Has the movement towards globalisation given rise to increased terrorist activities?

Terrorism has in the recent decade, been one of the main worries of today's Governments. In the past, terrorism is usually due to disputes in territorial rights. However, the aims of terrorist attacks have been shifted now, to one where it is usually triggered out of desperation for a cause, and may hence prove to be more violent and sudden. Today, globalisation can be seen as a double edged sword for terrorism- highlighting the need for tighter global security such that terrorist attacks are harder to take place and at the same time, creating more opportunities for such activities to take place. In this essay, more elaboration will be given as to how globalisation has resulted in a moderate increase in terrorist activities.

To overcome the physical boundaries between countries, the movement towards globalisation has introduced new forms of communication devices such as the satellites, internet and hand phones. With these new technologies, it may bring about more terrorist activities as terrorist can now make use of the devices to scheme out their attacks. One such device is Google Earth, an application that can be downloaded from the Internet. This means that anybody can have access to it and by gaining entry to such functions of the Internet, it will enable the user to plot out the exact location of any part in the world. This may then facilitate the plans of the terrorists, where they can use Google Earth to mark out the exact locations of their attacks without much hassle. Also with handphones, terrorists can also plan the timings of their attacks easily. For example, in the Madrid Train Bombings in 2004, terrorists used handphones to activate the bombs in four trains without being physcally there. Hence this shows that the improvements in technology brought about by the movement towards globalisation has indeed provided an additional tool for terrorist to use it creatively and carry out their plans. This creates higher efficiency and lower personal risks which may in turn encourage terrorists to make use of such advantages in future, increasing terrorist attacks.

Terrorism has also been much associated with the mass media, where terrorists would often use it as a tool to spread their words and to allow their voices to be heard. Mass media is the most common source of global communcation which allows news to be transmitted across borders within minutes. Terrorists can then made use of this advantage to manipulate the media by various means in order to send their words of warning to governments of various countries to take action and fulfil their cause. The publicity opportunities offered by the Internet have been particularly exploited by Al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the 9/11 attacks in 2001, to spread their word on ending foreign influence in Muslim countries. By attacking one of the world's most prominent towers, the World Trade Centre, the media would provide coverage on it, and this may lead to more global attention where people will be aware of their motive. Also, in December 2004, Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda, released an audio message by posting it directly to a website. This eventually created commotion and fear in many throughout the world. From the examples, it can be seen that the mass media has provided as a convenient tool for terrorists to reach their aims, hence increasing terrorism as we move towards an age of efficient communication networks.

The movement towards globalisation has also subconsciously divided the world into two disctinct groups - the technologically savvy and technologically isolated countries. When technology is mentioned, the winners of it will always belong to economically stronger countries whom would focus on higher value added products to propel its growth, while the losers will be economically crippled nations whom are unable to invest in research and development. With such differences, the income disparity between the richer and poorer nations would widen and this may result in the richer countries taking advantage of the situation to exploit the poorer nations in terms of aquiring natural resources, hence spurring more terrorist activities to occur between the countries.

While we try to overcome physical boundaries by inventing new technologies and a seamless global communication network, we have indeed created more chances for terrorists attacks to take place. However, this also serves as a wake up call for nations to be more alert of such attacks in the future and hence, take more precautionary measures.

With the movement towards globalisation, countries will be able share knowledge on the effective ways to counter terrorism since building up international security may effectively reduce the domestic vulnerability to terrorist attacks. In 2001, China and the United States have agreed to work with each other to counter international terrorism. Hence the international fight against terrorism may very well deter terrorists from planning future attacks and therefore, this may in turn reduce the number of terrorist attacks instead.

Also, with new forms of technology, it may be harder for terrorists to break through the security measures and carry out their plans. In all international airports, thorough checks will always be made to the baggage and flight passenger before boarding the plane with the help of the metal detectors found at check-points. This may then prevent any potential hijacks as the metal detector will immediately alert the security personnel of any metallic belongings such as guns or bombs that the passenger may have carried with them. By making it difficult to penetrate through the tight security system with the help of the new technologies brought about by the movement towards globalisation, it may have reduced the chances of terrorists attempting to commit any terror attacks and hence, deter future terrorist attacks.

