Do a research on cultures which still practise arranged marriages today? Why do they practise it? Would you have agreed to an arranged marriage? How a

Arranged marriages have been an important part of ancient culture, in nations all around the world whether in the West, or in Eastern cultures such as China and India, whether among the common people, or royalty. This tradition has largely vanished, but is still very prevalant in cultures such as India, Japan and China.

Arranged marriages are a very different concept from love marriages. An arranged marriage is more of a deal, or union between two families, as compared to a love marriage which is a union between two people who wish to spend the rest of their life with each other, largely dependent on feelings of mutual affection. Arranged marriages can be practiced between affluent families such as royalty, or even the most impoverished families. Usually, in royal families, arranged marriages were seen as a way to keep royal bloodlines pure, or used as a way to secure alliances between nations. Commoners would have arranged marriages so that their families would be able to maintain their good repute, marrying their children into families with equally good reputations, ensuring maintaining the family legacy. It would also be a way to secure children's futures, by marrying them into wealthy families, making sure they will not need to worry about financial difficulties. In some cases, children would even be married off as part of a business deal, or to resolve a debt or financial disputes. Evidently, arranged marriages can be seen as more of a practical decision akin to maybe a business contract, rather than one of affection.

Though arranged marriages may be a good solution to certain families' practical issues, and it is certainly possible for two people to develop affection after getting married, making two people who have probably never met and may not feel affection to have to stay with each other for the rest of their lives very closely to each other may give rise to certain problems. Many disputes and conflicts may arise, especially if the two people have very differing values, interests and perspective. Conflict can lead to violence, and will make both living in peace and giving birth to children practically impossible. In situations where people are married off in order to resolve disputes or as part of business deals, one party may probably have much less social standing and financial power than the other party. This could lead to that person being exploited physically, being forced to live as a servant, not an equal to the other person, or being looked down on in the family, making living unbearable for the person.

In some extreme cases, child marriages are arranged. In these cases, children are married off to other families, potentially not even to a person within their age group. This has much more negative effects than benefits. Most of the time, children are not mature enough to cope with having to suddenly live in a completely different environment, and deal with the responsibilities that come with marriage. This can hinder the child's development, especially for girls, who have to face the burden of being a wife, usually having to submit to their husband, or maybe even a mother. Making a child have to live with another person through such a relationship when he or she is not yet mentally mature enough and whose sexual instincts have yet to be fully developed can have untold consequences on the child's mental health, maybe even traumatising both parties. In some more serious cases, occuring more for child brides rather than grooms, the girl is usually abused and made to work as a servant and deprived of her human rights, and sometimes sexually exploited, possibly by a much older man. This will cause the bride a huge amount of trauma and suffering, both physically and mentally, which is especially true for mentally volatile children who are even less able to cope with the burden to work as a slave to another family. While other children are able to go to school and learn, make friends and enjoy their carefree childhood, these children have to stay in an unfamiliar household and live as slaves to another family, as part of a decision they had no say in. Child marriages are illegal in most countries, because they deprive these children of their basic human rights.

However, there is another angle to arranged marriages. On the more moderate side of the spectrum, some people consent to, or even actively look for opportunities to be match made. In these cases, the arranged marriage is completely consensual for both parties. People may want to have arranged marriages out of convenience, whereby they have no time to actively socialise and find a compatible partner. Hence, they will approach relatives or establishments that provide matchmaking services to help them look for a partner, by giving them their own profile, and the traits they desire in their partner. This will help them find a partner that is as compatible, in terms of interest, personality and background as possible. If two people match each others' criteria, then it is likely that despite them not knowing each other's personalities very well, they will soon be able to develop a close relationship and develop feelings of mutual affection. In other cases, people who live in an unfamiliar setting or simply want to find a compatible person without hassle will also use arranged marriages in order to find a person they are likely to be able to develop a long term relationship with. Though match making does not guarantee a happy marriage, for people who are unable to find a compatible partner on their own, it is a feasible and convenient option.

