Q: "When it's a question of money, everybody is of the same religion." How far is this true of social values today?

In the present modern setting, money is the bloodline of all living humans on the face of the earth. Whether an individual resides in a more or less developed country, seeking riches is most probably his main agenda. Money is inevitably essential, as the basic necessities and luxuries in life do not come free. Consequently, the pursuit of gaining financial assets can be said to be the priority of individuals in all continents. However, there are people whose lives do not revolve around money, but around a different purpose. Those who stand out from the dollar-sign-crazed crowd include budding artists who pursue their personal interests and rights groups that fight for a worthy cause.

Today’s society is driven by the agenda of earning money and achieving a more flamboyant standard of living. Domestic and multinational corporations are profit-motivated and seek to derive the maximum level of financial gains from their businesses. More often than not, this process of making earnings compromise the welfare of the workers involved in the production processes. It has been revealed that multinational corporations like Nike and McDonalds carry out production operations that are deemed to be immoral. The former involves sweatshops that hire child labour in Africa while the latter is reported to exploit illegal immigrants from less developed nations to work at factories. Both cases enlighten the world that such companies make use of this cheap labour, knowing that harm is inflicted and international laws are breached. Hence, as people place money as the fundamental factor of surviving, this obsession takes centre stage at the expense of other groups of people in society.

Furthermore, society is increasingly overpowered by it’s desire to attain monetary gains. People’s desire may develop over time into a form of harmful obsession that possesses their minds and rob them of their moral values. As in the case of the Ren Ci and National Kidney Foundation, these imply that people are more tempted and may easily be subdued to the attraction of money as one is given greater leadership and control. In both cases, the chairpersons of these foundations were given the privilege and utmost trust from society. Unfortunately, societal pressures in the form of the dollar chase became the priorities of these chairpersons. As a result, they embezzled money and robbed from the destitute; seeking financial gains while compromising those who desperately require financial aid. Thus, the attraction of money even uproots the values of the morally-upright, portraying that the obsession of making money creates enemies of people with the same agenda.

On the contrary, not all communities in society are drinking from the same cup, as there are individuals who seek justice rather than monetary benefits. This is supported by the presence of international rights groups that speak out for those who lack the voice or opportunity to do so. Among recognised organisations are the World Wildlife Foundation and Amnesty International. These consist of people coming together to protect animal and human rights of those who are discriminated and deprived. For example, Amnesty protested this year against the Chinese government for the violation of human rights as Chinese citizens have extensively restricted freedom of speech. Such organisations mostly work not for financial benefits, but for social benefits that can be derived from resolving world issues that go unnoticed. Hence, the money chase does not envelop everyone as there are people who are able to see the world beyond their own paycheck.

Additionally, not everyone pursue the road to riches as increasing individuals prefer to choose alternative routes that allow them to fulfill their aesthetic goals. Money may not be the sole priority on everyone’s checklist. There are some who wish to embark on the path that leads them to achieving their dreams in their area of expertise in the art arena. The youth today are diverting from the normal way of attaining a university degree that guarantees a stable job and monthly paycheck. Instead, there are some who step out of the cookie cutter mold, as exemplified by the rising statistics of artistic individuals making their marks in the various fields of art in China. Making money is deemed as a bonus in the pursuits of these artists; more of a side dish than a main course. The main course, in this situation, is the satisfaction one can achieve when he eventually becomes a master of his craft. Thus, the money aspect is not the reason for these people excelling in their areas of interest and proficiency.

In conclusion, there will always be people who are constantly in pursuit of money. This perpetual chase can be considered obsessive or necessary, as it varies for different communities. In developed countries, obtaining riches beyond what is needed to sustain life is an excessive desire. On the other hand, attaining monetary support is essential for the poor in less developed nations. All in all, our lives make an endless circle around money; it is the driving power of our society and economy.

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

In the modern day of globalisation, the issue of same-sex marriage has grown to be a pervasive and widely-discussed topic among several communities. As such, this greatly-debated issue has spurred views ranging from supportive to those lined with unacceptance and disgust.

Given today's context, supporters of same-sex marriage argue that it is indeed a practical consideration. Reasons raised for the argument are associated with the biological and family aspect of every human's life.

Firstly, same-sex marriage bears biological benefits such as ensuring the continuation of the human race. With permission from the country's government, couples in a same-sex marriage will be given the right to adopt. In such a change of government policies, this attempts to eradicate discrimination against same-sex couples as well as solving social problems like declining birth rates that can cause ageing population trends. For example, as reported by a GPI global intern, South Africa recently legalized same-sex marriage in a move demonstrating further progress from a past fraught with inequality and discrimination. In this society, same-sex marriage is allowed as the government believes the change can build the nation's tolerance for such couples as they can help sustain population grown. Hence, as same-sex marriages are also able to carry out procreation through methods such as in-vitro fertilisation to contribute to the existence of human species, it can be considered acceptable in this modern era.

