Marriage/HuiJun/10S416

Peter Landry states that "marriage has come to be understood as a publicly advertised bargain, a social contract between a male and a female". i agree that marriage has become an opened declaration of a commitment between couple, whereby their agreement to marriage is founded upon praticality and obligation. A marriage is only recognised if it is approved by the government, through the witness of family members. This is especially true in singapore where couples have to obtain license to wedding. These people usually take the extra mile to apply to ROM and obtain marital status search result, of which the singapore registry of marriage does not offer. This shows that marriage is not just a simple mutual agreement between two parties to seal their destiny together, it also require official signings to affirm the public of one's relationship. People feel obliged to follow law in order for their marriage to go smoothly. However, marriage, afterall, is based on respect and love between couple, thus it is not all about a black and white 'contract'. Having signed a wedding commitment is to protray a approved marriage on the surface.

Morse argues that "marriage is an organic instrituion that emerges spontaneously from society". i agree that marriage may also arise out of instinctive impluses. Marriage is a result of the natural attraction between opposite gender and does not necessary require long time process before it takes place. The influence of society, through the usage of education and media, on the decision to marry is great on citizens. However, marriage arised out of instinctive impluses constitutes a minority. In singapore, the marital statues of its citizen is low. Thus, it shows that people are more careful in choosing their spouses and thus delaying the marriage. Although people have the implusiveness to get married, they do think twice before acting on it. This is evident from the low marriage statues in Singaporeans.

pjc09_optimism/yufan/10s416

Garte mentioned 'Their successes – big and small – have to be recognized to stimulate future efforts.' He is trying to say that no matter what happens, as long as there is progress, we should remain optimistic and not feel gloomy about that fact that we have taken only a baby step towards success. I agree with his point, this is because if we do not at least acknowledge the minute step we take, we might never be able to achieve anything big. Everyone, young and old need encouragements to propel forward. For example, in every soccer game played, there are supporters rooting for the team they support. It is important for the presence of encouragement and recognition of efforts made by each player. This definitely boost each player's confidence and bring them towards success in their career.

Webb mentioned 'Our social contribution to the world is motivated primarily for the sake of alleviating that nagging guilt within, while in reality ensuring that indulgence and comforts are maintained at all costs.' Here, he is saying that most people's contribution to the society is due mainly to the bad conscience over responsibility, but even when so, people still ensure that their hunger for materialistic wants are fulfilled. However, i disagree with the author's point as it is not true that everyone contribute to the world only because of guilt. There are many others who sacrifice from the bottom of their heart for the world. Just like in the recent case of Haiti earthquake, students sacrifice their measly pocket money for the reconstruction of the buildings and lives in Haiti. Hence, it is not true that contribution to the world is mainly due to their guilty conscience, there are exceptions to it as well.

utopia/germaine/10s416

Firstly, the author claims that “the alteration envisioned by utopian thinkers has not come about, and for the most part, their projects have produced results opposite to what they intended”. I agree with the author that prior to what people have in mind, people who try to change the social and political state of a country end up getting unexpected results. This results in social unrest as people try to pursue what is ideal in their lives. When people try to change something stable in society, it might result in adverse effects. There are many different movements that have ended up in disaster and also the loss of human lives due to conflicting arguments. However, if people make the effort to understand each other, these utopian movements might be able to be successful as people acknowledge the fact that everyone has their own preferences and differences and this would allow people to accept each other easily.

Secondly, the author claims that “we believe that we are so much better, wiser and advanced than those who have tried it in the past”. I agree with the author that people nowadays believe that they are always better, smarter than the people of the past. This causes them to feel more superior to others and also demand for a higher standard of living. As people get more self-centered, they will only think of what is best for them. As a result, living in harmony is hard and dangerous to attain as living in harmony would mean putting aside each other’s differences and accepting one another. However, not everyone is individualistic. There are people in society today who commit their lives to serving others and making living together in harmony easier for everyone. There are also methods to help foster harmony between people. For example, in Singapore, the government tries to foster harmony between different racial groups by setting certain percentages of racial groups that can live in the same housing block. With increased exposure to each other, people might be able to live in harmony after all.

dhs08_utopia/Rabia/10s416

The author argues that attempts to create and drive utopias have been dangerous, enduring and futile. How far do you agree with his view?

