Death sentence for drugs necessary?

On the 18th of March, Noor Atiqah M Lasim was sentenced to death by the Shah Alam High Court of Malaysia for trafficking drugs. The drugs were found in a packet which she thought contained samples of imitation clothing, which she was supposed to help her friend bring into Malaysia. She was thought to be dead by her family members for two years, until news of her sentencing emerged, and they are desperately trying to raise money for legal consultation, but are more than $40 000 short. The single mother of two is yet another victim of a system put in place in both Malaysia and Singapore, which gives drug traffickers the death sentence.

I feel that the system of giving drug traffickers the death penalty is absolutely unnecessary. Firstly, many of the people caught with drugs at airports are usually unknowing victims who have had drugs planted on them. Those who have knowingly tried to bypass airports with drugs in their possession are usually just runners, forced into drug trafficking by drug ring leaders to pay off a debt, or do it for money for their starving families. The worst case scenario is having to send off a totally innocent person to their death, and the best case scenario is killing a person who is guilty but has no other way out, and the death of that person will cause his family even more poverty and pain, not solving anything.

Secondly, the death sentence, in this case, does not much to deter people from trafficking drugs. The death of one or two small time drug runners will not deter the ring leaders, safe in a far away land, untraceable by the law, from sending even more people to their deaths. Those who are desperate enough to try and work for these drug rings usually have no choice, and have to choose between dying of starvation and dying of from the death penalty, so they

will not be any more deterred.

Lastly, the death penalty is simply inhumane. No one should be sent to their death, even if they have

taken the life of someone else, and especially not if they just unknowingly, or out of desperation, traffic

drugs. The pain and anxiety of a man about to die will end when the victim goes through his punishment,

but the loss of a father, mother, sister, brother or even breadwinner will have a lasting negative impact

on the family of the criminal.

The death penalty should be abolished for drug trafficking, and replaced with a lighter penalty, such as imprisonment

for a certain period of time. This punishment allows the person a chance to turn over a new leaf, and

at the same time is serious enough to deter potential criminals.

In a time where millions are starving, is it right to celebrate a royal wedding with such splendor?

Recently, Prince William and Kate Middleton celebrated their wedding in extravagant fashion, drawing fire from many critics about being insensitive and selfish to the needs of the many people, even in Britain itself, who have no jobs and no food, and have led people to question the need for a monarchy in the first place.

The wedding, held on the 29th of April, was estimated to have cost $34 million, which included costs such as an $80 000 wedding cake. In a time that unemployment in Britain has hit 2.53 million, and an estimated 1.4 billion people worldwide have to live on less than a dollar a day, the need for such a lavish wedding is questionable. I believe that while the royal couple has a right to hold a somewhat grand wedding, the amount of money that was spent is unnecessary.

The excessive amount of money that was spent on the royal wedding could have been spent on other causes, such as charities, especially in a time of world hunger and poverty like this. Money spent on an overly extravagant wedding gown, endless bottles of champagne and decorations, could be used to help more than a few people in need. What makes this situation worse, all the money that went into the royal wedding were from taxes from citizens' pockets. Taxpayers' dollars should go into improving the lives of the people, not a royal wedding. The royal family has a right to hold as lavish a wedding as they want, as long as the money comes from money that they have earned.

The large scale of the wedding also has caused much inconvenience. With a slow parade from Westminster Abby to Buckingham palace, roads were closed, traffic disrupted. The news of the wedding triggered many protests and violence across the country.

Though the royal family has a right to hold a reasonably grand wedding, I feel that especially considering the times, they should have slightly toned down the celebrations, perhaps inviting less guests, and avoiding the huge parade. This would save the country a large amount of money and disruption.

The role of social media in the 2011 GE

Over the past few years, the use of social media has increased drastically, and more recently, it has played a big role in major events in the world. For example, in the recent protests in Egypt that resulted in the successful overthrow of former president Hosni Mubarak, protesters used social networking site Facebook to coordinate gatherings and protests, and spread their ideas to others to garner support. In the General Election 2011 which was just over, social media has also played a big role.

Before the election, many candidates used social networking sites such as Facebook in order to reach out to voters, especially youths. This helps politicians to relate to their voters through day-to-day interaction, and get to know the needs and views of the ordinary "man on the street" in order to serve them better. Politicians can also have a wider audience for their opinions. This also helps citizens to feel closer to those politicians, rather than feeling fearful of them because of their authority. Getting to know their candidates' ideals and views through interaction with them also allows citizens to make an informed voting choice.