The targets, techniques and technologies of the terrorists are continually changing. While increasing the vulnerability of us to terrorist attacks, the movement towards globalisation has also in another way reduced the probability of terror attacks through global communication networks and new technology. Hence, in order to prevent a further increase in terrorist activities while we work towards more globalisation, measures adopted must be up to date and constantly improved in order to counter terrorist attacks more effectively.

Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?

In the recent years, the number of homosexual couples appear to be on the rise and is an issue that many are concerned about. As such, a number of government bodies around the globe have already identified this difference in sexual orientation as a concern of society and thus acknowledged this issue and come up with policies to address it. Such policies include giving homosexuals the green light to register their marriage in the eyes of law. However, different views to this policy have been raised with regards to this issue.

Same-sex marriage are often perceived to be deformed versions of humanity and termed to be 'abnormal' as compared to a heterosexual couple. This is due to the fact that unlike heterosexual couples, they are unable to conceive their own child. Thus when these couples adopt children to raise, many people have the wrong conception these children will be better raised than those raised by heterosexual couples. However, this is not true. In an article posted on 7 July 2007 in The Straits Times titled, "Can mum, mum and kids make a family?" by Janadas Devan, he mentioned about his a same-sex couple that he knows off. The children raised by the couple aprat from the fact that there is no father in the picture is normal and exemplary in many ways. The children are well-behaved, intelligent and cheerful. This clearly shows that these children as not far off from the children raised by 'normal' couples. There are no negative effects on the children's emotional and intelligent well-being. Thus, same-sex marriage is a practical consideration as there is no reason why we should stereotype them as different from a heterosexual marriage.

Also, same-sex marriage have also proven to be more stable as compared to heterosexual marriages. Massachusetts is the first state to issue marriage licences for gay couples in May 2004 and is widely regarded as the most liberal state in the US, where same-sex marriage is legal. The state has the nation's lowest divorce rate and its divorce rate continues to decline rapidly. Meanwhile, in states where people banned same-sex marriage, divorce rates are high and climbing.In 2003, total divorces in Massachusetts declined 2.1% relative to 2002. But in the first two years of legal same sex marriage in the Bay State, Massachusetts showed a more rapid decline and will very likely hold on to its title as the US state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation. As family is the fundamental unit of society, this shows that same-sex marriage is a practical consideration in this age of globalisation as only with strong families will come a stable society.

In our modern day and age where people are more open to ideas that differ from the norm, most people in many countries still seem to be unable to accept and refer such behaviour to mainly the result of genetic makeups. Some religious leaders say allowing same-sex marriages, it will give a stamp of approval to a behavior that they believe is immoral. Therefore, as the legalisation of same-sex marriage may be practical to some countries, not all countries will be willing to accept such new ideas that are against their tradition, culture and religion. People take time to accept such facts and thus, it is up to the country to determine if such a legalisation will gain the consensus of the people. If such a policy takes place and it kicks up a commotion within the citizens, more unhappiness will then be created and the country will end up becoming more vulnerable to riots by people who disapprove of such policies.

In conclusion, everyone is different and this difference should not be used as a basis to deny people of their human rights. By legalising same-sex marriage, it shows the intellectual vibrancy of our country, to be able to accept people for who they are and be open to such thinking. Therefore, same-sex marriage should not looked upon differently and should enjoy the same rights as heterosexual marriages. Thus, it is a practical consideration in this age of globalisation.

Links:
http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2006/07/marriage_in_mas.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4081999.stm
http://www.myheritage.org/Issues/SameSexMarriage.asp

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty" (Aristotle). Do you agree?

Poverty is the condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support. To associate poverty as the root cause of revolution and crime is indeed a truth that is undeniable to a certain extent.

