Week 6 Blog Post: Rupert Murdoch Phone Scandal

Read up on the Rupert Murdoch phone scandal. You can find some links (from TIME online) I posted up in Week 6, as well as read up on the Newsweek coverage of the news. In relation to the news coverage on the scandal, answer the question: "The news media should be blamed for the unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to the extremes for sensational news. How far do you agree?"

I agree to a certain extent that the news media should be blamed for this unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to the extreme for sensational news. Although the news media are the ones who actually collect and distribute the sensational news, everyone is responsible one way or another.

News media want juicy news to create more publicity. Thus, they chase after sensational news such as the private lives of famous people. However, sometimes they cross the line and use underhand methods to obtain these sensational stories, sometimes even compromising their integrity and trust. For example, News of the World, whom Sara Payne trusted, hacked her phone and accessed her voice mails to get sensational news to publish. It was described as the “ultimate betrayal”. News corporations often compete with one another to be the first to get the information, and as such, news corporations become even more desperate, which causes them to use the wrong method of obtaining information.

However, the unhealthy paparazzi culture is not to be blames on the news media entirely. The reason why news corporations publish these sensational news is because of the high demand from the readers. People like hearing about gossips of the rich and the famous. Due to this strong appeal from the public, together with the interest of attracting readers, news media hunt high and low for delicious news.

Another group of people who might also be responsible for this unhealthy paparazzi culture would be the politicians. Before the phone scandal, British politicians would rather build relationships with Rupert Murdoch's empire than policing its reach. Apparently, they were afraid that Rupert Murdoch would publish the scandals of the politicians. The politicians were therefore afraid to intervene the unhealthy paparazzi culture.

Therefore, I believe that the news media, the public and the politicians all have a part to play. Thought it is easy to blame the news corporations, everyone is guilty of being part of the unhealthy paparazzi culture.

Justice and Mercy

By the end of the trial scene, do you think true justice and mercy was achieved? Reflect and write on the following questions:

1.      Is there true justice? Why?

I believe that some form of justice was achieved; however, it might not have been true justice. Shylock was vengeful and had obvious intentions to harm and even kill Antonio, but he disguised it as a form of justice. Shylock wanted to harm another human being and must be punished. He was punished by the Venetian law which results in all of his goods being confiscated. I feel that this is justice for Shylock. However, what about Antonio, what is his punishment for breaking the bond? If a pound of flesh cannot be taken then at least Antonio must give back Shylock’s principal but that was not the case.

2.     Is there true mercy, as expounded by Portia? Why?

I believe that Portia and Antonio did try to offer some form of mercy to Shylock. They allowed Shylock to live, retain half of his property and convert to Christianity which was considered higher rank than the Jews. However, whether this could be considered as true mercy is debatable. Could their so called mercy be a way to humiliate Shylock as a form of revenge? By converting Shylock to Christianity, Shylock would be mocked by the other Jews and Christians. By allowing Shylock to live, they could embarrass Shylock even more. Whether Portia and Antonio really meant mercy we do not know for sure, but at least they tried to show it.

3.     Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. Comment on this with reference to the text and other real-life cases and examples.

Justice and law are about fairness. The law is supposed to unmovable and fair to all, however, it can be manipulated by people in power. In Merchant of Venice, we see that the Duke asked Shylock to give mercy to Antonio. However, he did not ask Antonio to give mercy to Shylock in the end. Was the Duke bias? The Duke is supposed to represent the fairness of the law, yet here he is showing his prejudice. Shylock tries to use to law to harm someone when the law actually forbids people from harming one another. Portia uses the law against Shylock by claiming that the law only allows the nothing but the pound of flesh to be claimed without the lost of blood. Obviously, these three people are playing around with the law to their own advantage. In real life, we also see such situations. One such case would be people bribing the judge to be lenient. A man named Odih Juanda, a manager at PT Onamba Indonesia, was found to have bribed the Judge with Rp 200 million (US$23,400) in order to influence the appellate court to reject a lawsuit against the company filed by a trade union over the firm’s decision to fire striking workers. Justice and law obviously can be manipulated by people with power and money. There is a saying: the golden rule is the one with the gold sets the rule.

Letter to Education Minister Mr Heng Swee Keat

Promts:

1. To what extent do you agree with the issues that the student has raised here? Point out some issues of agreement and possible contention.
2. Examine her tone and attitude in this letter. Do you think it’s a well-crafted letter with the appropriate tone?
3. If you should write a letter to Minister of Education, what are some issues you would raise? Remember- your intention is to make the system better for society’s betterment via CONSTRUCTIVE ideas.

Recently, a Secondary four student from Nan Chiau High School wrote a letter to the Education Minister, Mr Heng Swee Keat, and generated a much heated debate about Singapore’s education system. In general, she argued that the education system is not good enough and needs a “transformation the PAP has adopted since the 2011 General Elections”.

