Do the past and present offer any guidance for the future? (2004) (+Sc + Politics + Economics)

In my opinion, I agree that the past and present offer guidance for the future. Lessons learnt from the past, as well as from our everyday lives allow us to prevent such incidents from happening again as well as make us better prepared to tackle similar obstacles faced in the future.

Take for example the case of the The National Kidney Foundation Singapore scandal which happened in July 2005, whereby the Chief Executive Officer T.T Durai and its board of directors misused the funds donated to the NKF for their own benefits. This caused a massive backlash and fallout of donors to the charity, and subsequently resulted in the resignation of Chief Executive Officer T.T Durai and its board of directors. A similar case happened recently whereby th former head of Ren Ci Hospital, Venerable Shi Ming Yi, a Buddhist monk, has been charged with forgery, conspiracy and misuse of funds.

These incidents caused widespread feelings of outrage, anger, and betrayal among the public. Moreover, the scandals raised questions about the level of transparency in other institutions in Singapore. This has led to better awareness on the public’s part as to where funds donated go to and hence the public would be more careful when donating money to charities in the future.

Another example would be the Maria Hertogh riots of 1950, sparked by a court decision to return custody of Maria, then aged 13, to her biological Catholic Dutch mother after she had been raised as a Muslim by her adoptive Malay family. Eighteen people were killed in those riots. In addition, what happened in India in 1947-48, just three years earlier when the British Raj began to be dismantled and people long suppressed found utterance. Singapore's founding generation witnessed Jawaharlal Nehru - a much admired figure in the anti-colonial movement and a forceful advocate of secularism - being stunned by the absolute ferocity of the Hindu-Muslim riots that accompanied the partition of British India. An estimated one million people died.
As stated in the article Secularism - not from theory but bloody history, “And in 1992, the Ministry of Education reminded mission schools of Article 16 (3) of the Singapore Constitution, which states: 'No person shall be required to receive instruction in or take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his own.' Students cannot be compelled to attend religious service, mission school principals were told. Why is it necessary to send such strong, unambiguous signals? Because religion is 'a very profound and fundamental tectonic divide', as MM Lee put it once. He did not learn that from Prof Rawls.” This has showed that Singapore has learnt from the past that religion is a very sensitive issue especially for the survival of peace in a multi-racial and multi-religion country in Singapore.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that the past and present offer precious lessons and guidance for us to follow and not to make similar mistakes again.

Discuss the importance of religion in the society today.

I believe that religion in the society plays an important role.

According to Adolf Hitler, "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people, especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life." (Taken from: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10). I do agree with him that religion would help to teach the human race moral values, just as lichun have said too. Religion would will help to educate the masses on how to be a better person, not to have evil intention on others. It also guide us to turn over a new leaf when we go onto the wrong path. An example in Singapore. The believe in Christianity( a faith) has allowed Glenn Lim (a former drug addict), to turn over a new leaf. He has now become a counseller and uses his own experience to help troubled teens.

Religion also plays an important role in marriage. Most marriages would be held in religious place such as church, temples etc, in the presence of a higher power. Different religion would have different ways of going through the ceremony and thus the ceremony holds much significance to a couple. It is a promise made between the two with the higher power.

Religion may dictate a set of acceptable standards and those who wish to remain in that society must adhere to those standards, within acceptable limits. Therefore, I believe that religion plays in important role in the society today.

Discuss the importance of religion in the society today

With science and technology getting more advanced, more people, especially the younger generation, choose to worship the wonderments of technologies rather than Gods. As such, the importance of religion in today’s society has begun to pale. However, this does not mean that religion does not have a stand in society today. Religion plays important roles of teaching us moral values and governing people’s thoughts and beliefs. Hence, we still cannot neglect the importance of religion in our society today.

Firstly, religion is important for nation building and individual development. It teaches us moral values, to change the way we live in the world, not for our own sake but for the sake of others. Buddhism, for example, teaches us morality, abstaining from unwholesome deeds of body and speech. Likewise, Christianity teaches atonement, to repent one’s sin. Hence, religion helps us to clarify ethical and moral issues, especially in today’s fast changing world where we need something concrete to hold. Therefore, religion is important in incorporating human good in our society as the society progresses.