Additionally, same-sex marriage can provide a proper and suitable family life for the upbringing of children. To highlight certain traditional beliefs, some assert that a same-sex marriage is not an optimum environment to raise children in. This is due to fears that children in same-sex marriages may follow in their guardians' footsteps after being influenced from young. On the contrary, scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of children raised in the homes of same-sex marriages are just as desirable as those of straight couples. Given this confirmation by the Supreme Court of Hawaii, it exemplifies that same-sex couples do not fall behind their heterosexual counterparts with regards to the upbringing of children and building family cohesiveness. In fact, it is the moral values and education enforced by the parents that shape the character of the growing child. Thus, since same-sex couples can be successful parents by practicing appropriate nurturing methods, same-sex marriage can be practical today.

However, people have not always been welcoming of the idea of same-sex marriage. The attributing reasons include people being uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage and the age-old belief that matrimony is an institution between one man and one woman.

The concept of same-sex marriage has people responding with rejection and resistance. It is not widely accepted probably because certain communities still maintain their accustomed matrimony believes and have low tolerance for issues that go against their practices. Another reason may be due to people thinking that same-sex couples are a shame to their respective genders. This leads to same-sex couples being prejudiced and discriminated against. For example, there are instances in the United States of America that portrays this. A national survey done by Pew Research Centre for the People & the Press and Pew Forum on religion & Public Life revealed that 56% of the population opposed same-sex marriage. Given the population size, it is a considerably large number of people who are directly unsupportive of the issue. This portrays that same-sex marriage is not an idea that people can easily warm up to. Hence, same-sex marriage is not a practical consideration because it is still a greatly defied issue in today's context.

Furthermore, same-sex marriage is not accepted because of the long term understanding that marriage is a bonding between man and woman. In many various societies, this has been the underlying principle that shapes the matrimony of a couple. This has also been discreetly taught to the younger generation through their daily dosage of television and fantasy storybooks. In these forms of educational entertainment, children come in contact with the stories of beautiful princesses who live happily ever after with their respective Prince Charmings. The concept brought forth is that a couple should consist of a male and a female. From young, growing children have come to accept unknowingly that a male and female couple is the norm, rather than a same-sex couple. Hence, same-sex marriage is not practical due to the fact that it conflicts with what the young are exposed to, that being marriage is between different genders.

Lastly, with records of HIV and sexually-transmitted diseases on the rise now, same-sex marriage should not be practiced. Some people protest that gay sex is perverse and considered an act of sodomy. This speaks in particular of men having sex with men. Linking back to the topic of sexually-transmitted diseases, Singapore has seen an increase in HIV cases by 12.6% since 2005. Of these statistics reported by the Straits Times, 30 per cent of the cases stemmed from gay sex. This represents that an estimated figure of 67,000 men in Singapore engage in gay sex. Not only does same-sex marriage consist of unnatural activities, it also encourages the undesirable outcome of catapulting HIV cases. Thus, same-sex marriage should be discouraged so as to reduce today's worrying statistics of cases of sexually-transmitted diseases.

In conclusion, the demerits of same-sex marriage outweigh the supposed benefits raised. In this age of globalisation, same-sex marriage is not a practical consideration because it induces discrimination and prejudice against same-sex couples as well as contributing to rising HIV cases.

Q: The mother of crime and revolution is poverty. Do you agree?

Poverty is acknowledged as a condition in which a person or community is in lack or deprived of the bear essentials for a minimum standard of living. Such necessities include material resources such as food, potable water and shelter or social resources like education and healthcare.

Aristotle once asserted that the mother of crime and revolution is poverty. This is agreeable to a small extent. Crime and revolution can be attributed by several factors including poverty, unhappiness and desperation.

Crime results from the problem of poverty within the community. In this modern day and age, financial back-up and well-being development such as education and availability of safe drinking water are fundamental aspects for having a basic livelihood. Without these basics on hand, extreme poverty often breeds desperation which leads to an increase in criminal activities. As was the case of 19th century Bavaria, Germany, people without enough work, savings or marketable skills resorted to begging, starving and even stealing. Poverty pushes people to turn to illegal means of attaining what they need. Thus, the increase in criminal activities can be the result of desperation caused by poverty amongst the people.

Also, it is possible that poverty brings about a revolution, in certain extreme cases. This is one of the reasons that trigger the people to rebel and overthrow the existing government of the state. For example, in Venezuela, the problem of poverty, corruption and general inefficiencies adversely affected the population. This burden is directly slammed upon the government and its prominent influential leaders. The inequality in wealth and facilities in different parts of a state can create anguish in the affected group. Hence, the agonized party will want to make their interests heard and feelings known, resulting in strikes and even a revolution.