She pointed out that the emphasis for factual memorizing is too great in the education system. She believes that children are curious and inquisitive but the education system stifles their inquisitive and curious mind. I agree that the education system does destroy the curiosity of children. Often, in this competitive environment, students have the mentality that as long as you are able to regurgitate out the facts, you can perform well. Students are having the mindset that understanding is not as important as memorizing. Even in an elite school like Hwa Chong, teachers still force students to memorize information, words and phrases. In Chinese, we memorize 4-word phrases. In Mathematics, we memorize theorems. In Science, we memorize facts. In History we memorize dates and in Geography we memorize places. It appears that the entire curriculum revolves around memorizing and anyone capable of cramming information like a computer hard disk will do well.

Secondly, she pointed out that students are taught as a collective whole rather than individuals. She claims that as a result, Singapore lacks talented people. I believe that this is also true. In Singapore we can see that much of our skilled workforce is foreigners. For example, in A*STAR, more than half of the researchers are actually foreigners. The Singapore government claims that this is to make up for the current lack of talent in Singapore, however, why doesn’t the government do something to the education system to produce more people who are capable of research. There is a flaw in the education system that causes people to be somewhat similar to leeches – feed of the knowledge of others but not generating their own. I believe that the education system is creating people who lack creativity and innovation.

Thirdly, the writer pointed out that there is a serious flaw in the character education. She wrote that character education is being taught for the sake of it. She added that character education was not very effective. I too agree but to a certain extent. We have heard a lot of cases especially on websites like STOMP about the bad behavior of students – students not giving up their seats to elderly, students causing a racket, even students engaging in illegal activities such as drug abuse. Why are all of these happening, even in elite schools, despite the fact that we produce top scholars in the world? I believe that there is a mismatch between the academic development and character development.

Next is regarding the writer’s tone. I feel that the writer was being quite critical. She appeared to be quite hard and demanding towards the Education Minister, yet tried to hide it by saying that she might be wrong. She seems to show a sense of frustration and desperation. In her conclusion, she said that she was “fighting for the changes” indicating that she had a strong desire for improvements. There is also a small hint of her showing lack of confidence in the Minister in the last sentence: “I believe that you have the power to make these changes happen, and if not, at least a thorough review of the policies made by your predecessors.”

If I were to write a letter to the Education Minister, I would bring up the issue about independent learning. I believe that the education system emphasized too much about memorizing information and not about how to obtain information. The world is now a globalized and rapidly-changing world and information I constantly getting outdated. In order to be able to keep up and stay ahead of the rest of the world, Singaporeans need to be able to gather updated information.

Money and Marriage

In your opinion, is money important in a relationship? Consider the 'transactional' element observed in the relationships between the couples. Do you think there is an upward trend of relationships and marriages valuing money over other qualities? Provide examples for your responses.

            There is a saying: Money makes the world go round. I believe this statement seems to hold throughout many situations. One of these situations, after reading the Merchant of Venice, is in marriage. Marriage is a long term relationship – in fact it is supposed to last forever – usually between opposite genders who have reached maturity for love and for reproduction. Now, the question is: Since when did money appear in the definition of marriage?

            In the play, the most obvious example of money involved in marriage is the marriage of Bassanio and Portia. In Act 1 Scene I, we see Bassanio describing marrying Portia as “shoot[ing] another arrow that self way which you did shoot the first … to find both [arrows]”. The arrows here refer to money and or more specifically the money borrowed from Antonion. Here we can tell that Bassanio wants to marry Portia in order to get a piece of her wealth, and in turn be able to return Antonio the money he owes. Portia’s wealth appears to attract many suitors as seen in the play. In the casket scenes of her suitors, they choose the gold or the silver caskets which represent wealth. Her suitors are apparently attracted to her wealth. Later in the play, Portia offers to pay the double or triple the bond in other free Bassanio’s dearest friend, Antonio, thus suggesting another transactional element. On the other hand, Portia could have made this decision out of compassion. While there appears that Bassanio married Portia because of her wealth, we cannot entirely sure, but the baseline is that there were some forms of transactions taking place.

            In the real world, money is an important issue in marriage. Getting married is a big decision that has great consequences. One needs to consider very carefully about various factors before getting married and one of them happens to be money. Firstly, couples need to ensure that both of them are financially stable and are able to support the relationship financially. Nowadays, with females entering the workforce, wives also have a share of the money in the marriage. While this makes the total sum of money more, the problem starts when either person starts spending more than his share. Love is supposed – and I emphasise that it is supposed – to be where whatever is mine is yours and whatever that is yours is mine too. However, humans are calculating creatures. The problem gets worse when either person exceeds the limit, probably because of gambling problems or other financial issues. In fact, more often than not we hear of problem gambling as a reason for divorce. From the current trends which we see, money looks like the basis on which relationships are built upon and destroyed.