Personally, I believe that marriage is a sacred union that involves a lot of commitment from both parties, hence it is vital that the consent of both parties is obtained before they embark on such a deal. It is against basic human rights to force two people to have to live so closely to each other, and maybe even be parents, if they do not consent to it. It would cause trauma to both parties and in serious cases, a lot of hatred. In order to have a healthy relationship, the two parties may not have to be completely in love with each other, but they must be able to consent to all the roles that come with marriage, understand each other's feelings, and are able to compromise in order to best accommodate each other's opinions without causing any major conflict. Likewise, if the option of starting the marriage is given, the option of ending one must also be open to both parties. If the two people who partake in the marriage start to develop unpleasant feelings to each other such that they find it unbearable to continue in the relationship, they should be allowed the choice to initiate a divorce, as long as it does not do any very serious harm to other parties, such as their children, if the disadvantages of continuing the marriage outweigh the benefits.

Influx of foreign talent

Recently, the influx of a huge amount of foreigners has started to provoke unhappiness among Singaporeans. It is hard for one to go out in Singapore today and avoid to be served by a foreign worker, whether it is a waitress, cleaner or cashier. This has helped to increase our population, but Singaporeans have started to complain that these people have not made efforts to integrate while at the same time competing with Singaporeans for roles in the job market, sporting arena, and even in schools.

The rationale for bringing in these foreign workers, is that due to our limited and aging population, and low birth rate, we will soon have a very limited pool of talent and people to contribute to our society, reducing our competitiveness in the world. Bringing in these foreigners help to fill up jobs and contribute to our economy. In other areas, like sports, talented foreigners are brought in to boost our teams in various sports.

Undeniably, these talented foreigners have made an impact on our nation's performance in global competitions. In the recent soccer match between Singapore and strong rivals Malaysia, all the goals came from players from foreign countries, like China and Yugoslavia. In the recent world table tennis team championships, where Singapore beat defending champions China for the first time in decades, all but one or two members of the team were China-born. These foreign "talents" have helped to improve the sports scene in Singapore greatly, boosting Singapore's performance significantly. However, this has caused protest from Singaporeans, who believe that local talent should be cultivated instead, and that a win through the use of foreign born players isn't really a win for Singapore at all. In fact, the table tennis championship final was described by some as a match between "China team A and B". However, are these players really "foreigners"? They have already declared their loyalty for Singapore, reside in Singapore, and sing the Singaporean anthem and say our pledge. Are these people any less Singaporean than us? They are not foreigners who are hired on to the team for a few matches then return to play for their own country after their contract has expired, so they should not be discriminated against simply because of their place of birth. In fact, Singapore is a nation of immigrants from all corners of the world, and we who call ourselves Singaporean, were foreigners too just 2 or 3 generations ago. Furthermore, these foreign athletes can raise the standard of Singapore sports, this encourages local athletes to work harder in order to get their performance up to a better standard. Since these athletes are definitely here to stay, we should accept them into our society.

Another issue is the fact that foreigners from other countries create competition for Singaporeans. This comes in the form of skilled and unskilled labourers, and even students. Firstly, skilled foreigners, I believe, should definitely be accepted, and even encouraged to

come into Singapore to share their skills with Singaporeans. Highly qualified foreigners who fill up jobs in Singapore can help to value-add to our economy, and help to improve the skills of Singaporean workers and give them a global perspective in their various sectors. As long as they are able to contribute to Singapore, there is no question that they should be welcomed with open arms.

However, unskilled labourers such as construction site workers, cleaners and mechanics have been met with some protest from Singaporeans. They have complaints that these unskilled foreigners are willing to work for much lower wages than Singaporeans, leaving Singaporeans who would normally fill those roles unemployed. Furthermore, due to their relatively lower level of education, they are usually less accustomed to life overseas, and are unable to communicate effectively and integrate with Singaporeans. They also leave Singapore once their work contracts have expired. These foreigners use their wages to support themselves in Singapore, but send much of their money back to their own country for their family to spend, where the cost of living is usually much lower. Because supporting a family in countries such as China or India for example, is much cheaper as compared to supporting a Singaporean family, foreign workers are able to work at much lower wages. Singaporeans who are simply unable to advance beyond their existing level of education are left unemployed because of this. Companies should give some leeway to these kind of workers, who are a very small minority. At the same time, other unskilled Singaporean workers should take the effort to upgrade their own skills too, so that they are able to remain competitive with foreign unskilled labour, and can occupy jobs in which these foreign workers are not qualified for.