Secondly, religion is important as it wields a powerful influence over people’s life. As Karl Marx says, “religion is the opiate of the masses”. Religion plays a role of governing people’s taught and belief, helping people to seek solace and to reflect on the meaning of life. Hence, since religion is usually a reflection of one’s belief and therefore, people are willing to go all the way out to protect their religion. Evidence can be seen from past divisions caused by differences in religion, one of which is the Maria Hertogh riots of 1950 in Singapore. It was sparked by a court decision to return custody of Maria, then aged 13, to her biological Catholic Dutch mother after she had been raised as a Muslim by her adoptive Malay mother. Although it happened long ago, it is because that Singapore has kept in mind such a painful lesson that we have managed to maintain peace in today’s society. As such, religion still cannot be neglected from today’s society.

In conclusion, we cannot neglect religion as it plays a very important role in ensuring human good and has a strong influence over people’s lives.

Do your think that human rights are universal???

The answer is no. The very first reason is that the interpretation of human rights is different in every countries.

Human rights viewed by westerns are different from those viewed by Asians. Also, in some other countries, human rights are not even granted. An example is in Afghanistan. Even today, women today are denied the vote and the right to drive cars in several Arab states. Also, women are not given the right to leave home except when accompanied by a brother or husband and forbidding them all access to public education. These are basic human rights everyone should be entitled to. Therefore, human rights are not universal.

Even in US, which is supposed to be liberal, Florida's government, after frying several prisoners in a faulty electric chair, has only reluctantly turned to other methods of execution to conform to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment." Yet when America's Western allies tell it that the U.S. system of capital punishment is barbaric, local politicians and courts reply that it is their way and no one else's business. This shows that even within the same country, human rights are defined differently, let alone universal.

Cultural differences also differently defined human rights in different countries. In Asia, people have a different set of values are are more conservative, making their idea of human rights different from their western counterparts.

References:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010101faessay4253/thomas-m-franck/are-human-rights-universal.html

http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4142.php

Do you think human rights are universal?

Till date, many efforts have been put in to enforce universal human rights – human rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union aims to protect human rights, claiming to 'fight violations of civil liberties wherever they occur', while the Human Rights Watch is dedicated to preserving and promoting human rights around the world. Despite that, there are still many people in the world suffering under inhumane treatment. So, I do not think that human rights are universal.

Human rights cannot be achieved in every country due to the different policies followed by different government systems. The government plays an important role of determining treatment received by the people. For instance, there are countries which followed the Sharia or Islamic law, which possible penalties includes amputation of limbs and stoning. Meanwhile, there are also countries which governments are endorsing a variety of interrogation techniques, dubbed 'torture lite', of which include rough treatment or psychological techniques to induce fear and confusion. Such are examples of how governments are enshrining the practice of torture into law although such cruelty clearly violates human rights legislation. Even if human rights groups try to intervene and stop such acts, the taint of hypocrisy still remains. As one official put it, "if you don't violate someone's human rights some the time, you aren't doing your job." Hence, despite efforts to enforce universal human rights, such efforts will still become futile as long as the government is not willing to support it and since there are many governments who are not willing to support such efforts, human rights are not universal.

In addition, universal human rights are still not guaranteed due to the inability to manage conflict, natural disasters, poverty and healthcare. In many parts of the world, the welfare of the people is not protected due to social problems. For example, having enough to eat is basic human right but every day, one in five of the world's population goes hungry. These can be due to epidemics, war, natural phenomena or bad government. While bad governance and war can still be dealt with, epidemics and natural phenomena are far beyond our control. Unfortunately, until we are able to solve all of these problems, universal human rights would not be achieved.

In conclusion, human rights are not universal because many people in the world are still suffering under inhumane treatment and there is still a long way before human rights would be universal.

Do you think there are circumstances where human rights may be curtailed?

The issue of human rights has been a much debatable topic recently, not only in Singapore but worldwide as well. However, what exactly are human rights? As quoted from Wikipedia, “Human rights refers to the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled. Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.”

In my opinion, I think that it is rather impossible for human rights to be achieved by everyone worldwide, mainly due to the fact that different people have different unique perceptions of human rights. Hence, I feel that there are circumstances where human rights may be curtailed, especially so when the rights of a particular group harm those of another.

Let’s take for example the right of freedom of expression, which according to article 2 is most commonly championed by human rights groups in relation to Singapore. Freedom of expression is the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. However, this right is often abused by some, and exercised at the expense of someone else’s reputation. In such a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society as Singapore, freedom of expression must be limited in order to ensure the strong existence of racial harmony. For example, recently in Singapore, there has been a case whereby a Chinese made racist comments on the basis of freedom of speech. His action led to the unhappiness of many, especially those of the race he criticized. As such, in this circumstance, I feel that the right of freedom of expression should be curtailed so as to prevent people from getting hurt.

