The topic that I'm going to talk about today is on "Any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified. Do you agree?"
After watching the video in class last week, i realised that different countries have different way of punishing the criminals. Some of the ways seem ridiculous to me but they are effective for their country. I always thought that all the countries have the same form of punishments-which is fine, jail and serving community service. the video proves me wrong!
For example, in the rural town in Africa shown in the video clip, the villagers there practice "oil test" to determine whether the criminals are guilty. They believe that the boiling oil is able to scald the hand of the guilty one. Both the accused and the defendant are required to put their hand inside a pot of boiling oil. The one who is lying will get his hand burnt. I do not know why the people there will believe such "tricks" but somehow the practice has been there for decades and it seems effective in helping the village to maintain peace.
Another way of punishment seems more ridiculous to me. Criminals are required to carry a signboard indicating their crimes along the street. For example, a guy who ran over someone will have to carry a signboard stating "I ran over someone while i was drunk." The criminal will have to carry the signboard until they have finish serving their sentence. This form of punishment is known as public shaming. According to one of the prestigious judge there, this public shaming is effective in combating the crime rate which has plunged greatly after the introduction of public shaming.
The most ridiculous form of punishment is the one where the victim's families members are allowed to take revenge on the murderer by killing them. I totally disagree to this form of punishment as the vicious cycle will continue. No one would dare to step out of the house as they are constantly living in fear, fear of losing their lives.
I do not agree that any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified to a certain extent. Different country has different ways in dealing with their criminals, the punishment may be effective for their country but not to the other country. For example, if we introduce fine and jail in Africa, it may not work there as the villagers are superstitious. This is why the "oil test" is so effective for them. They believe that the god will help them to track down the criminals. Thus, we cannot say that any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is not justified. However, in the case of "revenge killing", it is definitely not justifiable no matter how effective it is. This form of punishment will only bring about more crimes.
Thus, it depends on what type of punishment a country practises before we draw a conclusion whether the punishment is justifiable.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
Does America need a bigger military?
The article that i read this week is "Does America need a bigger military?"
This article summarizes the problem and causes of small military in America.
The longer a soldier stays in Iraq, the more combat he or she sees, the greater the stress, the higher the psychological toll. A quarter of the U.S. soldiers and Marines enduring a second tour in Iraq showed signs of mental illness (versus 17 percent of those on their first deployment), according to the latest survey by the Army’s Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT). A disturbingly high 10% admitted mistreating Iraqi civilians or wantonly damaging their property are soldiers who screened positive for mental-health problems. They were twice as likely to admit to abusing Iraqis.
Why is there such problem? one reason is because the soldiers are not having more time at home between deployments. The MHAT recommends that ideally soldiers should deploy for six months, then spend 18 to 36 months at home. But that is impossible. The Army is so undermanned that soldiers are going to Iraq for a year, coming home for a year and heading right back to combat. This is because the U.S. military is too small to meet current needs or expected contingencies.
In 1990, the regular Army numbered 750,000, but it’s shrunk almost 40 percent since then. Congress has recently voted to increase Army strength by 65,000, up to 547,000 troops, but that’s probably not enough. Since 9/11, the Army has been using the Reserve and National Guard to bolster its force.
However, the root of the problem is the money issue. The government does not have enough funds to support the military size that it needs. The Army is spending millions just to maintain its all-volunteer force. Specialists are paid tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses and the baseline cost of national defense that is, excluding the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has gone up by a third since 1998 and will reach close to 50 percent by 2009.
Not only that, medical cost has been rising. Another reason why the American Army is unable to increase its numbers is that it needs money to replace equipment and buy new technology. Just repairing and replacing equipment chewed in Iraq will cost the army $13 billion.
Measured as a percentage of GDP, today America spends on its military less than half of what it spent during Vietnam (4.2 percent this year, against 8.9 percent in 1968). President Bush has not hesitated to ask for sacrifice from the soldiers he sends into combat. Now may be the time to ask for some sacrifice from the rest of America.
This article summarizes the problem and causes of small military in America.