Lastly, Singaporeans object to the fact that many foreigners do not integrate into Singaporean society. Usually, foreigners live in their own communities, interact among themselves and typically do not communicate much with Singaporeans. To solve this, both parties need to take action. When in a foreign country, where one is unfamiliar with the culture, language and lay of the land, it is definitely typical human behaviour to stick with people of one's own culture. Foreigners should do more to explore Singaporean culture and lifestyle, rather than make their own communities into "sub-cultures" of their own communities back home. In fact, the government has established a mandatory course for foreigners who wish to have Permanent Resident status in Singapore or wish to have Singapore citizenship, to familiarise them with Singapore lifestyle and culture. This can be extended to foreigners who are residing in Singapore for a significant period of time, and can be opened to any other interested foreigners. At the same time, Singaporeans themselves need to make an effort to communicate with these foreigners in order to make them feel more comfortable in Singapore, so that they will intermingle with Singaporeans more naturally, rather than perpetually having to be made to feel like outsiders. In fact, as long as foreigners are able to communicate and intermingle well with locals, diversity is after all very beneficial to allow Singaporeans to have a global perspective and allow them to feel comfortable when overseas, Singapore is a country with many cultures and races after all.

In conclusion, Singaporeans should learn to adapt to foreigners who decide to make the effort to reside in Singapore and contribute to our economy, and at the same time, the foreigners need to make the effort to communicate and intermingle with the locals and adapt to local culture.

Use of corporal punishment in schools

The role of schools has always been to provide children not just with a high level of academic education, but also to develop students' character and discipline. School rules are implemented in order to teach pupils the proper etiquette, and inculcate a sense of discipline in following regulations. These rules are enforced by a wide variety of punishments, such as suspensions, warnings, and demerit point systems. However, the long-standing method of corporal punishment has begun to be phased out in the recent few years, or even completely banned in some countries.

I believe that punishment serves three purposes, firstly to deter people from committing offences, secondly to make sure people do not repeat their offences multiple times, and thirdly to set an example to others, so a punishment that fulfills these criteria can be deemed as effective. Unquestionably, corporal punishment does fulfill these purposes; no student would dare commit an offence after seeing his peers being caned or hit, or being punished himself. We are constantly told anecdotes by our teachers and parents about how they used to be caned in class or slapped simply because they did not do homework, and those punishments helped them to achieve what they are today. Undeniably, the punishments did not hurt them in any way.

However, in a few cases, corporal punishment does have severe consequences on the student being punished. Many cases in which students have ended up in hospital after beatings from teachers have appeared in the news. In January, a student in India had to be hospitalised after his teacher beat him with a stick for over an hour, in June 2010, a student from Mianyang high school in China sustained bruises and bleeding from her eye after being slapped by a teacher. These few cases, outside of a school, could easily be classified as assault, a serious offence. It also makes us wonder, is it worth putting students at risk of such serious injury, despite corporal punishment's effectiveness.

Furthermore, there are some areas in which corporal punishment can be considered as inappropriate. For example, it may be fine to cane a student who has repeatedly committed many serious offences like vandalism and theft, but would it be alright to beat a preschool student who has simply forgotten his homework? In these situations where offences are less serious, other punishments would do just as well, without inflicting the damage to students' mental and physical well-being. Examples would be a demerit point system that causes pupils to have to forego certain privileges or face suspension after accumulating a certain number of points.

From the point of view of a student, corporal punishment may not be the best way to learn a lesson. Violence should be very strongly discouraged, especially to impressionable children of a young age. A student may not be repentant for an act of hitting another student , and not understand the problem with violence, when he is beaten for it himself. Furthermore, students will cease to understand what is truly wrong with the acts they commit when they are simply inflicted with pain every time they do something that breaks the rules. Other students may also be traumatised by the violence inflicted on their peers. Getting physically beaten by teachers too often may also cause students to lose trust in their teachers, which will cause them to fail in their role as mentors who not only guide their students academically, but play the role of parents outside the home.

However, there are also some cases where a pupil is completely unrepentant of repeated serious offences he has committed, and is not forward thinking enough to realise the damage that some non-physical punishments such as suspension and expulsion can do to his future, so in these cases, the only way to make these students respect rules is to show them explicitly that any act that goes against the rules will be dealt with severely, and the outright physical pain can teach them to be repentant.

