Question: The media is corrupting our society. Do you agree???
Answer:
To begin my arguement, i would like to explain the term "media". To put it simply, media is a means of mass communication, through the various mediums such as television, newspapers, radios and so on. Lately, there have been many newspaper reports making claims about the negative impacts that the media, namely the television, has on the society. The age group in which i believe the media has the greatest impacts on is mainly the youths of the society, aging from around 13 to 18. My stand towards this arguement is that i agree to a large extent that the media is corrupting the society, and hence i will be discussing my views in the following paragraphs.
I do not deny that the media do have its uses. Up to date, one of the most efficient way of disseminating critical information to the public is still through the media. One example was the Sars crisis that took place in Singapore a few years ago. To prevent the widespread of the virus, the Government called off school for several days where this information was effectively transmitted to all students through the mass media as with the flourishing economy in Singapore, many are able to gain access to the many forms of media in Singapore. Also, we are also able to make use of media to educate the public regarding issues, as well as allowing the messes to gain awareness should there be an outbreak of disease and so on.
However, the negative impacts brought about by media outweighs its positive impacts. One widely debated effect of the media is the negative influence that media has on the public, namely the significant influence that television has on the youths aging from 13 to 18. The various violent television programs screened in USA exposes the youths in USA towards violent content, where according to studies, youths exposed to violent content at a young age are likely to evolve into violent individuals, who maybe possible criminals when they grow up. This is so as these youths are rather vulnerable to external threats, and being in puberty, they are normally rebellious individuals who have the tendency to want to explore forbidden boundaries. Also, since many parents nowadays are too caught up with their work to pay much attention towards the education and guiding of their children, wide exposure to violent content available in media will exert a negative inflence on these youths, causing them to learn and behave according to what they view as they do not have the ability to differenciate right from wrong at this young age, as well as the ability to filter out unappropriate information they view on media. The intrduction of violence into the pure abd untainted mines of these teens is hence considered a form of corruption of their minds.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Question: Censorship can never be justified. Discuss.
Answer:
To begin my arguement, i would first like to explain the word "censorship". The word "censorship" is the deleting of parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances. To put it simply, it revolves around the idea of suppressing images, subjects, or opinions deemed as socially unacceptable, where regulatory boards take up the parental role of deciding what can be shown as well as what cannot be shown. hence, i agree with the statement, "censorship can never be justified."
The reason why i personally feel that censorship can never be justified is because it restricts freedom, where the form of restriction on freedom is not only limited to the freedom of speech, but the restriction imposed also infringes on the rights and freedom of people to view certain content. The public has a right to view everything, no matter how obscene or disgusting the content is, where they should be entitled to the freedom of deciding how they feel about a certain content. The idea of censorship, which ultimately revolves around the idea of a group of individuals deciding what the public can or should view, is a infringement on the "freedom of viewership", as it imposes a restriction that prevents the public from gaining access to certain information. Also, as mentioned earlier, censorship restricts the freedom of speech as people may not feel free to express their views and opinions for fear of breaking the censorship law. Censorships prevent anyone from challenging prevailing ideas and instituitions. This form of suppression restricts the thoughts of the public, affects their creativity as they are only limiyed to a certaion set of rules and ideas. Hence, i feel that the practice of censorship is simply unfair and inappropriate.
Besides, there is no fixed rules guiding censorship, where as mentioned earlier, the decision of what to censor is dependent on the regulatory boards, as they are the ones who determine if content is suitable for viewing. Hence, censorship is based on the opinions of these regulatory boards, there is simply no fixed rules governing censorship. What a person deem as unappropriate might not apply to another individual. Since there is no defined rules behind the carrying out of censorship, it is impossible to carry out censorship in a fair and unbiased manner, therefore censorshiip can never be justified.
Answer:
To begin my arguement, i would first like to explain the word "censorship". The word "censorship" is the deleting of parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances. To put it simply, it revolves around the idea of suppressing images, subjects, or opinions deemed as socially unacceptable, where regulatory boards take up the parental role of deciding what can be shown as well as what cannot be shown. hence, i agree with the statement, "censorship can never be justified."