During the week of intense campaigning and rallies, social media was a vital tool for politicians to garner support. The various parties posted their manifestos, rallies and election videos on social networking sites. Politicians were able to reach out to a very wide audience of people, not just those who attended their rallies. For voters, this brought them great convenience, and they did not need to do special research on information on parties, or have to attend rallies in order to be able to make informed decisions. Voters were also able to view how campaigns in other constituencies were going, and have a better understanding of the big picture of the elections.

Social media also has taken an interesting role during polling day, as an unofficial source of news. Even before any results came out on the news, many results already started streaming in through sites such as Twitter.

Social media has also allowed us to see the diverse opinions of Singaporeans, and look at events from a different perspective as from what is usually portrayed in the mainstream media. Even now, after the elections, social media is being used to convey ideals. For example, groups have been created to encourage Mr George Yeo to run for president, and Ms Nicole Seah to be an NCMP.

Since social media is such a powerful tool, and so many different opinions can be found on the internet, I believe we should be careful before believing everything that we see on such sites. I think that we should first do our own background research and find out information from reliable sources before forming opinions, rather than just following the crowd and the hype that is in various social media.

After attending a rally...

On the first of May, I visited the Singapore Democratic Party’s rally at Clementi. The candidates who spoke were contesting in the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, which is quite fiercely contested, as the SDP has fielded highly qualified candidates such as Dr Ang Yong Guan, an ex-army psychologist and Mr Tan Jee Say, the former principal private secretary to our Senior Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. They contest a PAP team that includes Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, who has come under fire for not understanding the plight of the poor and for overspending on the Youth Olympic Games. Prior to this elections, I did hear of vague news now and then about the SDP, only because of one of its especially infamous members, Dr Chee Soon Juan was in the news for holding protests and getting arrested. The image portrayed to me of the SDP seemed to be one of a party which just opposed the PAP for the sake of opposing it. Honestly, I went to the rally expecting just a lot of shouting for freedom of speech, and nothing but criticisms for the PAP, with not much actual concrete plans and candidates who did not really understand the peoples’ issues but instead just wanted to pick a fight.

The crowd

On arriving at the rally venue around an hour in, it was evident that there many people interested in what this party had to say with regard to our future. It was estimated that there were 7000 people who attended that rally, which is significantly more than most PAP rallies, where even in the media, crowd numbers are estimated at around 1000. In comparison with the 2006 election, which I vaguely remember, the opposition is now seen as an opportunity for change rather than simply a spectacle. The crowd was evidently very rowdy too, and occasionally there would be sounds of whistles and shouts of, “SDP! SDP!” For me, this shows a different side to Singaporeans compared to what I normally see, complaints just made during small talk, and the flaws of the PAP being mentioned directly seem to be a completely taboo topic. I feel that this is perhaps because not only do Singaporeans feel much more strongly about daily issues, but they wish to exercise their right to its full extent, and wish to see what an opposition party can potentially do to improve our lives. This is especially evident in people who proudly turn up in SDP colours, with SDP flags. I passed by a Worker’s Party rally near my neighbourhood once, and I even saw a family, toddler and baby in a pram included, dressed in light Worker’s Party blue, complete with Worker’s Party flags. This shows Singaporeans not only want to have a say, but dare to stand up against the system which has been widely respected but also feared all these years. However, I do believe that some of these people are also there just to absorb in the excitement, and go there just for the action and the shouting.

The candidates

The first candidate I heard was Michelle Lee, a young teacher and mother of three. I was especially interested in listening to her speech because one of my friends attends tuition classes under her. I wanted to try and find out how an ordinary Singaporean like Mrs Lee could conduct herself under a situation as big as this GE, and how she could contribute as an alternative voice in parliament. She spoke with confidence, and addressed issues which are very important to Singaporeans, such as how wages are not rising with the inflation, and a very valid point, how we are seeking after higher GDP, while forgetting true happiness. She also touched on government overspending. I feel her speech was very convincing, and used many stunning figures on government spending, such as the YOG spending exceeding budget by threefold, that make even me sit up and notice.

Next was the speech by Dr Ang Yong Guan. I feel that he managed to appeal to the emotions of voters very well. He referred to the crowd as “voters of Singapore”, to loud cheers. He addressed the controversy that there was a split in the SDP. He also managed to relate to the voters by speaking in Mandarin and Hokkien, a dialect which many ordinary Singaporeans identify with. He managed to bring out a sense of national pride, by mentioning how Singapore will have a brand name internationally, and how that comes from a high self-esteem.