           However, is money always the basis of any marriage? Sometimes we marry because of appearances. In other times, we marry because we truly love someone and want to spend the rest of our life with that person. Such marriages are often portrayed as “Hollywood marriages” as they hardly occur in real life but they are also the most stable ones.

          Is money always important in relationships? While it is important for a stable marriage, it should not be the only thing in marriages.

Evolution of War

In your opinion, how has war evolved from the past to present? Please use examples to justify your opinions.

            War is a state of organized, armed and often prolonged conflict carried on between states, nations, or other parties. It is known have extreme aggression and causes high mortality and great damage. War has existed since the beginning of mankind and continues to evolve as humans get smarter and more advance.

            In the prehistoric era, before writing was founded and before the establishment of large social entities, war already existed. Some tribal societies lead lives of great violence, frequently raiding neighbouring groups and seizing territory, women, and goods from others by force. One of their earliest weapons was spears coupled with ambush hunting techniques. These spears were usually made of stone or flint attached to the shaft using gum, resin or leather stripes. The spears had a clear distinction between those meant for throwing and those for hand-to-hand combat. Other weapons used included clubs and sling shorts. One of the reasons for war could be the need for agricultural land. As their farming technology was very limited, only fertile soil which was also limited was fought f0r.

            Next was the Iron Age. During this period great improvements in technology have been seen as humans learn to harness metals such as copper, iron and bronze to be used as weapons. Maces replaced wooden clubs. Swords, metal pike and metal shields were also invented. The importance of iron in the development of ancient warfare lay not in its strength or ability to hold a sharp edge. Iron's importance rested in the fact that unlike bronze, which required the use of relatively rare tin to manufacture, iron was commonly and widely available almost everywhere. As weapons could be produced more cheaply, armies increased in size with a corollary increase in their destructive power, which further produced larger and larger battles resulting in higher and higher casualty rates. The Iron Age was also a time when castles were built.

            Then, in the late 15^th Century, came a breakthrough: the invention of gunpowder. Gunpowder is an explosive which consists of a mixture of sulfur, charcoal and potassium nitrate. The invention gunpowder gave way to many deadlier weapons, for example: the cannon. A cannon was a large barrel capable of propelling a massive object (cannon ball) using the explosive reaction of gunpowder. The stone walls of castles were no match for the power of the cannon, thus the cannon ended the age of castles and marked the start of a new era of warfare.

            Apart from gunpowder, there were other inventions. Naval mines and submarines were developed. Bayonets developed for hand-to-hand combats. The Howitzer, a kind of artillery, was invented and had a far greater range. The rifle was also upgraded in many ways. The bullets, which were originally round, became sharper in design. In the 19^th Century, the machine gun arrived. Torpedoes were created as weapons for and against submarines. The list of improvements is endless.

            Finally, this brings us to modern warfare which we now see today. Modern warfare is an era of high technology warfare. One of the most notable difference in modern warfare was the presence air force. The fact that air can be used as a terrain turned war from 2 dimensional to a complicated 3 dimensional one. Warfare using the air was deadly due to its element of surprise. A plane can easily swoop down and bomb without you realising until it was too late. This was why detection technology such as Radar (RAdio Detection And Ranging) were invented. Another notable difference was the arrival of Weapons of Mass Destruction. These weapons include nuclear, biological and chemical. Nuclear warfare is the use of atomic bombs or radioactive substances to attack. Atomic bombs use the idea of nuclear fission whereby the nucleus of atoms split apart and release huge amounts of energy, often resulting in an enormous fireball the size of cities. Biological and chemical weapons make use of deadly organisms and chemical respectively, causing loss of lives or incapacitation. Biological and chemical weapons are extremely devastating and kill innocent lives. Last but not least, improvements in communications have allowed coordination to be quicker and strategies to be more complex. However, it has also made spying ever more easily. Modern warfare is known for the tables to be turned very quickly. One moment you could be on the verge to victory, the next moment you would be surrendering. For example, the swift bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki over a period of 4 days forced the Japanese to surrender.

            Is this the end of the evolution of war? I doubt so. I believe war will become something far more deadly. For example, after the atomic bomb was invented, the H-bomb arrived and soon, who knows what other bombs would be created. New and more advance technologies such as an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) which is capable of stopping all electrical devices are being created constantly. Warfare is also being revolutionised with robots able to perform duties which are risky for normal humans. Drones are being designed and built smaller, lighter, and harder to spot. In addition, war might one day be carried out in space. Space satellites once used for observations may become weapons one day. Perhaps, war might become something similar to Star Wars.

            War is a complicated conflict between two opposing countries. With the evolution of technology, war becomes even harder to understand. However, technology has not changed the reasons for war. It still remains as mankind’s hunger for territory, power and material. Now, time to watch Star Wars…