Firstly,John Gray states that "there is nothing to stop humans from remaking themselves and their world,as they please".Humans are now better developed in all aspects enabling them to aim for a state in which everything is perfect.I agree with the author's point that there may be no barriers in achieving utopianism.Nowadays,due to globalisation,countries are increasingly interconnected with one another.Thus,they are able to share their resources,knowledge and expertise with other countries.Compared to the past,when this was hard to achieve,it is easier to achieve utopianism as countries can now co-operate and co-ordinate,such that their 'perfect' state is achieved.However,the surrounding that we live in must also be capable of achieving utopianism.All our natural resources have been depleted or are being depleted at a fast rate,such that it cant sustain anymore growth.In this state,the ideal vision of achieving utopianism would also not be possible.Even though,humans may have the capability to achieve utopianism,the natural environment may not have the means to do so.

Secondly,the author states that utopianism may not be possible to achieve as "conflict is a universal feature of human life".Conflicts may arise due to various reasons and have the ability to shatter a common goal shared by everyone.I agree with the author that disagreement is a common attribute among humans.Humans have different wants and needs,that leads them to emphasise different needs and wants.Conflicts may arise when different people prioritise different need and wants and are unable to compromise.However,there are other reasons suggested as to why utopianism cannot be achieved.Human's imperfections are one reason as to why we cant achieve utopianism.Humans make mistakes everyday and have their own limitations.In a utopia society,where there is only perfection,humans may not be able to match up to its standards.Thus,utopianism may not be the best possible society structure for everyone.

[njc07_ethics_and_morality/Gladys/10S416]

The author in passage 1 states that “The bystander effect is watching some evil take place, but since we are watching with others who are watching, and no one seems to be doing anything about the evil, we go on watching and doing nothing about it”. The author says that the “bystander effect” is very prevalent in because of the nature of the effect itself. The bystander effect is that one’s actions are constantly affected by the society. One does not do anything without the society, or even another person doing the same thing first. It results in nothing being done, because no one wants to take the first step, even if it means to condone evil in society. I agree that the “bystander effect” is prevalent in society. This is also because of the fear of being judged by society. Should one stand up for his beliefs and moral values he is going against the grain of a common understanding in society. The fear of being labelled as “trying to be difficult” or being mocked at for being “old fashioned” drives people to be socially accepted through conforming to the ways of society.

The author in passage 2 states that “Accepting a low-level moral code during the day is bound to infiltrate one’s off-time judgment as well. “ The author says that long time spent with a society of amoral standards will influence one’s moral standards in the long run as well. This is the case where everyone’s moral standards are bouncing off each other. The existence of society itself allows the “bystander effect” to be prevalent as each person’s thoughts and moral standards are affected by the existence of society. I agree that this phenomenon is evident in society. This is because of loose morals in the society. Loose morals in a society will lead to one that condones many once deemed immoral acts. As such, people with strong morals will eventually be influenced to allow such views to stand. In Singapore, the once deemed impossible thought of divorce has been already accepted as the norm. In fact, divorce rates have increased steadily in Singapore since the 1990s. Thus, this shows that the loose morals itself has allowed the “bystander effect” of widespread acceptance of divorce in Singapore

acjc09_ humanitarian_aid AQ/Syahirah/10S416

The author in passage 1 claims that “countries off the international radar will receive little or no aid from companies”. This means that nations which do not trade globally will get almost no help from others when in need because these countries, given their poor economies, will not be able to return anything to those who have helped them. Hence, this shows that those who are capable of offering help to countries that are in dire state, do take into account of their personal benefits before giving out monetary aid. Instead of lending a helping hand wholeheartedly, these business-minded people who are profit-driven will only look into what benefits they would reap when helping others. However, I do not agree with the author as not all donations from firms are based on self interest. There are companies which set out to give aid to people in need due to their compassion and sympathy towards others. For example, after the Tsunami struck Aceh in Indonesia a few years ago, volunteers from the Mercy Relief Singapore receive thousands of donations from Singaporeans, which would then be sent to the victims there. Hence, this reflects charitable acts which are not done with personal gains in mind, but true compassion and care for others in need.

Meanwhile, the author in passage 2 claims that rebuilding nations which have experienced disaster or war has now become a profitable business. So this implies that companies may not offer disaster-struck countries, when these countries are not able to return them anything, be it business opportunities or commercial gains. However, this may not be true all the time that oganisations choose to help countries in need if they are able to reap benefits from it. For an instance, local firms, such as NEWater, have donated bottles of NEWater to victims of flood-hit countries so as to provide these helpless people with drinkable water after their homes have been destroyed, depriving them of clean water. Hence, I argue that not all organisations have ulterior motives in giving aid to others as my example have proved so. Only companies which are profit-driven consider helping countries in need as an opportunity to seek more monetary gains.