In conclusion, I re-emphasized my point that there are circumstances where human rights may be curtailed, especially so when the rights of a particular group harm those of another. It is justified that humans deserve basic rights, however, this should never be done at the expense of others.

Do you think that human rights are universal?

In my opinion, I think that human rights are only universal to a small extent. Firstly, what are human rights? Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law. (http://www.answers.com/topic/human-rights?nr=1&lsc=true). The ‘universality of human rights’ is a concept. This concept holds that human rights belong to all human beings and are fundamental to every type of society. In this way, everyone has the same basic human rights. Individuals may exercise different rights, or exercise the same rights differently, depending on which group they belong to within society. (http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4142.php)

Human rights are not universal because in some countries some groups of people are not granted their himan rights. One of the example would be Afganistan. The talibans which rule most of the Afganistan, denys women the right to leave home except when accompanied by a brother or husband and forbidding them all access to public education. Education is a basic right of a human. They should have the freedom to access to knowledge. Therefore I would say that the group of woman are not given human rights. Hence they human rights are not universal.

In Singapore, we have yet to sign the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights. As an Asian country, we claim that social and economic rights take prcedence over civil and political rights. We assert that civil and political rights are immaterial when people are destitude and society is unstable. Thus we can see that on Singapore is only supports human rights to a certain extent.We can also see that how a country view different human rights differently affects whether human rights are universal. Therefore, I believe that human rights are not totally universal.

In conclusion, we cannot say that human rights are totally universal but it is universal only to a certain extent.

Do you think there are circumstances where human rights MAY be curtailed?

According to wikipedia's definition, human rights are the basic rights and freedom to which all humans are entitled to. Human rights have many branched categories such as politics, social, culture, education and basic commodities. These different categories are subjected to various external and internal stimuli. In response, some of these categories might have to be limited and be subjected to control by the government. As a matter of fact, there are already situations whereby human rights (e.g. freedom of expression) have been limited. In my opinion, there are circumstances where human rights may be curtailed. The factors that affect the circumstances are the abuse of human rights and the exposure of the country to the world.


As mentioned earlier on, freedom of expression is a form of human right. However, we can see that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute in some countries (e.g. communist countries). This is because the extent of freedom of expression is very hard to control. Weak control of it might result in people crossing over the moral boundary. An example in this context is the defamation of political figures. It is no doubt a form of free expression, however, this right is done at the expense of another's reputation. This will call for government intervention set restrictions to freedom of speech in order to prevent the proliferation of such practices in the country. Another example is housing. Every human is entitled to have a shelter over their heads. However, if this right is abused such that people demand condominiums for basic housing (at the expense of the country's financial stability), then this human right might be curtailed for the good sake of the country. Hence exploiting of human rights may eventuallylead it being curtailed.



There is also a futuristic circumstance whereby human rights may be limited- degree of exposure of a country to the world. Current technology advancement has provided us with much more insight and information of the outer-world than we can ever imagine. Short Message Service (SMS) has reduced the time taken for the exchange of information from days by written letter to seconds. This fast and unprecedented access to information has resulted in the amplification of one's worldly desire as one would be overwhelmed by the wonders of the outside world. An ongoing example is the fashion bandwagon in Singapore. Because of the easy accessibility to information of the outside world, we get to familiarise ourselves with the latest fashion trends in Japan and Hong Kong. We will then start to import more and more foreign goods hence inevitably neglecting our local economy. At this point, the government will have to intervene by vigorously promoting local goods or limit imports. If the latter is considered, then Singaporeans would have been denied their rights to purchase their preferred goods. Human right in choice of consumption would be curtailed. So, what more to think when future technologies further enhance communications? The possibilties of a country being increasingly exposed to the world would be infinite. Thus, the degree of exposure to the world will create a circumstance where there may be a possibility that human rights may be curtailed.



Hence after examining the various factors mentioned above, there are circumstances where human right may be curtailed.

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

Like what Jinyi said, "A definite right or wrong cannot fully reflect and justify the issue. This is because in ‘Right’, there would be a small extent of ‘Wrong’ and vice versa.", personally, I feel that it is neither ever right nor ever wrong for a country to become involved in the internal affairs of another, largely because situations differ from country to country.