The longer a soldier stays in Iraq, the more combat he or she sees, the greater the stress, the higher the psychological toll. A quarter of the U.S. soldiers and Marines enduring a second tour in Iraq showed signs of mental illness (versus 17 percent of those on their first deployment), according to the latest survey by the Army’s Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT). A disturbingly high 10% admitted mistreating Iraqi civilians or wantonly damaging their property are soldiers who screened positive for mental-health problems. They were twice as likely to admit to abusing Iraqis.
Why is there such problem? one reason is because the soldiers are not having more time at home between deployments. The MHAT recommends that ideally soldiers should deploy for six months, then spend 18 to 36 months at home. But that is impossible. The Army is so undermanned that soldiers are going to Iraq for a year, coming home for a year and heading right back to combat. This is because the U.S. military is too small to meet current needs or expected contingencies.
In 1990, the regular Army numbered 750,000, but it’s shrunk almost 40 percent since then. Congress has recently voted to increase Army strength by 65,000, up to 547,000 troops, but that’s probably not enough. Since 9/11, the Army has been using the Reserve and National Guard to bolster its force.
However, the root of the problem is the money issue. The government does not have enough funds to support the military size that it needs. The Army is spending millions just to maintain its all-volunteer force. Specialists are paid tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses and the baseline cost of national defense that is, excluding the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has gone up by a third since 1998 and will reach close to 50 percent by 2009.
Not only that, medical cost has been rising. Another reason why the American Army is unable to increase its numbers is that it needs money to replace equipment and buy new technology. Just repairing and replacing equipment chewed in Iraq will cost the army $13 billion.
Measured as a percentage of GDP, today America spends on its military less than half of what it spent during Vietnam (4.2 percent this year, against 8.9 percent in 1968). President Bush has not hesitated to ask for sacrifice from the soldiers he sends into combat. Now may be the time to ask for some sacrifice from the rest of America.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Should women go back to the workforce again?
Since mother's day is approaching, I will talk about an article related to our dearest mummy.
The article that I read is on the issue should mothers get back to the workforce?
This article states that the percentage of women in the workforce is declining from year to year. This year there's only 64% of women in the workforce compared to 76% last year.
Why is the percentage of women in the workforce declining? Well, there are several factors.
First of all, most of the women will quit their jobs when they have young children to take care with. No doubt, mothers can give up everything for their children. Many young mothers who just started the motherhood life will want to spend as much time as possible with their beloved babies or children. To be a full-time mother, most of the women will quit their job and work as housewives.
Secondly, more and more families are rising from middle-income to high-income family; this means that most families are ecomically-stable with men being the sole bread winner alone. Hence, more and more women get to enjoy an easy and carefree life. Women no longer need to work to earn extra salary for families. This is one reason why more and more women are leaving the workforce.
Now, we face the question that should women join the workforce again after their children has grown up?
Singapore government encourages women to join workforce. This is because being in the workforce, women will know how's the Singapore's economy doing and most importantly, women can be independent of themselves and do not need to rely on men for financial support. Also, Singapore depends greatly on human capital. Singapore has a small population; if Singapore's economy is solely run by men, the economy will definitely slow down. Thus we need both men and women to work together to boost Singapore's economy to the optimum. To encourage women to join the workforce again, Singapore government provides training for the older women to upgrade themselves. Women will get to learn a new skill during the training and government will help to get a job for women who wish to go back to the workforce. Also, more and more childcare subsidies are given to mothers with young children. This is to encourage mothers to stay in the workforce and subsidies act as incentives for parents to put their children in childcare centre while they are working.
In my opinion, I think that it is normal for mothers to quit their jobs for the sake of taking care of their children. If I become a mother next time, I will quit my job too and concentrate on taking care of my children if possible. I feel that it is important that parents spend enough time with their children. Spending insufficient time with children will affect their development. However, I think that a housewife should still continue to observe the economy and constantly upgrade themselves with new skills and knowledge so that they will not be left behind.
Here, I want to wish all mothers around the world a very HAPPY MOTHERS' DAY!
The article that I read is on the issue should mothers get back to the workforce?
This article states that the percentage of women in the workforce is declining from year to year. This year there's only 64% of women in the workforce compared to 76% last year.
Why is the percentage of women in the workforce declining? Well, there are several factors.
