything he had grander (in this case the ankus), the king also showed his wealth and therefore, power.
(end word count)
(198 words)
external source.
Think of the children! (um.. teenagers)
Blog Response 4: "Hip youth club on the way"
Category: Issues regarding teenagers
vvvStart Word Count!vvv
Personally, I think it is a pretty good idea. However, how practical is this idea for a "Hip Youth Club"?
Firstly, the youth club has to be able to attract the young crowd. How will it do this? It will have to appeal to the interests of youths all over Singapore. However, not all youths have the same interest. Some may be more inclined to books, some more athletic, and some might be computer gamers. There is a whole lot more to list. How will this youth club cater to all of them?
In my opinion, there will most likely be different areas for each interest. For example, a reading corner for those who enjoy reading. Maybe even discussion rooms for those who are doing close reading or reading the book for school. However, since it is almost impossible to cater for all interests, how will they choose which ones to include?
Hopefully, they will be choosing those that are most popular. Lets say out of all the sports, soccer is the most popular, they can then devote a large area to those that are looking for a place to play.
The article says that the youth club will have to generate revenue. However, I hope it is not a case where they choose which interests to cater to mainly by profit. If they do so, they will get less people applying for membership and the youth club might be a failure. I do agree that youths are an untapped market. However, they must think the way we do. What are we looking for? Most likely, to find a place to hang out with friends or spend time doing something we like. If they think of us as customers, instead of teenagers, the club will most definitely fail.
Also, the club seems to be membership based, where access is only granted to members. If that is the case, I think it is a very bad idea to do so. Some people simply want to chat with friends and maybe play a sport. If they all have to pay for this, they will just go on to find some place else. Not all teenagers have the money needed to apply for membership. Maybe, the youth club can have areas where membership is needed, lets say, badminton courts, and areas where its free for all and anybody can use. That way they can maintain a balance. Also, if those people using the free areas are interested, they can apply for a membership. This way, they can attract youths and still achieve self-sustainability from membership fees.
To ensure the success of such a club, the people responsible for it must think like youths, or even better yet, are youths. That way they can appeal to teenagers and also know what we like or dislike. They must strike a balance between our interests and what we won't need or can't make use of.
^^^End Word Count!^^^
Words: 489
Also, does anyone find it ironic that the picture they put on the article is a wrinkly middle-aged (possibly old) man??
More talk on Singapore as a Global City
Blog Response 3: "SM Goh urges architects to turn S'pore into global city" (check out the video too)
Category: Politics
A sort of follow up on blog response 2.
|vvv|Start Word Count!|vvv|
In the article, we can see that SM Goh is mainly focused on how infrastructure will help Singapore develop into a global city. He emphasises a cosmopolitan city with a strong Asian core. This is all very easy to say, but how are we to do this?
To be a global city, we have to have high economic output and also have diversity of culture. Singapore has already achieved a considerably high amount of economic output, meaning we are half the way there. Infrastructure will attract investors, but how will infrastructure improve Singapore in the cultural and social aspect?
Having visually pleasing buildings is not the main point. They have to be functional and contribute to the big picture. Thus, buildings will have to be innovative to maximise space, visually pleasing, but functional too.
The first step is to plan. Singapore is too small. If we make a mistake it would be hard to reverse.
Currently, Singapore is seen as a “Global Niche City” (source, scroll down to the bottom). Our niche is the economic aspect, this means that our cultural, social and political aspects are lacking. I believe SM Goh is aiming to be a “Well rounded global city” and with a “very large contribution”.
To improve upon our cultural aspect means to accept other cultures and cater to them. As we can see from GaWC’s list, there are global cities with cultural bias. Singapore obviously does not want to be seen in that light. Thus, we need infrastructure to allow people from other cultures to come to Singapore. A foreign language school, such as Japanese School in Singapore, would be one example of something that caters to another culture. We may need infrastructure that helps integrate these people into Singapore.
How about the social aspect? I am not entirely sure on what this may mean, but I believe it means policies in the government that help the public in a certain way. This would mean that to be a well-rounded global city, we would have to change some of the policies that we may have now. However, I think Singapore is on the way to this goal with existing policies such as edusave, medisave, etc. These can be seen as helping the public, so I think they would be under the social aspect.
Singapore’s political system is okay in my opinion, but I believe it could be improved on. The areas most people think may need work on are probably human rights and civil liberties. Currently, people in Singapore have less freedom in some areas, such as freedom of speech. We are disallowed from voicing our opinions, particularly on political subjects.
Using good planning, new and innovative infrastructure and improving upon our lacking points, Singapore can become a well-rounded global city. However, infrastructure is not the only method to being a global city. Many other aspects of Singapore must be looked at, not just the physical aspects. By doing so, we can revise Singapore and keep ourselves "relevant and ahead of the competition".
