Application Question

Chua argues that there is a “…dawning realization in the government that the arts do have an important role to play, beyond the economic” What roles do the arts play in Singapore? How important are these roles?

Music is a form of art and almost everyone listens to music. The young listens to the upbeat pop or rhythm and blues (R&B), while the old prefer the soothing classical. However, not many see music beyond being just another form of entertainment. People do not realize that music does much more then entertain, such as aid in growth. The invention of the Mozart effect for instance, is a well-known example of how music aids in growth. According to Wikipedia, The Mozart effect is “a set of research results that indicate that listening to Mozart's music may induce a short-term improvement on the performance of certain kinds of mental tasks known as "spatio-temporal reasoning" Popularized versions of the theory, which suggest that "listening to Mozart makes you smarter", or that early childhood exposure to classical music has a beneficial effect on mental development.” This explains why pregnant mothers often listen to soothing classical music for the healthier growth of their to-be-born babies.
Arts, encompassing music, painting, literature, drama, play many roles in Singapore today. However, many just see arts as a form of entertainment. Not only does arts the many economic benefits arts bring such as the creation of jobs, as mentioned in the passage 8 by Chua, what many people are unaware of is that more importantly, “the value that the arts contribute to social bonding is ‘priceless’.”

Drama is one form of art today that has started to make a statement. There are an increasing number of playwrights and directors who make plays or movies depicting what they see the world as, often including many social values into their movies. For example, the movie “I Not Stupid” by the very popular local director Jack Neo has reflected the competitive society of Singapore today. He showed the high amount of pressure students today as well as businesses in Singapore face, as well as gave his perception on what would happen if nothing is done by the government to salvage the situation. Movies as such not only entertain the masses, they more importantly serve to educate the public on societal issues. By watching the movie, audiences can relate with the protagonists and hence reflect upon their daily lives.

In conclusion, the arts do play an important role in our society that helps us in one way or another, often subtly, in a way that we take it for granted. Hence, I feel that more should be done to enhance the many benefits arts can bring and so that more people see arts as something more significant than just merely entertainment.

What roles do the Art play in Singapore? How important are these roles?

Singapore, in my opinion, is not a very artistic country as compared to a better counterpart like Venice. Arts were minimum in Singapore probably due to the government's emphasis on technical education in the 1960s and on explicit thinking skills in the 1990s. The awareness of the need for art was probably stronger when Singapore realised that their skyscrapers and city scape were not unique enough to attract tourists and that they have neglected art education. By Art here, I mean the performance of acting, dancing and music and last but not least, abstract sculptures and art pieces.


As in the passage, Art can sharpen the intellectual of the society, hence allowing people to have a better ability to think, understand and relate to things more easily. This benefit will help to ease racial differences as people are more able to think of the consequences and understand the need for maintaining racial harmony. If racial harmony ceases, Singapore withers too. Hence art is important to the survival of the country.


Art also plays an economic role in Singapore. It adds another feature to Singapore that further reinstates the "Uniquely Singapore" tourism slogan. For example, the durian-like theatre by the bay, also known as the Esplanade, attracts both tourists and locals. This enhances foreign revenue. The growth of new shops and eateries increased employment and expanded the job scope. Thus, this help to boost the economy of Singapore and therefore develop the country aesthetically.


In summary, Art plays vital roles in a country especially our cosmopolitan Singapore. We cannot afford to have racial disharmony and to imagine a place without arts. The society suffers, and so will the country.

Loh explores several suggestions on how to deal with the outflow of talent from Singapore. Evaluate his suggestions.

When talking about fostering our talents, we would often think of other countries – when we talk about Singing, we think of Taiwan; when we talk about literature writing, we think of England. How often, do we ever think that it is possible to nurture our talent in Singapore? More often than not, Singaporeans feel that Singapore is too small to cater to their ambitions. As a result, many Singaporeans have been leaving Singapore is search for a larger stage to showcase their talents. What will then stop Singaporeans from leaving their homeland in search of greener grass? Suggestions mentioned in the article include giving Singaporean "greater political engagement and empowerment" and eliminating the usage of the term of "foreign talent". While these suggestions might just work, I feel that it would be the most effective if we change the mindset of Singaporeans.