Mr Tan Jee Say, the former principal private secretary to Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong spoke next. He first addressed Mr Goh Chok Tong’s claims that he resigned because he was not capable of his role, and rebutted that he wanted to resign very early, and stayed on to help Mr Goh, and eventually left with his blessings. This highlighted to me the amount of rather irrelevant issues that politicians talk about, simply to smear the other party or reduce their credibility. Next, he presented part of his economic plan for Singapore. This was a surprise to me, as I had always had the impression that the opposition parties did nothing but criticize the PAP’s policies, without offering better alternatives. I went to the SDP website, and they have written a shadow budget, a complete and thorough alternative to Singapore’s 2011 budget.

Lastly, I heard part of Mr Vincent Wijeysingha’s speech before leaving. His public speaking skills impressed me quite a lot, and he injected some wit into his speech claiming how the PAP does not understand Singaporeans, instead thinking of citizens as incapable and unintelligent.

Issues

Firstly, a candidate brought up the SDP’s plan on reducing class sizes from 40 down to 20, or even 15, to relieve stress of teachers and enhance learning for students. I believe that a reduction of class size is definitely beneficial to students and teachers, but the feasibility of such a plan is quite doubtful. It would require twice the number of physical facilities, as the number of students who would normally fit into one class, would now be in two classes. Recruitment and training of teachers will also need to take some time, so some short term milestones, perhaps such as converting a certain age group of students into 20-pupil classes within a few years, then progressing on to the whole system.

Secondly, I have seen through this election that many politicians use smear tactics and launch personal attacks on their rivals in order to make them seem less credible. The SDP candidate Mr Vincent Wijeysingha was referred to as a homosexual, and Mr Chen Show Mao of the Worker’s Party, who is born and bred a Singaporean was called to “return to China” just because he worked there for a few years. I believe that in an ideal system, politicians should be voted in or out simply based on how they can contribute to the people and improve our system. However, it seems quite a shame that politicians will do anything they can just to win votes. It also shows how someone’s personal life can come under close scrutiny and criticism simply after becoming a politician. For example, the PAP’s Tin Pei Ling, a very young female candidate, was slammed simply for holding a box of branded items, even though it was simply a gift from her husband. I feel that people should concentrate on the candidate’s ability and contributions rather than use irrelevant issues from their personal lives to unnecessarily criticize them. It also shows that in order to be a politician or any role that comes under a lot of public attention, one needs to have a clean record and also the ability to take criticisms in one’s stride.

Lastly, the issue of Singaporeans chasing economic growth and success at the expense of real happiness and welfare is one that has made itself very obvious in the past few years. Many Singaporeans sacrifice their health and time with their loved ones just so that they are able to keep up with demands of society, which pushes them to work beyond their limit. Though this creates economic growth, it is ultimately useless if the people do not have any satisfaction in their stress-filled lives. Bhutan, which has a GDP more than ten times less than us, was shown to rank much higher than Singapore in the world happiness index. We should make sure we always make time to relax and make sure we take care of our own health, before working for academic success and money.

Personal reflection

I feel that the rally was an eye-opening experience for me. It shows a growing change in Singapore, that more people wish to look at alternatives to the current government. In all the shouting and jeering, it seems very easy to me to get caught up in the excitement and immediately get swayed. Before this, reading the newspapers which are known to be slightly swayed towards a certain opinion, I had a totally different opinion compared to after watching an opposition rally. However, I feel that I should take a step back, and keep up with current affairs so that I can examine the exact issues at hand, and which side can offer the better solution, rather than which party triggers more shouts and bigger crowds.

LA 29/3/11

We are living in a world that is growing increasingly smaller because we are getting more and more connected. Countries are increasingly dependent on each other, and events that happen in a certain country will set into motion a chain reaction that has far-reaching consequences. Therefore, we should care about what happens in places far away from where we live.

Firstly, due to globalisation, many countries are dependent on others in some way or another. In the present, countries depend on each other for things such as produce, raw materials, labour, and even less important goods such as toys and appliances. If something major, whether good or bad, happens in a country, the other nations that depend on it for goods will be affected economically. For example, if a major disaster were to hit all of China, a manufacturing capital of the world, prices of goods ranging from computers and cars to keychains and Barbie-dolls would skyrocket because the supply of those goods would be drastically cut even though the demand for them remains the same. Let me state a real life example: During the war in the Middle East, which the whole world is dependent on for oil, oil prices rose significantly and the price of petrol, something we can call an essential, increased in most countries. From this, we can see that events occuring in even far away places can affect our economy.

Secondly, because of the rapid development of technologies for communication, such as social networking sites, ideas can spread like wildfire from one end of the globe to another. The internet and its technologies, such as email and instant messaging, nearly totally eliminate the distance between people living in this world. Using the internet, a person in, say, China, can send a message to someone living in the US in a matter of seconds. This will allow ideas or philosophies that are developed in one country, to be sent to another very quickly. For example, the recent uprising in the Middle East was actually organised on Facebook, a popular social networking site, and this site was able to let the many thousands of people come together in a protest. This idea also spread to many other countries, such as Bahrain and Libya, where people are staging civilian protests too. Even as far as China, there was a small round of protests that were organised to commemorate the "Jasmine Revolution".

