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.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Sunday, July 13, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
'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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)