ACJC/Humantarian Aid/HweeLing/10s416

The author from the first paragraph states that “countries off the international radar will receive little or no aid from the companies”. The author means to say that the less developed countries that do not take part actively in global activities tends to receive lesser help from corporations in times of disaster as compared to the more developed countries that part actively in global activities. I agree that most companies offer international aid is mainly due to a few reasons. These reasons include gaining popularity among the public, hoping to gain from the country’s resources and attempting to interfere in the country political issues. Despite that fact, I feel that it is being too over-generalised to say all corporations and aid organisations have the same motive. There are still non-profit organisations that have no hidden motives and solely want to do their part for the unfortunates. For example, the United Nations Organisations and World Vision have no ulterior motives and solely aim to overcome poverty and injustice. Hence, I say that self-interest being the motive behind charitable acts only applies to some cooperation and organisations.

The author from the second paragraph states that “emergency aid has come in form of loans, not grants”. This infers that after helping the disaster-strike countries, the disaster-strike countries are expected to repay the aid. Repaying the aid may not necessary be in term of money but in terms of using their country nature resources. I do agree with the author that international aid is no longer for free and has a price to pay for. This could mean that if the party offering aid does not gain any benefits, they may not provide any help. Thus, self-interest still becomes the drive to help them. However, this may not always be the case. There are still times where countries help without expecting anything in returns. For example, Singapore sent troops to SiChuan to help out in the tragedy that occurred in 2008, other organisations started charities programmes to help them and even one of the Singaporeans sponsored the SiChuan people working in Singapore air tickets to fly back to visit their family members. These kind acts came genuinely from the heart and were not driven by self-interest. Hence, I argue that not all charitable acts have other motives.

rjc_population and demographics/Ng Zeng Woon/10S416

In passage 1, the author states that "literate, well-educated women" with many "social and economic options" in today's rich countries have pulled fertility "below the natural replacement rate". Here, the author is highlighting a key threat posed from population when population starts to go a decline due to the falling fertility rate. This problem is also applicable to my country as my country has a growing aging population which declining fertility rates will not only make it difficult for my country's population to replace itself, but also have serious implications on our economy, given that my country has no natural resources of its own in which to help boost its economy. Today for many young Singaporeans with well-paid professional jobs and career ambitions, child rearing, and even marriage, takes lower priority. Even this may not be true, many of them may delay their child bearing till their thirties,which may contribute to their inability to conceive. The problem for Singapore is that our country is small and have no natural resources. The only dependable resource that Singapore can tap into and help boost the economy is that of human resource. With less human resource, we may have a serious handicap in our economy as well as a growing dependency on immigrants. And this may have obvious and significant effects for our country in terms of the economy as much of the population may become unsuitable for working.

In passage 2, the author mentions a point in which for decades, the world has been "haunted by ominous and recurrent reports of impending demographic doom." He brings out a valid trend where people are being fascinated about stories and reports about the world's eventual doom. However, these trends are unproven and there are no evidence to suggest that the possibility of the eventual doom occurring may be high and likely in the near future. Furthermore, in my country, people are not concerned by such claims, rather dismissing them as invalid and a total waste of time. Hence the views of the author of the second passage are irrelevant to my country.

rjc_population and demographics/pamelasuzannelim/10s416

In both passages, the writers see population problems as a threat. Which argument is more relevant to your country?

The first author says that inequality within a country stymies the development of a peaceful country. However, in my society despite being a multi-cultural society, there is little discrepancy amongst the population. Thus, the first author’s concerns are irrelevant to my society.

On the other hand, the second author raises issues that are present in Singapore. The declining birth rates. The author states that, “Some of today’s largest developed nations are expected to see population declines during the next 30 years.” He has also specifically mentioned that Singapore is indeed one of the many countries which fall under this category. I do agree that this is one of the significant menaces Singapore faces. It is evident that the government is deeply concerned and has suggested many alternative ways in ensuring the population is at replacement levels. Some of the methods include introducing many family policies to encourage the birth rates as well as recruiting foreign talent in order to prevent an aging population. Through the government’s conscious efforts and uncountable speeches, we can easily tell the shortage of human resources would be a threat to country. However while the government consistently tries to increase the population of the country, they have little regard for the geographical limitations Singapore has. With the limited land, a population of 6 million may bring about more problems even if the existing ones such a lack of manpower is resolved. If the country is too densely populated problems such as a shortage of facilities would introduce another set of problems. Thus, while the the sub-replacement levels of the population does pose as a problem, overpopulation is something we have to consider if too. Therefore, there is a need for the government to use appropriate strategies to solve the ever changing problems when they come by.