The reason why i personally feel that censorship can never be justified is because it restricts freedom, where the form of restriction on freedom is not only limited to the freedom of speech, but the restriction imposed also infringes on the rights and freedom of people to view certain content. The public has a right to view everything, no matter how obscene or disgusting the content is, where they should be entitled to the freedom of deciding how they feel about a certain content. The idea of censorship, which ultimately revolves around the idea of a group of individuals deciding what the public can or should view, is a infringement on the "freedom of viewership", as it imposes a restriction that prevents the public from gaining access to certain information. Also, as mentioned earlier, censorship restricts the freedom of speech as people may not feel free to express their views and opinions for fear of breaking the censorship law. Censorships prevent anyone from challenging prevailing ideas and instituitions. This form of suppression restricts the thoughts of the public, affects their creativity as they are only limiyed to a certaion set of rules and ideas. Hence, i feel that the practice of censorship is simply unfair and inappropriate.
Besides, there is no fixed rules guiding censorship, where as mentioned earlier, the decision of what to censor is dependent on the regulatory boards, as they are the ones who determine if content is suitable for viewing. Hence, censorship is based on the opinions of these regulatory boards, there is simply no fixed rules governing censorship. What a person deem as unappropriate might not apply to another individual. Since there is no defined rules behind the carrying out of censorship, it is impossible to carry out censorship in a fair and unbiased manner, therefore censorshiip can never be justified.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
My Opinions On The Ministers' Pay Hike
links:
http://news.asiaone.com.sg/a1news/20070410_story8_1.html
http://www.asia1.com/specials/government_payhike/
The recent statistics revealed that the top private-sector salaries have surged ahead of those in the public sector, resulting in an urgent need to increase the salaries of those working in the civil service so as to narrow the wide income gap. Many disgruntled citizens are most concerned with the increase in the ministers' pay, where this controversial issue have sparked off many fierce debates regarding the need for the ministerial pay hike. Even though the conclusion of this issue is set, but i would like to revisit this issue and offer my humble views regarding this event.
The reasons given by the government to substantiate the pay hike are the need to keep the salaries of government officials attractive so as to retain the able ones, in order to prevent the outflow of talents from the government. The attractive pay can also act as an incentive to bring in a continuing flow of able and successful people to the government, ensuring a first class government. i do not deny the need for the pay hike, but the extent of the increase is questionable. What irks me is the fact that as many aged are starving because the miserly assistance they receive every month is insufficient for their subsistence, and many Singaporeans are trying to make a living as they battle with the realities of life-retrenchment, no pay rise for long periods of time, lack of lob securites, ministers are debating on the pay hike when their pays are already pitched at a level far greater than what most Singaporeans are earning currently. It does seem a little too insensitive and callous to carry out this debate admist the many struggling when the ministers are currently earning 1.2 million already. what in their opinion is enough then?
While the government officers claim that the use of the pays of the private sectors as a benchmark is reasonable as many of the ministers hold high paying jobs before they entered the government, i however, beg to differ. Civil service is publice service. The same should apply to the government, where in my opinion, government officials should serve from a sense of idealism and duty to the country. The attractive pays offered by the government may cause people to forgo their noble ideals, and work in the government purely for monetary gains. This might affect the moral authority of the government.
http://news.asiaone.com.sg/a1news/20070410_story8_1.html
http://www.asia1.com/specials/government_payhike/
The recent statistics revealed that the top private-sector salaries have surged ahead of those in the public sector, resulting in an urgent need to increase the salaries of those working in the civil service so as to narrow the wide income gap. Many disgruntled citizens are most concerned with the increase in the ministers' pay, where this controversial issue have sparked off many fierce debates regarding the need for the ministerial pay hike. Even though the conclusion of this issue is set, but i would like to revisit this issue and offer my humble views regarding this event.
The reasons given by the government to substantiate the pay hike are the need to keep the salaries of government officials attractive so as to retain the able ones, in order to prevent the outflow of talents from the government. The attractive pay can also act as an incentive to bring in a continuing flow of able and successful people to the government, ensuring a first class government. i do not deny the need for the pay hike, but the extent of the increase is questionable. What irks me is the fact that as many aged are starving because the miserly assistance they receive every month is insufficient for their subsistence, and many Singaporeans are trying to make a living as they battle with the realities of life-retrenchment, no pay rise for long periods of time, lack of lob securites, ministers are debating on the pay hike when their pays are already pitched at a level far greater than what most Singaporeans are earning currently. It does seem a little too insensitive and callous to carry out this debate admist the many struggling when the ministers are currently earning 1.2 million already. what in their opinion is enough then?
While the government officers claim that the use of the pays of the private sectors as a benchmark is reasonable as many of the ministers hold high paying jobs before they entered the government, i however, beg to differ. Civil service is publice service. The same should apply to the government, where in my opinion, government officials should serve from a sense of idealism and duty to the country. The attractive pays offered by the government may cause people to forgo their noble ideals, and work in the government purely for monetary gains. This might affect the moral authority of the government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)