First of all, most of the women will quit their jobs when they have young children to take care with. No doubt, mothers can give up everything for their children. Many young mothers who just started the motherhood life will want to spend as much time as possible with their beloved babies or children. To be a full-time mother, most of the women will quit their job and work as housewives.
Secondly, more and more families are rising from middle-income to high-income family; this means that most families are ecomically-stable with men being the sole bread winner alone. Hence, more and more women get to enjoy an easy and carefree life. Women no longer need to work to earn extra salary for families. This is one reason why more and more women are leaving the workforce.
Now, we face the question that should women join the workforce again after their children has grown up?
Singapore government encourages women to join workforce. This is because being in the workforce, women will know how's the Singapore's economy doing and most importantly, women can be independent of themselves and do not need to rely on men for financial support. Also, Singapore depends greatly on human capital. Singapore has a small population; if Singapore's economy is solely run by men, the economy will definitely slow down. Thus we need both men and women to work together to boost Singapore's economy to the optimum. To encourage women to join the workforce again, Singapore government provides training for the older women to upgrade themselves. Women will get to learn a new skill during the training and government will help to get a job for women who wish to go back to the workforce. Also, more and more childcare subsidies are given to mothers with young children. This is to encourage mothers to stay in the workforce and subsidies act as incentives for parents to put their children in childcare centre while they are working.
In my opinion, I think that it is normal for mothers to quit their jobs for the sake of taking care of their children. If I become a mother next time, I will quit my job too and concentrate on taking care of my children if possible. I feel that it is important that parents spend enough time with their children. Spending insufficient time with children will affect their development. However, I think that a housewife should still continue to observe the economy and constantly upgrade themselves with new skills and knowledge so that they will not be left behind.
Here, I want to wish all mothers around the world a very HAPPY MOTHERS' DAY!
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Should Singapore legalise homosexual
The article that i read is "decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error".
The Home Affairs Ministry has indicated that section S377A of the Penal Code will be retained. S377A prohibits the commisson of gross indecency by one male person with another male person. However, opinions have been expressed that S377A may be unconstitutional because it discriminates against homosexual sex and not oral and anal sex committed by heterosexual or what we called the lesbians.
There are both advantages and disadvantages if homosexual is legalised. The disadvantages are more than the advantages. The disadvantages are that it is known medical fact that homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections and that an active homosexual agenda has endangered clashes with fundamental liberties such as free speech and religious liberty.
In my opinion, i think that we should not legalise homosexual. It is not because i discriminate homosexual but i feel that legalising homosexual will bring many unneccessary and bad influence to the society. If homosexual is legalised, homosexuals must then be allowed to marry someone of the same sex and be given the benefits of marriage such as tax benefits and adoption of children. This will lead to greater number of sexually transmitted infections. Not only that, once homosexual is legalised,there will be demand for heterosexual to be legalised too. Homosexuality is offensive to the majority of citizens. Legalising homosexual would be divisive as Singapore is a multireligious and multiracial community.
Hence, i feel that legalising homosexual is not a right move in Singapore.
The Home Affairs Ministry has indicated that section S377A of the Penal Code will be retained. S377A prohibits the commisson of gross indecency by one male person with another male person. However, opinions have been expressed that S377A may be unconstitutional because it discriminates against homosexual sex and not oral and anal sex committed by heterosexual or what we called the lesbians.
There are both advantages and disadvantages if homosexual is legalised. The disadvantages are more than the advantages. The disadvantages are that it is known medical fact that homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections and that an active homosexual agenda has endangered clashes with fundamental liberties such as free speech and religious liberty.
In my opinion, i think that we should not legalise homosexual. It is not because i discriminate homosexual but i feel that legalising homosexual will bring many unneccessary and bad influence to the society. If homosexual is legalised, homosexuals must then be allowed to marry someone of the same sex and be given the benefits of marriage such as tax benefits and adoption of children. This will lead to greater number of sexually transmitted infections. Not only that, once homosexual is legalised,there will be demand for heterosexual to be legalised too. Homosexuality is offensive to the majority of citizens. Legalising homosexual would be divisive as Singapore is a multireligious and multiracial community.
Hence, i feel that legalising homosexual is not a right move in Singapore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