As such, I believe that often, the intentions of the intervening country is right but their actions, or rather, the consequences of their actions, are wrong. To further elaborate my point, let's take for example the 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' mentioned in the article. The main intention of the American and British forces' "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was to invade Iraq and liberate the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's misrule. This intention for the better lives of the Iraqis was right. However, as a result to capture Saddam Hussein and to invade Iraq, 654,965 innocent lives were taken while hundreds of thousands fled the country. Therefore, the American and British invading forces were astounded when instead of being warmly welcomed by the Iraqis who would live happily ever after in a paradise of freedom and democracy, they were treated with hostility and rejection. Moreover, the Americans failed to take moral responsibility for their actions in Iraq, ensuring peace and stability before their troops withdraw. If intervention by the third party would cause more harm than good to the people, then of course it would not be right to become involved in the internal affairs of another. Would these dire consequences have happened if the intervening country had put thorough thought into their actions as well as the consequences to the other country?

On the contrary, there are situations in which intervention have proved to be right, and these cases usually come in times of disasters and calamities. In theses cases, other countries can step in and offer help to the country. Not only will the receiving country recover from the disaster more quickly, at the same time stronger international bonds can be forged as well. For example, when the earthquake happened in Sichuan, China recently, many counrtries have played apart in helping the people affected by the disaster. Rescue workers from all over the world including Britain and Russia flew in to rescue victims trapped under the rubble. Food and monetary donations were given to the victims of the earthquake. All these aids provided by other countries have greatly helped Sichuan to recover from the disaster.

Therefore, I reinstate my point that intervention can be right or wrong, depending on the situation of the country.

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

When another country is involved in the internal affairs of another, it is a type of intervention. Intervention is the interference of one country in the internal affairs of another or in its relations with other countries. Like what Jinyi has said, I share the same sentiments that a definite right or wrong cannot fully reflect and justify the issue. There are a few cases where intervention has brought about peace but during the process lives has been sacrificed. I would say that there is always a price to pay for in order to attain peace.

In my opinion, some of the intervention could have gone wrong due to the method being used to attaon peace. American and British forces have decided to invade Iraq and liberate Iraqis in an peration called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" without obtaing the authorisation of theUnited Nations Security Council. This method could possibly be to impulsive and lack of planning. Thus itlead to excess death of 654,965. In this example, we can see that the method used. has caused the situation to worsen and this has the the world to see the intervention as ineffective and useless. Therfore, the main aim of an intervention could be to bring peace which is good. However, the methods used could lead it to be protrayed as bad.

I would say in this case that i would support intervention as its main aim is to bring peace to another country. However, it would not be right if they would use impulsive methoods.

Another problem could be how willing the country that is being intervene to accept the assistance given. They have to understand that co-opeation between the two is needed and that for peace to be brought about sacrfices has to be made. Like Myammar, some countries put up resistance to interventions. If this intervention is to be continued, I believe that the situation would worsen as force will be needed to break the resistence put up. Thus, in this case, it would not be right for intervention.

In conclusion, there is no definite answer to this question. It really depends on different situations and other factors.

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

Sometimes, one country may not be able to handle its internal affairs and so would require the help of another. However, to judge if it is right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another, we have to look at the approaches undertaken by the 'outsider', as well as the best interests of the people in the country.

If intervention by the third party would cause more harm than good to the people, then it would not be right to become involved in the internal affairs of another. Sure, sacrifices have to be made before reforms and changes can be created. But if the intervention merely causes more trouble, especially since the people involved would be highly sensitive to pain, then it is not right to intervene. Take for example the 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. As much as it was meant to be a humanitarian project, the effects did not seem to imply so. To date, peace and stability has yet to be ensured in Iraq and the country is in a big mess with the United States entangled in it. In addition, no one has claim responsibility to ensure that Iraq is peaceful and stable before America withdraws. Also, the excessive deaths caused by the operation have caught the attention of human rights group, sparking off much protests. Moreover, the large amounts of money spent on the operation had resulted in people blaming the US for not putting the money in better use. These really leave us to question if everything would be better had US not intervene. As long as more people are getting hurt and there are no justifiable benefits gained by the people in the country, it would not be right for intervention of internal affairs by another country.

On the other hand, if intervention by another country can really bring relief to the people, then it would be right to become involved in the internal affairs of another. This would usually come in time of disasters that would devastate the lives of the people. In such a situation, the people's well-being should be placed as the utmost priority, and the country should open itself to humanitarian aid. An example of a country, which needs to understand this, is Myanmar. About two months ago, a cyclone in Myanmar increased the people's misery but the regime chooses to reject humanitarian help from other countries as it sees it as political interference aimed at prising it from power. In this case, the country would be wrong if it does not oblige to intervention and put so many lives in jeopardy. The regime has to understand that it is time to oblige to humanitarian aid and allow the involvement of another country, or problems with their internal affairs will soon go out of control. Hence, in such a situation where there are justified benefits that can be gained by the people in the country, it would be right to for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another.

