Term 3 Week 6 Blog Post (Can Justice & Mercy Coexist?)

Can justice coexist with mercy?

First and foremost, we have to define the terms. Justice is the quality of being fair and just. Mercy is leniency and compassion shown towards the offender. Purely by definition, these two are completely different. Therefore, many people think that as the two as contrasting qualities, justice cannot coexist with mercy.

Justice and mercy have been disputed virtues since the 1500s, and can be seen in the play The Merchant Of Venice. Both are virtues which Man has been working hard to attain, striving to achieve these qualities since the dawn of Mankind. However, more often than not, they turn out to be the exact opposites of each other, whereby both cannot be practised fully at the same time. To be just is to uphold equality, and to be merciful is to forgive. It is about achieving the right balance; a compromise has to be made. In my opinion, I believe that these two qualities can coexist.

To many, the word "justice" equates to "an eye for an eye" exchange. When someone does something wrong or is guilty of a criminal offence, he is judged as fairly as possible and given the punishment he is due, most of the time according to the law. It is important for one not to confuse the definition of "justice" with "retribution". The main difference between the two is the element of vengeance and personal hatred imbued in the carrying out of "retribution". If justice were not present, human civilisation would have collapsed long ago as it is a prerequisite. The reign of anarchy and chaos would result, as people would not be held responsible for their actions. However, for the purpose of fine-tuning the acting of justice and also to throw a crucial element of human flexibility and compassion into the mix, the aspect of mercy has to taken into account. A very good example of this is the recent incident in Iran. A man had deliberately splashed acid on a woman and blinded her, and was due to be blinded in the same way by Iranian law, which is based on retribution. However, the victim decided to forgive him and let him keep his sight, although he would still need to serve a jail term and pay the victim compensation. In this case, the victim was very merciful towards the culprit, however, justice was still present, despite the lightening of the sentence.

It is very important that mercy always takes a back seat to justice. It has to be given only after the execution of justice to ensure fairness. This is particularly beneficial for ex-convicts. Past-offenders are now increasingly being given a second shot at life after coming out from jail. A local example would be the Yellow Ribbon Project, which has the main purpose of helping past-offenders integrate back into society after long jail terms and lead meaningful lives withoout being destroyed and ostracized because of their pasts.

Of course, there are still situations where the two virtues cannot coexist. For example, someone guilty of commiting genocide, such as Adolf Hitler, cannot be given mercy. The crimes of such people are too weighty to be forgiven. If they are given mercy, the rule of law will be destroyed.

All in all, I feel that in most situations, justice and mercy are able to coexist. One cannot solely depend on either justice or mercy as both are required to maintain a just and yet at the same time humane society.

Term 3 Week 5 Blog Post

What is Shakespeare's intention of creating Shylock?

In my opinion, Shakespeare’s intention of creating the character Shylock is to portray Jews in a negative light, as was common in his time. In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare strongly emphasised the antagonistic and sympathetic sides of this supposed villain. While he appears to be a bloodthirsty, menacing and merciless Jew, at the same time the poor man's plight leads the reader to feel a small shred of sympathy when reading about his isolation and the prejudice against his race from the Christian majority of Venice. Ultimately, the trial scene in The Merchant of Venice (Act 4 Scene 1) serves to highlight the power of the Christians over the scorned Jews and shows the helplessness of the lowly Jew against the exalted Christian.Firstly, Shakespeare describes Shylock as the merciless, cruel and utterly ruthless antagonist of the book. This is brought out through the revealing of the contents of the bond and Shylock's behaviour and his bloodthirsty and unreasonable manner in the trial scene. As a method of effectively intimidating Antonio into returning the money and also in a bid to exact revenge on Antonio for his previous acts of scorn against Shylock for being a Jew, he requested for “an equal pound of (his) fair flesh” and swore to take Antonio’s life if he failed to keep his promise. Also, in the trial scene, he did not take heed of the pleas for mercy coming from the various people present and stood firm on his right that he get his pound of flesh from Antonio as justice, even saying, “What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong?” This just goes to show how heartless a person Shylock is. Secondly, Shakespeare brings out his loneliness and isolation very clearly. Almost every Christian character in the play has insulted or humiliated him in one way or another at some point in the story. For example, Gratiano once called him a “currish Jew”, comparing Shylock to a dog in Act 4 Scene 1. Bassanio also called him an “unfeeling man”, saying that Shylock did not have any compassion or mercy. This discrimination against Jews, manifested at its worst, along with the elopement of Jessica, his daughter, and her subsequent conversion to Christianity, further emphasises his isolation from the rest of the characters in the book.While it is possible for one to argue that due to Shakespeare's revelation of the poor, miserable side to Shylock, which has the effect of portraying him as an isolated and misunderstood individual, Shakespeare may have wanted to show the strong discrimination against Jews during that period and evoke some sympathy over his plight. However, the presence of Shylock’s sentence at the end of Act 4 Scene 1 appears to convey the message to the reader that Jews are always inferior to Christians. Shylock stood alone in court, while Antonio had many friends on his side, which is an obvious indication of the Jews’ lowly status in that period. Due to Portia's manipulation of the wordings of the bond, and the resulting court verdict, each and every of his assets were confiscated by the state, with half going to Antonio, and it was no wonder that Shylock felt cheated. Furthermore, Antonio using the chance to force Shylock to convert to Christianity had caused Shylock to lose all his dignity and pride, with the end result appearing to tell the reader that Christians will always be superior to Jews, and that whether in the right or wrong, Jews will never be able to win a Christian in any way. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that Shakespeare’s intent behind creating Shylock is to provide an antagonist that makes the play far more interesting, and at the same time, cast Jews in a negative light to affect the reader's impression of them.