However, crime and revolution can be spawned by human greed and dissatisfaction. This arises in situations where people dream for more than the basic necessities they already possess. As reported in a newspaper India Today, the fact that the poor want more than what is provided will cause difficulties for political incumbents who cannot deliver. People will be spurred into committing mutinous acts such as murder and riots. This creates disorder, defaming the law and government as inefficient. Hence, the foundation of the state breaks down due to common traits of individuals in the community, i.e. man's undying desires.

In conclusion, it is evident that though poverty is not the sole cause of crime and revolution, it does play a relatively big role. Alternatively, other factors such as human greed and discontent contribute to the end product - crime and revolution.

In Singapore’s multi-racial society, there is the presence of cultural and religious pluralism. This is made possible due to the fact that individuals of this small country have a sense of social responsibility as well as adequate sensitivity towards people other than their own selves.

I strongly believe that the view of Szilagyi should be adopted, given Singapore’s secular state of existence. As shown, Szilagyi asserts that it is the “media’s responsibility in leading an informed, high-quality discussion, with due respect for minority rights”. By saying this, it portrays that each and every person in the society should bear responsibility for their own actions and its inevitable consequences. They should also express matured views about issues while keeping in check that these do not violate other people’s human rights and beliefs.

Furthermore, the society should not focus “solely on freedom” of expression but have greater emphasis on social responsibility instead. In order to attain a more holistic and united country, influential leaders of Singapore should inject the importance of societal responsibility into the everyday lives of the population. With reference to Szilagyi’s view, this ultimately helps to “protect the collective interests” of certain groups and prevent their rights from being breached by any form of media.

Alternatively, Peter Singer’s opinion on how a society should work must be avoided at all cost. As quoted, he insists that “we apply the principle of freedom of expression even-handedly, whether it offends Muslims, Christians, Jews, or anyone else”. This strongly exemplifies one’s belief that freedom of expression is a basic right that can be used anytime and anywhere, at the expense of other people’s well-being. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking, which arises from one’s self-centredness, can be the downfall of a society.

In conclusion, the way Singapore’s multi-racial society operates should be along the lines of the suggestions made by Szilagyi. This ensures that the country maintains a harmonious, pleasant environment in which disorder is minimal and kept at bay.

Q: Death penalty is not a deterrent, it is a murder. Do you agree?

R: My stand on death penalty is that it is murder and not a deterrent. This opinion is attributed by several factors, such as the cruel forms of capital punishment and irreversibility in miscarriages of justice.

Death penalty includes a whole range of inhumane forms of putting a person to die. On the list, there is the electric chair, lethal injection, hanging, gas chamber poisoning and many others. These are all terrifying ways of dying and paying for one’s irreparable crimes, as the pain induced is beyond words. From a prosecuted convict’s point of view, he experiences two types of pain. The feeling of emotional pain before the actual execution, when the convict knows of his impending death penalty, and the torment of physical pain during the procedure of his execution. Hence, capital punishment is not a deterrent but murder as it is a process of causing immense hurt to one before ending his life prematurely.

The death penalty should not be used as two wrongs do not make a right. Some may think that since the convict is guilty of raping or killing someone, he should be put to death to repay his sins. However, executing him would not correct his irrevocable mistake as all that is done is put a quick end to his life. To quote, Mahatma Gandhi once said that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. Furthermore, death penalty is quick and brings about less suffering than a jail term sentence. Instead, to make a convict truly repentant for his heinous crime, he should be locked away behind bars in a small cell. Thus, capital punishment is murder and should not be carried out as it cannot undo the convict’s past.

Since death penalty cannot correct what is already done by the convict, rehabilitation should be carried out. The alternative should be favoured as convicts may not be mentally sound or there is the possibility of human errors in the process of the convict’s trial. By this, it means that the people who sentence out capital punishments may be prosecuting the wrong person. In such cases, miscarriages of justice are permanent. What is done, cannot be undone, and the person may die an unrightfully death. Therefore, the death penalty may murder someone for another’s crime.

We make mistakes all the time, even in setting down justice and carrying out sentences. Humans should never play the role of God; thinking that we have the power to end a person’s life because of his mistake. Also, death penalties over the years have seen countless blunders made by prosecutors. As in the case of Jimmy Lee Gray in Mississippi, USA, 1983, the executioner was drunk, causing the incomplete release of poisonous gas. Gray’s agony was prolonged before his death due to the executioner’s irresponsibility. Consequently, death penalty is murder as humans, including convicts, are not perfect by nature.