I refer to an article in the International Herald Tribune entitled "Singapore tries to redress the income gap" by Wayne Arnold. In it, Arnold wrote about one of the measures that the Singapore Governement has adopted to address the issue of poverty in the country by redressing the yawning income gap while maintaining our international competitiveness. The Singapore Governement introduced a budget that lowers corporate taxes and raises sales tax. This increases contributions by employers to mandatory employee pension funds and offers 4 billion dollars in subsidies to offset the increased tax burden on poorer Singaporeans. In addition, financial help have also been provided in the country to help low-income families cope with the monetary demands from the education and housing sector.

These new policies would not have been implemented if the Singapore Governement did not identify that poverty is a problem to Singapore and may hinder the country's economic growth if it is not rectified. With new policies constantly being introduced in the society, Singapore will then be able to progress economically and socially. As revolution is defined as a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, it has indeed occurred in the sense that over the years, the country now plays an active role in aiding those who are in need of monetary assistance. This has thus allowed us to ride trends in the global economy and raise what was a third-world country at the time of independence in 1965 to one of the world's wealthiest nations today.

Poverty not only influences the idea of revolution in the country, it also causes crime rates to escalate. Take for example the drug trafficking cases that is happening in many countries. Money is one of the factors that caused these drug traffickers to resort to performing these illegal actions. After all, drug trafficking gives quick money that will allow them to provide immediate income for their family. This is especially so when these people have a poor family background, where survival is the only word that appears constantly appear in their minds. These thoughts occupy their minds so much that they are bull-headed and do not consider the consequences of commiting these blunt actions.

However, the increase in crime rates is not solely justifiable by poverty. In my opinion, some crimes are committed by people because they are sparked off by the thought of fun.

I refer to an article entitled "Smarter Criminals" written by Seah Chiang Nee. It states that Singapore’s pattern of crime has been changing in the past 20 years in tandem with the rise in education, wealth and new technology. These include fraud, product piracy, deception, commercial scams, computer offences, and bribery.

This is very true. In fact, while criminals became worldly-wise, the trend has moved away from violent offences, which brings less money and stronger punishment, to more profitable crimes.

Though there have been many teenage gang fights and robbery cases being reported every now and then, however, all of these have decreased over the years. Today, crimes are more likely to be committed by the ones who dine in five-star hotels and travel first-class. This proves that money is definitely not an issue when these rich people who have absolutely no need for extra income meddle with the prohibited acts.

There used to be sayings that smarter people are the ones who have a good family background and therefore equates to better moral values. Unfortunately and ironically, this has been proven wrong as our society advances and our quality of education improves. While education has improved the knowledge of people and the Internet has indeed improved communication around the globe, "smarter criminals" are also "groomed" at the same time.

In conclusion, the mother of revolution and crime is not entirely due to the fact that poverty is present in our society. While considering the reasons to account for the occurance of crime, we have to bear in mind that ultimately, it is the human desire and mindset that triggers people with such a thought.

Links to related articles:
www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=4605924
http://www.littlespeck.com/content/security/CTrendsSecurity-070127.htm

Freedom of expression or social responsibility to be practiced in Singapore.

The two articles written by Singer and Szilagy depicts the two different scenarios pertaining to the idea of having freedom of speech and social responsiblility in a country. While Singer claims that freedom of expression in democratic countries is a form of basic human right, Szilagy on the other hand believes that the mass media should always be concerned about what they publish, as having social responsibility will in turn protect the interests of the country.

Pertaining to the two contrasting views, I believe that both parties have their fair share of argument and perspectives regarding the form of ideas that they would prefer to see in democratic countries. However, in the Singapore context, where religious and cultural differences exists in the four major races, I personally agree with Szilagy's point of view that social responsibility should be favoured over freedom of speech, and that information published should come with the right amount of censorship.

In the second article written by Szilagy, the article discussed about a scenario where the Danish and Norwegian newspapers published cartoons that mocked Prophet Muhammad. This caused much unhappiness in the Muslims around the world as they feel that these newspapers are not respecting their religious rights.