[njc09_culture_of_shame/Grace/S416]

In reference to passage 1, the author says that teaching her son the concept of "finders are not always keepers" is a first step to tackling the problem of shame. I believe that this is especially applicable in my society as not everyone in Singapore has that kind of mentality. Many Singaporeans today have the mindset of "finders keepers" and this reflects their selfishness. But they can't be blamed as his mindset came about through the competitive spirit of Singaporeans. Their selfish mindset and individualistic views has let to the presence of culture shame in my society. Therefore, I strongly encourage Singaporeans to adopt the Japanese attitude towards shame. If Singaporeans would start to be honest and be able to uphold integrity in their life, I do believe that crime rates like theft will fall and it will make Singapore a better society.

Secondly, in passage 2, the author states that Americans are "simply unprepared for dealing with pangs of shame" and that leads to them not have a sense of shame in their life. This is applicable in my society as there have been an increasingly number of people who have no sense of shame in their lives. They litter on the streets, they even smoke in areas where it is prohibited. Their individualistic mindset has led them to make decisions based on their own wants and desires and they fail to consider the well being of the people around him. However, there is still people in Singapore that do have a sense of shame. These are the people I can feel proud of. They are willing to stand out of the crowd, and go the extra mile to make society a better place.If more Singaporeans will learn to deal with the consequences of shame, I do believe that Singapore will be made a better place with a peaceful society.

rjc08_education/Pei ling/10S416

I agree with Professor X that higher education is not for everyone. He believes that higher education is overrated in America and everyone tries to attain a qualification even though the individual is not cut out for it. He thinks that the idea of everyone going for higher education is idealistic and higher education is not compulsory. In Singapore, the idea of going for higher education is not enforced on Singapore students. Students can choose to either continue their education in the university or start working. There are polytechnics available for students to get their diplomas and pick up the necessary skills needed for their jobs. They can start working after they have obtained diplomas from polytechnics. A Ministry of Manpower (MOM) report shows that unemployment is higher among university graduates (2.6%) than among polytechnic diploma holders (2.1%). Hence, higher education is not for everyone as it is not necessary unless the individual wants to better himself.

However, the competitive society misleads everyone to think that higher education is compulsory if they want to secure a good and high paying job in future. It is not completely untrue as it is indeed difficult to get a good job without high qualifications in Singapore now. There are many university graduates unemployed because of the recent recession. If they are not employed, how can someone with a lower qualification compete with them for a job? The company obviously with hire someone with higher qualification. Higher education is especially important in Singapore as most jobs are tertiary and requires much knowledge. Singapore is currently advancing in various fields (finance, social sciences, medicine, science) which require specific education in order to participate in them. Even business or multi-national companies - a more advance version of mercantilism - requires formal education because of the complexities that global trading involves. Thus higher education is for everyone if they want to do well in future in competitive societies.

rjc09/education/benjamin/10s416

The author believes that those who are working jobs that do not require much knowledge do not need to go for higher education. Those jobs are like school custodian or manning the boiler. I agree to the author’s point of view however the society will not agree with the author’s point of view. This is seen by the fact that Singapore is a fast changing society, with lots of new job being offered to the people with higher pay. If a person does not keep upgrading themselves, they will be left behind with very measly pay. Thus, for Singapore, there is a continued push for low pay worker to be re-educated. This is seen by the fact that government has provided bonus for low wage worker to undergo continuing education and training. This is seen as a push for low wage worker to be trained further in the needs of the current jobs advancement which is seen as essentially training on basic use of computer or the use of Basic English. But still if the funding for this is too much it may make the society unagreeable to the fact that those who are working low paying job will require higher education to ensure that they have better paying job after that.
The author believes that those who do not have the basics should not have higher education. This is especially not applicable for the context for Singapore. This is seen that most of the Singaporeans are required by law to be educated till they are P6 which is seen as a time when education are fully subsidized for Singaporean. Thus, this is not applicable to Singapore context. Thus this make all to be eligible for further education. However, a family financial means will determine whether the family can have higher education not so much on whether a person has basic education.