However, some may argue that the death penalty is right and can be used as a deterrent for others. Those who support capital punishment give reasons such as justice and vengeance, and public safety.

Death penalty is implemented because some treat it as avenging the victim. In this situation, capital punishment serves as fulfilling justice and vengeance. Many feel that killing convicted murderers will satisfy their need for justice and/or vengeance. People believe that death is the only thing convicts deserve for their immoral crimes. Certain crimes are so wicked that executing the criminal is the only reasonable response. Thus, death penalty is not murder but a deterrent because it ends a convict’s life for a reason and warns others as well.

In addition, death penalty is put into action in consideration of the public’s safety. For example, once a convicted murderer is executed, there is no chance that he will break out of jail and kill or injure someone again. This would ensure the people that their lives will not be in danger by any deranged escape convict. Hence, death penalty is not murder as it has a purpose of protecting the welfare of the public.

Therefore, in conclusion, death penalty is murder as the inhumane forms of execution do not make right a convict’s crime. It becomes murder when human errors come into play. Since everyone makes mistakes of all degrees, should they be executed?

Q: Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state the reasons why you think it is un/necessary

R: My stand on this topic is that media censorship is necessary.

The merits for media censorship are many, of which includes the existence of sensitive issues and protecting national interests.

Firstly, media censorship plays an important role when the media delivers issues that may be deemed as sensitive in some parts of the world. Certain issues are sensitive due to different people's lifestyle and cultural beliefs. For example, the recent issue of the cartoon of Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper. Also, all communities have their own opinions that more or less differ from others. Here, media censorship comes into play to draw the line and prevent the violation of certain people's beliefs. Thus, this decreases the tension between racial groups or relationships amongst countries.

Furthermore, to protect the young and weak-minded, there is media censorship. The media is a powerful tool that has the ability to influence and manipulate people's mindset. If the media is not used with appropriate care, it can bring about negative impact on the youth of the world. The young and weak-minded children can easily fall victim to media abuse as they are still innocent and unexposed to life experiences yet. Hence, media censorship is vital to prevent the young and innocent from unnecessary exposure that create negative effects.

Lastly, media censorship is crucial to safeguard national interests. The government policies are protected as censorship means there is control over what the media can publish regarding the state's affairs. This preserves national interests such as preventing racial riots and ensuring that no wrong messages are sent out to the public. With media censorship, conflicts do not break out so often and peace is ensured, stabilizing the country's relationships nationally and internationally.

On the other hand, media censorship has its demerits, such as limiting exposure for the public and breaching the rights of freedom of expression.

Firstly, media censorship controls how much is let out for public-viewing. It may cover the truth of certain issues in the bid for protecting national interests or community's beliefs. This does not allow the public to know the real facts of the issue. Consequently, the media will portray 'creative untruths' that are not true.

In addition, human rights are violated by media censorship. Particularly in discussion here is the right of freedom of expression. Censorship tightens the boundary so much so that people are not given the opportunity to voice their opinions and have their say. As a result, the right of freedom of expression is virtually being removed from people by media censorship.

Therefore, in conclusion, media censorship is important and highly necessary as it helps to maintain peace in the world. This is done so when sensitive issues are safeguarded and messages are not wrongly portrayed by the media.

Q: What have you learnt about the media in the way they present what is perceived over what is real?

R: From our knowledge, the main role of the media is to be the ‘watchdog of society’. By this, it means that the media is the guardian and protector of the general public.

All through our daily lives, we are constantly being exposed to the media; getting our information and subconsciously being influenced by it. However, the media does not always portray the real truth of issues in a positive tone. On the other hand, what is perceived by people is presented in a way such that these untruths are made 'real' and believable. Actually, these untruths are lies spun by the media to cover up the facts and protect authoritative figures.

In the Iraq war issue, it is presented in the article that the US forces invaded Iraq with a purpose of ridding Saddam Hussein. It is portrayed that the US backs this purpose up with the seeming reason of wanting to end Hussein’s actions of destructing Iraq. Yet, as shown from images and civilians death count, “the US invasion of Iraq has destroyed more of the country than Saddam Hussein ever did in more than 20 years”.

Then again, the real motive of the US invasion is to gain control of the oil-rich land in Iraq. In the article, it is insisted that “oil is not a motivating factor”. This brings us to the emphasis that the actual truth of the invasion is being denied. To the public, a clouded image of the fact - that US is indeed after Iraq’s oil - is being portrayed. In other words, what is real is not made known to people. Instead, the media influences the public to believe that the reason for invading is aside the oil factor.

To conclude, the media works in a way such that it makes people believe and have a deep impression of what is perceived. Simultaneously, the real truth is denied and suppressed under lies the media creates.