Words: 499
Start here, stay here, wait for everyone to come here.
Blog Response 2: "S'pore won't 'burst at the seams' with 6.5m people: Minister Mah"
Category: Politics
|vvv|Start Word Count!|vvv|
Singapore is still a little red dot. There is nothing we can do about it. However, we can cause this little red dot to have a lot of influence on other countries. Big things can come in small packages, but we must make use of this limited space to ensure every little bit of it is used to make us more attractive to investors.
With our limited space, we can still develop a global city. All we need is careful planning of our land use. The world is rapidly moving on. Singapore must go with the flow, or we will be pushed aside.
Another obstacle Singapore faces is we need more “talent”. Talent is a very vague word in this context. I define it as people who have the power to drive Singapore forward, be it by new scientific discoveries or people with the “big ideas”.
We cannot depend on foreign talent alone. If that is the case, we might as well be a country that is full of foreign talent and discard our “untalented” people. Singapore must retain our own talents, and also nurture new ones. Doing so by means of education. The younger generation is the future. If the younger generation is not full of these “talents” it could be a hurdle in our future.
Another problem I see is that, if we invest in all these “large parcels of green spaces” are we using the land effectively? However, I do not wish to see Singapore as a total urban jungle. Its hard to use our space, if we put more space in one area of development, we cut down space on another area. It is really a matter of priorities.
An investor would look out for places capable of growth. An added bonus would be one that could grow rapidly. This is because investors are all looking out for personal gain, if they can get gain faster, it would be a great plus. I think Singapore is capable of rapid growth. We have a high standard of living. We have pretty high standard education systems, meaning we will have many workers that will hold degrees. This means we will have the manpower for businesses that need manpower with high education.
Singapore has its lacking points. It does not have large recreational facilities. So I think the improvements to the Marina area will be a good way to start on that. However, the effectiveness of that in attracting investors, I am unsure of. Maybe, as it improves our standard of living, it would make us more attractive. This higher standard of living will also help retain Singaporeans that think Singapore “does not hold a future” for them. New investors would also be further reason for them to come back, as it is growing and expanding, and can finally “be their future”.
Singapore is young; it has much to do to move up. With careful planning and management, we finally become the global city we are aiming for.
|^^^|End Word Count!|^^^|
Perry, you're on the wrong side of the road.
Blog Response 1: "In Texas, planned coal-fire plants stoke environmental battle"
Category: Environment
|vvv|Start Word Count!|vvv|
In recent years, many countries are stepping up to save the environment. Taking big steps to decreasing carbon dioxide emissions and the such. However, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, decides to go against the flow like a car on the wrong side of the road.
Perry wants to build 16 new coal plants in Texas, adding on to the air pollution that already heavily plagues the country. Many environmentalists are against his decision. There are definitely cheaper alternatives. However, Perry thinks that doing so would slow down economic growth. Apparently, the country’s economy is more important than the health of its people and the effects the emissions have on a global scale. This is really and issue of personal interest above all. He is looking at only a short-term gain.
If I were Perry, I would look at different factors. What if, the pollution causes people to not want to move or go to Texas? That would affect the population of the country, reducing manpower. This would be far more dangerous to the economic growth of Texas than using cleaner alternatives. He takes a short cut through the wrong side of the road that could very well end in horrific accidents.
With cleaner alternatives, I would steer myself from these “accidents” and it may eventually find a gain. It may attract investors and thus spurring economic growth. Perry certainly has not thought of that, going head-on into oncoming cars.
Many drivers are shouting at him too. The environmentalists are all opposing his ideas, trying to make him change his mind. Luckily, the fast-track approval of the plants has been halted temporarily. Perry himself ordered the fast-tracked approval. I feel its selfish to not hear what others have to say and making hasty decisions with no proper thought and discussion with others, such as the people of Texas.
Although I strongly disagree to what Perry plans to do, he might have his reasons. Maybe he thinks Texas needs to step up and become a top first world country. Maybe he thinks by doing so, it will be very much better for Texas’ economic growth. Hopefully, if this happens, he will use the money to think of cleaner alternatives. However, if this does not work out, what will he do?
There are also the wrong reasons. Apparently Perry has been receiving donations from TXU Corporations. It might be an ulterior motive. However, I am not entirely sure.
I may not be looking at this from the right perspective though, as I am unsure Texas’ state. If I was, I might give a better analysis of Perry’s plans. Still, I am pretty sure that harming the environment is obviously bad. Since, the Texas is not the only country on the Earth. What Texas does to the environment, affects everyone, his “accident” will cause a chain accident, then causing a traffic jam. The effects stretch to a global scale.
I sure hope he U-turns and gets back on track.
|^^^|End Word Count!|^^^|
Words: 495(well it should be)