Last but not least, I feel that it is important to care about things that happen in far away places because no matter how far these events occur from where we live simply because we are all part of the human race. When disasters occur, we should help those who are affected because they are humans like us too. Those events could have occured to us, and it is our responsibility as people to help them recover from the impact that these events had on their lives.

In conclusion, I feel that we should care about events in far away places because they can affect our lives and economies, the way we think, and simply because we are humans too.

Are Muslims not doing enough to integrate into society?

In a recent quote from his book "Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going", MM Lee Kuan Yew stated that racial integration in Singapore was “progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came”. This is because, he claimed, of the fact that despite not causing any social trouble, Muslims are still distinct and separate from others, which creates a veil between them and other members of society. For example, in canteens, there is a section for halal and non-halal food/cutlery only, rather than perhaps separate sections for Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

This could be caused perhaps by the fact that Islam is especially strict on religious practices compared to other religions, and also due to the fact of many influential Muslims in society, where many rules or practices that are formed are influenced by decisions which take much into consideration how it would affect Muslims. I think there also has been some discrimination against Muslims particularly because of terrorist attacks, and much media coverage of how extremist Muslim groups have done much harm to our society.

I do not think that this shows that Muslims are not doing enough to integrate, and they are just trying to be faithful followers of their own religion. In our secular society in which we have pledged to uphold racial and religious harmony and equality, this is especially the kind of thing that we have to be tolerant of. In fact, one of the unique qualities of Singapore is that people of different religions are able to interact with each other in daily life rather than mix in very clearly defined racial groups, like in countries like America where it is uncommon to see, say, a Caucasian mixing with a group of African Americans. Even though this may sound unrealistic to some, the very existence of peace and prosperity in our society shows that people are definitely able to integrate between races without compromising on their religious beliefs.

I also feel that the distinct line between Muslims and Non-Muslims doesn't even really affect racial harmony. For example, the separation of Muslim stalls and cutlery in canteens does not really affect anything as colleagues and friends still eat together at the same table. Muslims and Malays would mix with each other generally in environments such as school and work, but it is only natural for them, and those of other races and religions to do the same.

Personally, I would not stop myself from befriending a person who is a Muslim or any other religion as long as their personality is good and compatible with mine. Besides, this integration is also much more successful compared to other countries where Muslims are stereotyped and discriminated against.

In order to integrate even better, not just with Muslims but with all other people who have different beliefs, I believe we should firstly understand their cultures, in order to realise that their beliefs are just different, not alien or terrifying, and also to take away stereotypes. Secondly, we should also take the first step to interact with those of other races and religions in the environments we are in like school and the work place.

Do we need the law to tell us to take care of our parents?

In this ever evolving modern world, technology, science, the way people think about things, and even people's personal values are subject to change. In countries in the East such as China and even Singapore, the traditional Confucian value of filial piety has been under compromise.

The lack of emotional and financial support provided to elderly people by their working children has given rise to many consequences. Some people leave their elderly parents to live in nursing homes, causing them to have to live out their last few years in an environment devoid of love, and those are the lucky ones. The more unfortunate are abandoned in tiny flats without a basic allowance to even provide for three meals a day, and no company or sources of entertainment. Left starving and depressed, they eventually die alone, unnoticed until the smell of their corpses makes their neighbours go to the police.

Though this may seem exaggerated, these cases do happen in our society today. The main reason people give for this is that they are busy or unable to take care of their parents due to work commitments. I think this attitude is probably due to the fact that today's modern world emphasises upon work efficiency so much that people gradually start to throw all their personal values out the window. This, along with increasing influence from the West where it is commonplace for parents to fend for themselves after their children have grown up, causes people to feel that it is fine to not support their parents.

I feel that this attitude is very wrong. I feel it is someone's duty to support their parents who have sacrificed much time and money for decades on their upbringing, at least to repay them. Also, it is downright cruel to leave an old person with deteriorating health and decreasing mental ability to have to still work for their food and even just their survival.

I think this is mostly a moral issue, which can be solved by good inculcation of values like filial piety at a young age. This could probably greatly improve the situation, but for those who still take the immoral path, a law is still necessary simply for practical reasons. At the same time, those who feel strongly that theirs is a special situation, should have the chance to apply to relieve themselves of the responsibility, though there should be clear guidelines on this, and the remaining cases reviewed on a case-by-case basis. A few resources such as well-equipped nursing homes should also be prepared in anticipation of this eventuality.