This scenario, if modified to fit the Singapore context, will receive the same sort of response from the Muslim bodies too. Imagine one day if Singapore is officially announced to have freedom of speech and disregards the interests of the many racial groups in Singapore, what will happen? In fact, when newspapers such as The Straits Times and TODAY start to be less mindful and sensitive of the pictures and information they publish, they tend to disseminate a kind of information that some people may have strong objections to it. If the Singapore media is nonchalant about their behaviour, they may end up becoming the main cause of stirring up unnecessary racism feelings amongst the citizens.

From Singer's article, it states that "Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

To a certain extent, I agree that freedom of speech is encouraged in order to allow an exploitation of ideas in the country. However, in a multi-racial society such as Singapore, I feel that social responsibility is more important instead. In July 1964, racial riots sparked out due to the fact that the Malays are intolerant of the Chinese in the country. This is due to the fact that there were already much racial unhappiness between citizens of the different races. However, this riot is not caused entirely due to the people's mindsets. Before the racial riots occured, a Malay daily newspaper, Utusan Melayu, potrayed the PAP Government in bad light and accused the Government of removing rights of the Malay population. As the PAP Government mainly consisted of Chinese at that time, the Malays thus felt that they were not treated in the correct manner.

Though from the Singer's point of view, freedom of speech is "essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. " However, from the racial riots, it can be seen how having freedom of speech in the country will affect the country's stability if this right is misused. In my opinion, there is absolutely no point in saying what everyone else believes to be false and offensive. Thus, it definitely shows that the media and the masses should be more concerned with exercising social responsibility in expressing our ideas to prevent such unhappiness and chaos from happening as Singapore is vulnerable to racial disorders.

Take for another example, blogs that are found on the internet. In the eyes of many, blogging is seen as a place to vent your frustrations, discuss about the recent happenings in your life and that you can write about almost anything under the sun. However, most people seemed to have forgetten the fact that search engines are still able to locate their blogs and whatever that they posted on the Internet are made available to anyone and anywhere in the World.

As taken from Szilagy's article, he mentioned that "In our networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group - traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist."

His statement is proven true in a case that happened a few years back. At that time, many bloggers were arrested for making comments that discrminates the religion and races of the other people in Singapore. One such case is the two young men who were jailed for posting inflammatory racist and vicious remarks about Muslims and Malays on the Internet. One of the jailed bloggers posted entries that spewed vulgarities at the Muslim Malay community, mocked their customs and beliefs and profaned their religion. Though it can be seen as the blogger's personal website, however, as mentioned earlier, since anyone can view that particular website, it may cause racial disorder in the country due to just that post, which consists merely only of the blogger's opinions. However, pro-Malays who hold high respect for their own race may see such comments as an eye sore and an insult to their community. Thus, they may even end up being aggressive about these comments which could have been avoided initially by the blogger.

Some people believe that freedom of speech should not be totally excluded in our society. As Singer stated in his article that "we must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock". No doubt we can still express our ideas and question about the many things that we still have doubts about and think through them. However, I feel that if freedom of speech is exercised to such an extent that even the facts are denied, like how David Irving in the first article denied about the Holocaust even existing in our history, then this right is blatantly misused. In my opinion, freedom of speech does not mean that we can hide from history. Rather, it spells the right to express our ideas about existing opinions and events, but the facts remain. However, when we express our ideas freely, there are many threats that we may bring about to the country which may bring about more disadvantages than advantages.

In conclusion, I strongly feel that a sense of social responsibility should be practiced more than freedom of speech in Singapore. Though everybody have different ideas about issues and we cannot control them, however, it is just basic humanity that we are all following by practising social responsibility and retaining the words that we are not supposed to say. After all, if thoughts were to be strewned around without any control, I would not dare imagine how Singapore and the world will still be able to live harmoniously in years to come.

Link to the related articles: http://www.freewebs.com/vivloh/juneblogtask.htm
Link to the blogging case: http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=31206

The death penalty is murder and should be abolished. Do you agree?