Many talented Singaporeans have left the country because they feel that Singapore does not appreciate their presence. The constant emphasis for the need of "foreign talent" in Singapore does not help either. It makes them feel that their capabilities are being undermined and that their abilities are not recognized. Meanwhile, Singaporeans should be given "greater political engagement and empowerment" for them to have a greater sense of ownership. Hence, eliminating the usage of the term of "foreign talent" and giving Singaporeans a bigger a say, can make them feel less out-casted and therefore, give them less urge to leave Singapore.

However, what Singaporeans are more interested in is not about empowerment but about establishment and recognition of their interests. Many of those who have left Singapore are well aware that there is a higher chance they be discriminated in other countries. Yet, they are still willing to take up this challenge as long as the other country provides a window for their talent. Hence, we should try to change the mindset of Singaporeans, to make them believe that it is possible to foster their talent in Singapore as well. The Singapore Sports School is already a living prove that changing the mindset of people can help to deal with the outflow of talent from Singapore. The establishment of the sports school has shown Singaporeans that it is possible to pursue their passion for their sports of interest. As such, not only is there a smaller outflow of sports talent, there is also a greater in growth of sports talent in Singapore.

Stephanie Sun is a homegrown talent and Catherine Lim founded her writing career in Singapore – so who says it is impossible to foster talents in Singapore? Singaporeans have to recognize this and only then, the outflow of talents can be reduced.

Is there a case for affirmative action in Singapore today?

According to John F Kennedy the phrase “affirmative action” means the necessary measures taken to ensure equality of recruiting employees regardless of race, creed, colour or national origin. However in 1967, the meaning of the phrase was extended by Lyndon Johnson to include requirements that benefitted women. As we all know, Singapore is a cosmopolitan and multi racial country. No doubt about it. With reference to a research by Selvaraj Velayutham, from “Centre of Research on Social Inclusion” done on racism in Singapore, Multiracialism is a fundamental pillar of post colonial Singaporean society. By that token the main racial groups in Singapore are accorded official status and are granted equality. Up till now, the people in this country still exist peacefully among other races. This claim is further proved by the few racist crimes that make their way to the Singapore Crime list. Egalitarian values are becoming increasingly rooted into Singaporeans as the young gets more educated and aware of the fragility of these inter racial bonds. Avoiding discrimination of other races based on differences seemed to be more of an intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic. Hence, in my opinion, there is no case for affirmative action in Singapore currently.



Not to leave out the concern of the treatment of women under the phrase, Singapore has not dealt too badly with the balancing of gender equality. There is little discrimination of women today in Singapore. We can all see that women are as strong and capable as their counterparts in Singapore. According to a specific research on “Statistics teaching” in Singapore, between 1986-87, women already made up the majority of the graduates from National University of Singapore by an incredulous 60%. This shows that the Singapore government acknowledges the capability in the weaker sex too and is willing to utilize them in the local workforce by not setting any quotas on the university entry. As the fret over ageing population increases, policies and incentives for women to conceive more babies are also undergoing massive evaluation and enhancement. An interview with DPM Wong Kan Seng revealed positive effects of the introduction of Marriage and Parenthood package in August 2004, “Overall, we have seen some positive results - there were about 240 more births from January to June 2006 compared to the same period in 2005, and about 400 more births in 2005 compared to 2004 . This is a positive reversal which comes after four consecutive years of decline.” From this we can see that the government has not neglected women’s plight after being impregnated and continued to provide reasonable monetary compensation and tax redemption. Hence there is no stimulus for affirmative action in Singapore today.

Application Question 2 - Does discrimination arising from stereotypes exist in Singapore?

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." This can be rather true for how affirmative action against discrimination has worked in Singapore. It can be attributed to legislation that Singapore that discriminatory actions has been eliminated but, do note, only to a certain extent. As of how article 2 tells us that discrimination can occur unconsciously, discrimination arising from stereotypes does exist in Singapore, although unintentionally.

In the passage, Ms Wang brings out the idea of "situational racism" whereby "people discriminate based more on the situation rather than innate character". This seems to describe the situation that we have in Singapore. Most of the time, we choose to believe that we are trying to protect our beliefs but actually, we are acting on unconscious biasness. Since as early as the 1970s, Singapore has proclaimed itself to be racially harmonious. In that case, why is it that in 2005, there were still complaints from Indians and Malay job seekers about being discriminated by employers who ask if they are proficient in Chinese, not if they can do the job? This is an example of situation racism - Employers are making it seemed like they are looking for people who are proficient in Chinese but in truth, they are just seeking for Chinese employees. Hence, discrimination arising from stereotypes exist in Singapore in the façade of egalitarian values and requirements.