Term 3 Week 4 Blog Post

In this article, Jim Rogers raises a few highly critical but accurate points on America’s decreasing number of connections in our rapidly globalising world, and touches on the importance of raising “global kids”, the next generation of youths who are able to bridge the gap between the east and the west. His perspective is undeniably true, and as much as we may not like it, those are the undisputable facts. As we all know, the future lies in Asia now. America has amassed a tremendous debt of $14.46 trillion, far worse than that of 2006, and its debt ceiling is ever rising. It has come to a point where its credit status has suffered a downgrade to the AA rating, from the AAA rating. America may be the superpower at the moment but Jim Rogers has much to say about this. America is disregarding the rapid pace of globalisation, during which the veil between “economies and business; of politics and conflict; of fashion, technology, and music” becomes less and less discernible, which is a great threat to America’s prosperity. If America continues along its current path, blinded by its current might and status as a world superpower, militarily and economically, it risks being isolated from the rest of the world.With the current rate of globalisation, the prosperity of any nation can no longer solely be dependent on bilateral ties with other nations. This fact of life is embodied in the current poor state America is in, which serves to further prove this. What America really needs now is a revolution, and that means nurturing a generation of “global citizens”, who are able to become the link between the vastly different western and eastern influences and cultures. As it lies on the crossroad of east and west, Singapore has always placed major emphasis on bilingualism. In this aspect, Singapore is well established and has a great head start that makes her well placed to succeed in the future of the globalised world. Over the years, besides English as the common language between all races, the teaching of the mother tongue has also rooted itself deep in the foundation of Singaporean education, setting the catalyst for our nation’s rapid progress as the regional, or even worldwide hub of quality education and healthcare services. It may be advisable that America follow a similar approach to education, not just through the teaching of useful foreign languages, but long-term immersions of its youths in other cultures, slowly but surely instilling a global perspective.On the other hand, some may argue that English will continue to remain as the global business language and that America will, as has been the status quo for a long time, still be the main driving force behind globalisation such that replacing the English language with another would be neither practical nor wise. However, we cannot deny the fact that one still needs to be immersed in the Asian culture and language and have a good understanding of it, since the multitude of rapidly industrialising and developing Asian countries will in time end up as the main contributors to rapid globalisation. Certainly, it would be for the best if one was well-equipped with a proficieny in both languages, since it would definitely pay off as one would then be capable of bridging the western and eastern influences, the mainstay of the globalised economy of the future.To sum things up, Jim Rogers’ viewpoint about America’s lack of interaction and immersion with the rest of the world is actuated and not without backing , addressing the many concerns of the rapidly globalising world of today. It is hence clear that being capable of bilingualism and the understanding of both eastern and western cultures and practices would bring about innumerable benefits to all developed countries, including America.

Term 3 Week 3 Blog Post

Singapore’s education system has traditionally been extremely demanding and stressful. Its original purpose was to act as a meritocratic framework, in line with Singapore’s policy of meritocracy, that pushes stakeholders to achieve academic excellence, so that students can be moulded into productive units of labour in the future. From the strict design of pedagogies and curriculum to the series of standardised examinations, the Ministry of Education has undergone great pains to not only make ten years of basic education compulsory for all Singaporeans, but also to maintain the reputation of a premier teaching-learning hub. The entire system encourages individuals to consistently do their best each year. Through this process, the cream of the crop would be differentiated from the rest.

And the sacrifices have paid off. Despite the innumerable controversies over our students’ true linguistic abilities, Singapore’s overall literacy rate is one of the highest in the world, students excel in international rankings and universities, and the workforce is generally well-equipped with the fundaments and the relevant knowledge required. Nonetheless, all this assortment of benefits blind many to the real question that should be asked of the administration: at what costs are we enjoying these takeaways?

The deaths of two junior college students in 2009 due to bad academic performance only serve to highlight the primary ramification from the highly-competitive and rigid education system of Singapore: tremendous stress and pressure. Many might just conveniently brush off such assertions as ludicrous, establishing the opinion that children need to get used to stress sooner or later, and that it is better for them to be taught how to manage such pressures early on in life instead of being lulled into a false sense of comfort. However, when this stress originates from rote-learning, memorisation and the regurgitation of facts simply for the sake of doing well in examinations, where exactly are the positives? Most students who have experienced multiple major examinations should share the sentiments of painful preparations in the hope of fulfilling expectations from within and without: parents and teachers who expect nothing but the best.

The school needs to more than a place for the dispensing and dull feeding of information; it needs to be a platform for students to shine in their individual areas of expertise, providing channels for questioning, interaction and discussion. Students must be allowed to let their talents shine forth in non-academic areas, such as the arts instead of wasting many years of their lives away “mugging”. How often have we felt that we were fed up with school: it had taught us how to read, write, think and analyse – so was there really a need to pedantically cloud our mind with information and textbook narratives that we may never come into contact with ever again?

With the evolving global landscape, it would not be soon before pure academic excellence and mere superiority within a school-based sanctuary would cease to be the accepted recipes for success. People who would truly find joy and triumph in life would be those who have stuck close to their passions regardless of the peripheral pressures, moving beyond the antiquated notions of traditional Singaporean pragmatism. Parents too must accept that there is no fixed script for success; failing an examination would prove to be insignificant if their child can creatively think up a way to make things work.