Death penalty, as many have seen as, is an eye for an eye form of retributive justice. It is when people feel that what the victim had done unto others should receive the same form of treatment too. The abolishment of the death penalty is a subjective view and most countries are still carrying out the death penalty. However, I personally feel that the death penalty should be abolished.

As said by Voltaire, a 17th century French philosopher, "It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one". This is very true, as information from the Death Penalty Information Centre states that to date, there are more than a hundred cases of wrongful convictions. However, a mistake had already been made, a life had already been taken away. What can the court do if they ever found out that the convicted was actually innocent? An apology or even large compensation sums given to the wrongly accused's family will never bring a life back. A death penalty has no two way route to it. Therefore, a death penalty should be abolished to avoid such fatal mistakes in future.

Who says that death penalty is quick and less painful as compared to life imprisonment? In fact, there are many cases of botched executions which made death more painful and unbearable than anyone can imagine. In the case or Angel Nieves Diaz, who was executed by lethal injection in Florida,USA in December 2006, his death was a slow and painful one. As a lethal injection usually requires only fifteen minutes to complete its job, an improper insertion of needles into Diaz's arms by the officials took twice the amount of time needed for it to do so. In addition, the injection required a second dose of lethal chemicals before the effect finally took place. When such things happen, the death penalty can be seen as murder and the “mastermind” behind this act is actually the prison officers. Therefore, the prison officers are considered as murderers and have too committed a crime. In that case, are they going to be executed as well? If they are, then what about the people who executed the death penalty on these prison officers?

Life is precious and we get to live life only once. All of us makes mistakes and are given a second chance. Therefore, criminals are also humans and no matter what crime they had committted, they should be given a chance to turn over a new leaf too. What is done cannot be undone and thus, what is left for these criminals should not be death but instead, time for them to make up for what they had did. In fact, some people committed crimes not because they wanted to but because they had to. Take for example cases on drug trafficking, where people smuggle drugs into Singapore not because they wanted to but because this is the only method that can allow them to earn quick money for their whole family to survive. If given a second chance, together with help from the society, I believe that they would not have done that at all.

In addition, humans all have a sense of humanity. If a criminal who was convicted of murder and was given a death sentence, I believe that the victim's family would definitely prefer to see him change for the better rather than hanged. It always feels good to see a person turn over a new leaf. Therefore, rehabilitation should definitely be favoured over the death penalty.

On the other hand, some may beg to differ from my opinions and argue that by giving the criminal a death penalty, it will assure the masses that this person is finally non-existent in the society and that the criminal no longer poses a threat to the society. However, this may not be entirely true. The death penalty may remove this criminal from the society, however, a life imprisonment also assures the public that the criminal is no longer present at an area close to them. Also, even if the criminal is removed from the society, the problem still lingers on in the society and may never be solved if the only consequence that people receive is just the death penalty. Therefore, there is absolutely no point in carrying out death penalties.

Two wrongs do not make a right. The death penalty does not bring about much benefits to our society and only creates additional mistakes done by humans. Criminals who made their mistakes are already a problem to the society. Why must the good people make another mistake by ending another person’s life on purpose? Therefore I strongly believe that by giving felons the death penalty, we are actually murdering a person and thus, it should be abolished.

Censorship

Censorship by definition, is the act of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds (by dictionary.com). Censorship is present in many parts of our life, mainly in films, songs, magazines, newspapers and many more.

Many have been arguing about the idea of censorship present in our lives, as it limits us to the original content of the sources.

In the Singapore-based mandarin movie, 15 (shi wu), it illustrates the type of life that teenage delinquents in Singapore go through. Swearing, smoking, drug taking, fights, lip-piercing, the movie tells audiences the other type of a Singaporean's life that nobody could actually imagine of. However, this movie was actually banned in Singapore but was only rated R(A) after re-rating.