In conclusion, I agree with what Jinyi said, "there is no clear distinction of right or wrong regarding a country's involvement in another's internal affairs. With pure good intentions, responsibility and the adequate receptivity of the country, it would be alright to have foreign intervention." Hence, the benefits that can be gained by the people in the country is the main determinant of judging if it is right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another is the benefits.

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
It is hard to judge if it is right for one country to interfere in the internal affairs of another. A definite right or wrong cannot fully reflect and justify the issue. This is because in ‘Right’, there would be a small extent of ‘Wrong’ and vice versa. Take for example UN’s peacekeeping in Ireland. You can say it is right that they interfere to prevent conflict between Protestants and Catholics. However it is also wrong as they cannot be held responsible for the innocent deaths caused during peacekeeping. However if they did not interfere, more deaths would have ensued.
Right or wrong depends on various factors like the receptivity of the country, responsibility that the interfering country is willing to bear and the intention of the interfering country. For example, sanctions imposed by the US and the EU on Myanmar since its 1988 aborted elections have not succeeded. Given Myanmar’s government low receptivity to such actions, it would do more bad than good if one country becomes involved in their internal affairs. Resistance to another country’s participation in its internal affairs put up by Myanmar might result in loss of lives. Hence if the receptivity of a country is low, it is not right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another and vice versa.

In another light, it would actually be appropriate for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another if the interfering country is willing to bear responsibility of the possible negative consequences. A failure example is the “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. As seen from the article, there was no concern about the responsibility to ensure Iraq is peaceful and stable before America withdraws. This does more harm to Iraq rather than stabilizing it. In my opinion, America should not have intervened Iraqi’s internal affairs in the first place. Iraqi might have been more stable compared to the aftermath of possible abandonment by America. Therefore, it would be right if one country decides to undertake full scale responsibility and give serious considerations to their every action.

The original motive or intent of a country’s intervention of another’s private affairs plays a big part in determining if the interference is right or wrong. The movie Fahrenheit 911 by Michael Moore screens a part whereby George Washington Bush claims to 'free the civilians' from the Iraqi government with the war in Iraq. Yet, they are killing civilians. If the true intention of America’s involvement in Iraq was to tap on its large resource of oil, then America’s involvement in the internal affairs of Iraq would be wrong.


In conclusion, there is no clear distinction of right or wrong regarding a country's involvement in another's internal affairs. With pure good intentions, responsibility and the adequate receptivity of the country, it would be alright to have foreign intervention.

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

I think it is only right to a certain extent. A country should only be involved in the internal affairs of another country if the situation is very serious and that it has the support of other rational countries. Before an intervention, countries should sit and discuss whether there is such a need and this, i believe, is the job of the United Nations, UN.

For the case of Myanmar, during the cyclone, it refused the aid that other countries offered and did not provide adequate aid to the victims, its people. It only opened up a bit when pressurize by other countries. Thus in this case, interventions has helped the people of Myanmar.

However, internal interventions may be seen as a threat by the country and cause it to retaliate. This could lead to serious consequences and even war, just the Iraq and US. The ones that ultimately suffered would be the innocent people of the country.

Therefore, I feel that intervention is only necessary if the situation is too serious and the world can clearly see and agree that the country is not giving its people proper basic needs and carrying out the responsibility of a government. The biggest consideration would be the well-being of the people.

'Education has failed to make people educated.' Do you agree that this is true of the people in your country? (SRJC 2002)

'Education has failed to make people educated.' Do you agree that this is true of the people in your country? (SRJC 2002)


I agree to a certain extent that education has failed to make people educated in Singapore. Education, i believe, should not just be confined to academics. If we take into account on education on etiquette, I would say that Singaporeans are 'uneducated' in a sense.

Our Singapore education system focus mainly on academics, just like many asian countries. Students are instilled with values that the best route to success is to work their way up to university smoothly and get a decent job. But, not everyone is academically inclined. Although our government tried ,time and again, to emphasise that there are many other alternative route, not many people choose to change their perspective of education. Education to them is mug, confined within the grades you achieve. I believe we should look beyond that.

Education is not the what grades you achieve after many years of study, i think. It is, rather, the journey that you've been through studying, the phase when you figure out what education is truly for. I feel that it is when you learn to see things in more ways and understand life.

Moreover, social education such as basic manners is just an important too. We've all heard about those jokes foreigners make about Singaporeans. This goes to show that our social upbringing has not met international standards.

therefore, education in Singapore has only made us believe in textbooks but ignored the other aspects of education.