In conclusion, I believe that corporal punishment should be delivered in schools, but only in very limited circumstances, to prevent the negative effects it has on the physical and emotional well-being of students. In cases where the offences committed are less serious and do not require corporal punishment, other non-violent means can be used for punishment, and they are often just as effective.

Effects of Thai politics on Singapore

Though Thailand seems to be a country far away and, culturally, worlds apart from Singapore, the two countries are actually closely linked, since the time of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's government. In early 2006, Thaksin sold a Thai telecommunications company to the investment arm of the Singapore government. This ensured very close Singapore-Thai relations during the time of Thaksin's government, but later in 2006, a military coup overthrew Thaksin. The anti-Thaksin sentiment soon extended itself into anti-Singapore feelings. The Thai people believed that by selling a large Thai company to Singapore, Thaksin was turning Thailand into just a part of his family business, and giving Singapore unnecessary power over Thailand. By associating itself with Thaksin, Singapore also had to take a lot of the hate directed against Thaksin. This sentiment even boiled over to the point that Thais protested outside the Singapore embassy in Thailand. In 2010, Thaksin visited Singapore to visit the Deputy Prime Minister, supposedly as a personal visit. This further enraged Thai officials who feared that Thaksin had a political agenda and this visit jeopardised national security.

This probably led to hostility between Singaporeans who visited Thailand, and reduced Thailand as a preferred tourist destination for Singaporeans. The hostility probably led to Singaporeans in Thailand being discriminated against, and many Singaporeans avoiding going to Thailand for fear of their safety. Other than affecting Thailand's tourism industry, I believe that it also has a very harmful effect on Singapore. As a small country needing to rely on other countries for food and also to keep itself safe because of its small defense force, international relations are very important to Singapore. By having a strained relationship with Thailand, a country Singapore had defense agreements with, and relies on for many products, Singapore will also need to bear a lot of negative effects.

However, in the recent 2011 elections, Thaksin's sister Yingluck Shinawatra's party won a majority of the seats in parliament. Her main selling point was being a "clone" of Thaksin, and she would implement Thaksin's beliefs and policies when in government. This could mean an improvement of Thai-Singapore relations, because rather than the government being anti-Thaksin and hence anti-Singapore, the government would be supportive of the actions Thaksin did in the past, and hence support his close relationship with Singapore. This would help to reduce hostility and ensure greater safety for Singaporeans visiting Thailand. It could also mean further defense and economic agreements that could be mutually beneficial.

Should US have dropped the atomic bomb on JapanHence, the

Most people who have heard of World War II have probably heard of the atomic bomb. It was probably the most devastating weapon used at that time and that has been used ever since. It stopped the war, but along with it, destroyed the lives of many innocent civilians, and its consequences can be seen in the lives of people even today, after the war has long been over.

The atomic bomb should not have been dropped on Japan, firstly and most importantly, because of the amount of damage that it caused to the Japanese people. The atomic bomb dropped on Japan wasn't any ordinary bomb, it killed more than 100,000 people in just one blast. These people who were bombed were just civilians, ordinary women and children waiting for their husbands and fathers to return from a long war, people who had nothing to do with any of the war crimes committed against the US, no matter how atrocious. The bombing of such a number of innocent civilians is completely unjustified, no matter what the circumstances. However, its devastating effects did not just stop there. The radiation from the bomb blast affected survivors, and people of the next generation who came into existence only after the war ended. People were born with deformities and survivors had to suffer with numerous medical conditions and cancers. A bomb that continues to destroy the lives of innocent civilians generation after generation even after its goal of stopping the war has been achieved is definitely unjustified. Its devastating effect on mankind far outweighs what was achieved by stopping the war.

Furthermore, this kind of a bomb was not the only way to end the war. Before that and ever since, no atomic weapons have been used in the course of battle, and wars still have been ended in peace without them. In Europe, the war was ended with the Axis powers surrendering, without the need for the use of an atomic bomb. Now, though the scars of war still remain in many former theaters of war in Europe, future generations do not have to continue suffering for the war their forefathers fought, and not only with the horrid memories of war, but with physical conditions too, unlike in Japan, where civilians even today have to suffer from these.

Therefore, I believe the atomic bomb should not have been dropped on Japan because of the huge cost to innocent human lives that was totally unjustified.