Unfortunately, such cases of discrimination arising from stereotypes are hard to tackle due to the existence of "self-fulfilling stereotypes". People choose to stick to the status quo because "they want to believe the world is stable and predictable" as mentioned by the passage. By behaving what they are perceived to be, they actually find it easier to make decisions. For example, when it comes to picking representatives for a sports competition, a typical class in Singapore would instinctively fill up the names of the guys first as guys are perceived to be stronger and more fit. Meanwhile, the girls in the class would choose to take the backseat because they fear that challenging the status quo would mean disgrace and blame if they are unable to meet the standards they had tried to set for themselves.

In conclusion, discrimination arising from stereotypes exists in Singapore and from the likes of it, neither would it seem easy to be tackled.

"Women will never enjoy the same rights as men." Do you agree?(Cam, Nov ' 06)

I do not agree that women will never enjoy the same rights as men. If we were in the past, I would say that women might not be able to enjoy the same rights as women as men. However, in the present context, i would say that it is possible for women to enjoy same rights as men. In fact we are already seeing it happen and gradually improving. Women have been enjoying same rights in different areas.

In the society, women have achieved more equality and their status are improving. More and more women are allowed to enter workforce instead of staying at home to be a housewife, taking care of the family. In Singapore, the government have been trying hard to woo back non- working women due to the need to take care of women as the government feels that by adding in these in the workforce, it would help in our economy. Thus we can see that the women are allowed to enjoy the same rights as men to work, and it is possible that it happens

In addition, in the workforce, women have increasing opportunities to not only work but also hold managerial positions. They hold the same rights to become executives. In the case of South Africa, thw women in executive position have been increasing. According to the Business women Asscoiation 2007 census of South African women. There were 298 women directorsholding 385 directorships. The number of women of CEOs and chairs have increase0.02%. This has shown that women are increasingly able to gain rights to me in a more powerful position than men. Therefore I would say that in time to come, not only would women be able to enjoy same rights as men but a larger amount of women too.

In the political arena, the number of women involved in the politics area have increased. Some countries have increasing number of women in the cabinet. Just this year, Spanish new cabinet has nine women and eight men. This is the first time women have outnumbered men. Thus, we can see from this example that it is possible not only for women to enter into areas that they have never done it before and also to enjoy the same rights if not more in these areas.

In conclusion, I do not agree that women will never be able to enjoy the same rights. Women's status have been getting better over the years with the efforts put in by associations to push for further equality. Hence, in my opinion, in the years to come, women might be able to enjoy same rights as men in more areas.

the world of the future will be a woman's world. what are your views?

i think the world of the future will be a woman's world.

Girls get better grades at school than boys, and in most developed countries more women than men go to university. Women, thus, are better equipped for the workforce in the 21st century. In Britain far more women than men are now training to become doctors.

Furthermore, the increase in female employment in the rich world has been the main driving force of growth in the past couple of decades. although there are fewer women in high positions in top companies, women will have more opportunities to prove their productivity in the coming years. this will increase their income and women will get paid more.

many people think that if women were to work and rule the world, they will neglect their traditional responsiblilities, such as doing housework and minding the children, leading to a lower birth rate. however, developed countries where more women work, such as Sweden and America, actually have higher birth rates than Japan and Italy, where women stay at home.

therefore, as women has the potential to contribute to the society and at home, the future wll be a woman's world.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6800723

'Women will never enjoy the same rights as men.' Do you agree? (Cam, Nov '06)

In my opinion, I agree to a large extent that women will never enjoy the same rights as men. Women can enjoy the same rights as men if only more can be done to improve the status of women today. Although much has been done since the past to demolish the traditional thinking that women should remain at home as only mothers and wives, and though today, some women do enjoy the same rights as men, this is only seen in some areas and in special circumstances.