Why is this so? It was due to the amount of violence and vulgarities that was present in the show that the censorship board decided to censor most scenes in the show, leaving only the "purest" parts of the show untouched and screened in movie theatres. However, this defeats the ultimate purpose of creating the movie, which is to allow people to understand and look at the life that teenage deliquents have to go through, the life that teenage deliquents have to have when society refuses to give them a second chance.

Therefore, when censorship is present in movies like this, it actually shields reality away from the masses into pretending that such scenarios never existed in the society before. If everything were to be so perfect like in our normal television shows, people will never be educated of the harsh reality and will always live their life for granted. This is the same for many other movies too. To me, the truth is always there. Facts can never be changed. Why must people take them away? Is it really necesary?

However, censorship should also be exercised to a certain extent.

This is true when ideas may be a potential threat to the stability of the country, such as the destruction of racial harmony and religious issues. Although there are ideas of free speech in some countries such as America, however I feel that such issues are best not published or shown to the public. For example, when there is an article submitted to the press holdings that a certain race is inferior to another, or when a movie is screened which insults the beliefs of a certain religion, censorship is then necessary. After all, who would want their country to be in chaos just because of some people's articles that are solely opinions and not facts, movies that are just fiction and not facts?

Also, songs nowadays have many vulgarities and content that influences people to do something bad. According to studies, violent music lyrics increase aggressive thoughts and feelings. Therefore, these songs will definitely be dangerous for a child to listen, as younger children learn best from what they hear and will carry out similar actions as they are not rational enough in judging for their own actions. Imagine what the society will be like if young children who had not yet attended school already started fighting in the streets? What will the future be like if children who had just learnt to walk, start to spout vulgarities? Therefore, censorship is important in this case, to protect the young innocent minds from negative influence.

In conclusion, I believe that censorship is beneficial to a certain extent, such as for the protection of national security and also to prevent our future generation from being exposed to negative ideas. However, censorship must not stretch to the extent that it limits people from knowing about the reality. Only in this way can censorship be used in the best manner.

Mass Media - Subjective Perception?

I refer to the article "Singapore swimmers in hot water", dated 3 April 2007.

In this article, it describes the situation of how our Singapore swimmers reacted to the American swimmers being disqualified, and their response on receiving the new that they have emerged as the champion due to the disqualification. However, the reports by Associated Press and the TODAY Newspaper gave two contradicting views on the response of the Singapore swimmers.

The Associated Press reported that "members of the Singapore's replay team pointed at the DSQ listed next to the US on a television and smiled". However, an interview by TODAY with the Singapore swimmers showed otherwise and stated that the swimmers "found it hard to believe and thus smiled".

Apparently, the Associated Press had misintepreted the facial expressions of the Singapore swimmers and thus, gave an inaccurate account of what they had seen. The smile that the Associated Press had assumed to be was most probably a smile of happiness, a smile of truimph, and perhaps, a smile of mockery from the Singapore swimmers towards the American swimmers for making mistakes in the relay.

However, the Associated Press did not went up to the Singapore swimmers to "confirm" their "hypothesis", which led to a biased view of intepreting this situation. This is because a smile can mean a thousand different things, depending on the perspective of the reader of the emotion, like how it did in this context. This is the same as saying tears can mean a whole lot of things too, for example tears of joy or tears of disappointment.

With this inaccurate report, it will definitely strain the relationship between the two parties, espcially when the United States actually shares close ties with the Singapore Sports Council. In addition, when American readers read the report by the Associated Press, it will then give them a bad impression of our Singapore swimmers, and most importantly, the kind of sportsmanship and moral values that Singaporeans have.

This is only one example of a subjective view from the media, and there are definitely many more out there. Most newspapers have the tendency to give subjective views as they want to protect the interests of the country, that is, to potray their country in the best light.

Irresponsible media is something that we cannot avoid. After all, they have to do their jobs according to what they are requested to. Thus, to avoid receiving incurrate accounts of a situation, we must always cross-refer our articles with articles from other newspapers. We must also always question ourselves about the "facts" presented in the articles and not to entirely believe whatever that we read. Only in this way can we receive the best knowledge of a situation.