Women do not always enjoy the same rights as men. As stated by Diane Siesly in Article 3, women’s contributions are being devalued as notion of men being the full-time breadwinner and his need to provide a family remains entrenched, as such, women’s achievements and efforts are not being recognized. This is supported by http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/WomensRights.asp#WomenWorkMoreThanMenButArePaidLess, where it is mentioned that "According to Inter Press Service, “On a global scale, women cultivate more than half of all the food that is grown. In sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, they produce up to 80 percent of basic foodstuffs. In Asia, they account for around 50 percent of food production. In Latin America, they are mainly engaged in subsistence farming, horticulture, poultry and raising small livestock.” Yet women often get little recognition for that. In fact, many go unpaid. It is very difficult for these women to get the financial resources required to buy equipment etc, as many societies still do not accept, or realize, that there is a change in the “traditional” roles."

Although conditions are improving, many women are still disadvantaged and discriminated against. As shown from a report done on the gender equality and discrimination in Singapore, http://www.warrenssingapore.com/un_report.htm, there are still fewer women in positions of power and there is still quite a significant difference between wages of the different genders. Even though the government has done much to improve the economic and social status of Singapore as a whole by raising employment rates and GDP, men have benefited more as compared to women.

Hence, I feel that much more can still be done for women to improve their status, especially through the media, to break down stereotypes of women.

Extrinsic motivation

Extrinsic motivation is predominantly used in Singapore. On the roads, for example, more Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantries are being introduced to deter traffic congestion and to motivate people to take public transport. In the steps taken to address the decreasing birth rate, the Singapore government has even used cash bonuses to give couples the incentive to have babies. In Singapore, almost everything is played by bonuses and fines – If you listen to the government, you will benefit; if you do not, you have to pay for it. So how does this set of extrinsic motivation exactly impact us?

One way extrinsic motivation can impact us is by resulting in greater inequality in the society. If you have read the comics strip CHEW ON IT!, published in The Sunday Times today, you would have seen it comment on the drop in bus-lane offences, following the installation of cameras on buses to catch errant drivers. According to the comic strip, the drop is not because many motorists now abide by the law but in fact, many of them now cannot afford to drive. Although this is not necessarily true, what the cartoonist is implying is that such external interventions may result in disadvantages instead. For example, ERP, high penalties, road tax, etc is making driving costly so expensive that it is unaffordable to the lower income group. So while the higher income group, who remain much unaffected by such costs, can continue with their lifestyle, the poorer ones are put at a greater disadvantaged and have to suffer much inconvenience. Hence, such extrinsic motivation in the form of fines would cause much unfairness to the lower income group as they are the ones who would have to undertake the greatest blow when it is probably not their fault to begin with.

Also, extrinsic motivation can "disarmed our inner moral compasses", as mentioned by Lydia Lim in the passage. The fact that the installation of cameras on buses is necessary to deter motorists from committing bus-lane offences just speaks it all. The same goes for the fact that the implementation of the Community Involvement Programme is needed to 'force' students to contribute to the society. Hence, extrinsic motivation plays a huge part in determining our actions. In other words, many Singaporeans are only doing actions only if they stand to benefit from it and not base on their moral compasses. Hence, extrinsic motivation has blind Singaporeans with realistic incentives and makes them fail to see the moral purpose of doing so.

In conclusion, extrinsic motivation may have been successful in reaching its aims but it also has several adverse sidekick impacts.

Extrinsic vs Intrinsic motivation

Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think are the impacts on the Singapore society of using such a mode of motivation?

In my opinion, Singapore predominantly uses extrinsic motivation.
As the author has mentioned, people have been "paid" to have children. Just a few years back, Singapore has implemented the "Baby Bonus scheme". Incentives and regulations has been given and changed to attract more couples to have more babies. An example would be tax rebate of $10K for the second child, $20K for the third child and the same for the fourth child. There are increase in the number of days of childcare leave for parents too. As of this year, we can see a slight rise in the number of babies born. Thus we can see that Singaporeans would need a "push" to see the need of having babies in their urbanised lifestyle.

Another distinct example would be how Singapore is a "fine" country. Singapore has been known to fine its own citizens to discourage them from not flushing the toilets and littering. Without these fines people would not be bothered or have no motivation to keep our environment clean. However, I feel that things like keeping our environment needs intrinsic motivation too. Although Singapore has implemented the fines, we can still see that people still do litter. Therefore, I feel that Singaporeans will need to have motivation in themselves to stop doing actions that destroys our clean and green environment.
We can see that the implementation of the fines have stop most of the littering problems from happening, thus in general, Singaporeans still need this extrinsic motivation.

I do agree to what Jinyi has said about the donations and prizes. By donating, people will stand chance to win prizes, thus, people who donate would have the main aim in mind to win those prizes but not to help those needy. The fact that these organisations have put in the "prizes" factor, would most probably due to them forseeing that those prizes would attract people to donate. Therefore, we see the extrinsic motivation in the donars of Singapore here again.

Just like what the author has said, this extrinsic motivations "invites calculativeness, discipline and professionalism." The "Kiasuism" concept of Singaporeans has proven the fact that without money being one of the factors, they would not have the drive to do things. People who want to earn more money would go in professionalism. The govenment would make policies aimed at using extrinsic motivation. I feel that by the ebd of everything it builds up a facade in individuals and brings about dishonesty. Just like what Jinyi has said, everybody will try to mask his or her true intentions.

In conclusion, Singapore uses extrinsic motivation predominantly.

Extrinsic vs Intrinsic motivation

Lim discusses the pros and cons of using extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think are the impacts on the Singapore society of using such a mode of motivation?

i think both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are used in Singapore. Extrinsic means it is not from within, from external aid. Intrinsic means it belong to a thing by its very nature.

In Singapore, many people donated generously to people are unfortunate. An example is the conjoined Nepalese twins girls who underwent an operation in Singapore. Singaporeans responded to their plight with overwhelming generosity - more than $660000 was raised from public donations, and doctors who were on the surgical team waived their charges. This shows that Singaporeans are able to respond to those who are in need and therefore, it is intrinsic motivation.

On the other hand, sometimes, Singaporeans may need a little push to make us realise that we ought to do more to help those who are in need. Throughout the years, there are many charity shows that feature artist braving dangerous obstacles to make viewers realise that there are people out there who are willing to help those in need. Viewers, touched by these acts, will be more willing to donate. This shows Singaporeans as needing a boost to make us donate.

I feel that no matter what approach, as long as the needy get the help they need, it's fine.

Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think are the impacts on the Singapore of using such a mode of motivation?

Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think are the impacts on the Singapore society of using such a mode of motivation?

In my opinion, I think extrinsic motivation is predominantly used in Singapore. This mode of motivation essentially attracts both positive and negative social impacts on the society. I will further elaborate on the possible impacts in the following paragraphs.

In the past few years, the local artistes risked their lives to perform highly dangerous stunts in order to get Singaporeans to make donation calls to National Kidney Foundation(NKF). The organization of such events raises substantial amount of money from the public and revenue from one such event makes up more than 50% of the total donation received throughout the year. On top of that, there would be luxurious prizes e.g. Nissan Cefiro to be won. This eventually gave Singaporeans a mindset - By donating, I stand a chance to win prizes that can recuperate my losses! And my donation would help the needy. According to social psychologists in the article, external incentives cuts away at people's inner motivation for doing what they consider worthwhile. Extrinsic motivation will fuel a negative growing phenomenon in our country-Altruistic values are diminishing. This means that we are in great vulnerablility to live in a society where by compassion is devoid and everyone wears a mask above his true intentions, and Mother Teresa no longer influential and modelled after. This induces a chilling effect on the souls of the society thereby realising the phrase "No money, no talk.".



However, despite the negative impact extrinsic values bring about in our country, it still has its redeemable points. In an economic point of view, monetizing motivation can encourage a competitive arena such that goods of higher calibre will be produced. Take for example, the annual Singapore MAXA manufacturing award. The award aims to recognise outstanding efforts in the Singapore manufacturing industry. Organisations will also learn how their practices measure up to global best practices. This incentive maintains Singapore's industrial progress at a global standard, hence introducing professionalism into the country. As we can see now, Singapore is increasingly regarded as a business hub where many foreigners seek to invest in due to our highly skilled workforce. If there is no incentives of businesses and such, companies would have no motivation to train and upgrade the workers. In this context we can see for ourselves how important professionalism is for a small country like Singapore. It sets us apart from other rising powers like India and China.



In conclusion, extrinsic motivation serves good and bad for Singapore. With appropriate manipulation of using extrinsic motivation, Singapore can effectively reduce the negative impacts and hopefully amplify the potential positive impacts for the goodsake of the country.

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.