Month: December 2020

Activists that pushed forward the notion for handling their own problem rather than being involved in other countries would argue that if one lacks the ability to even resolve their own problem, they should, mind their own business and be absent in the problem of others problems. In this case, the advice -Mind your own business – is good and understood in this essay as beneficiary actions that will not cause harm to any parties. While there exists a modicum of truth in this line of argument, irrefutable fact remains is that it is too sweeping to truly do justice to the critical role one can contribute to complicated problems such as environmental conservation and peacekeeping processes that requires efforts from different strata of the society. Hence, these activists who only judge the issue at individual level failed to see the bigger picture is at best naive and at worst fraudulent.

Confusing first two sentences.

These activists suggest that if the countries that are facing more critical problems such as poverty issues, they should shun away from participating in environmental problems. It is argued that more manpower and resources would be diverted away from assisting people in impoverishment when channelling it for environmental conservation and this could only undermine current destitution relief efforts. As seen in the Kyoto and Montreal Protocol, it is true that environmental conservation comes at a price such as improving technology equipment to reduce carbon emissions or to fit all cars with catalytic converters. Thus, these countries affected by destitution will be further strained by their participation in environmental preservation which crippled their efforts in relief efforts. Furthermore, according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, food and shelter come first before anything, which further affirms these activists argue that poverty issues should be addressed first before environmental issues. In this sense, these activists seem to be justified in their scathing criticisms that these countries should focus more on their own problems.

Does not seem to answer the question. What are some concrete examples?

However, environment problems in nature cannot be resolved by merely just one or two parties. It requires efforts from individual. Even if these countries that face poverty problems are to be abstain from environment efforts, they should, at least, not aggravate the environmental problems. Countries stricken by impoverishment such as Indonesia and Brazil had caused haze problem and burned a large hole in the ozone layer. No doubt these countries are restrained by own poverty issues, they can still play their role in searching for the part they can contribute to alleviate environmental problem, which in this case to stop deforestation. Indeed, Indonesia worked with government leaders of the affected countries by haze problem and Brazil worked with international environmental groups which tremendously reduced related problems. Thus, it is not a good advice that their countries should mind their own business when it comes to environmental problems that requires efforts from everyone, our Mother Earth would be severely damaged if many excuse themselves from environmental conservation with that reason.

Does not answer question.

On the political sphere, the United Nations (UN) that purports to keep peace in the world was vehemently chastised for its inability to enforce peace in numerous conflicts for example in Somalia, Rwanda and Darfur. Due to its failure to address such conflicts, the UN was frowned upon by its incapability and rejected by conflicting factions to focus more on its internal problems rather intervene in their conflict. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), a faction under the UN also faces critical problems such as lack of enforcement of international law as seen in Nicaragua Contra case and Corfu Channel incident. All these attest to the beliefs that the UN should care lesser for international issues.

On the other hand, just by looking at the ineffective intervention of UN and conclude that the UN should then resign itself from the world is too myopic and biased. We must also assess the successful stories of UN operations and its effectiveness in addressing international law. Korean War, Congo and Persian Gulf War all demonstrate UN ability to establish peace and its vital role in stopping massacre throughout the world. Moreover, the International Court of Justice was also successful in establishing the Universal Convention Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and fairly successful in coming out with an agreement with many countries for International Law of Terrorism. Hence, we can conclude that despite the UN faces limitations in their peacekeeping efforts, they are still largely beneficial in keeping peace in the world. Refraining UN from the participation of international peacekeeping efforts by just faulting them with unsuccessful peacekeeping is overly simplistic and failed to see the overall capability of the UN. While there is no denying that the arguments brought forth by the opposition of the UN are not entirely baseless and illogical, it remains too reductionistic to avow that the UN fails its purposes all the time. Thus, the advice is not as good as if the UN totally withdrew itself from the world, the very much peace today created by the UN will be long impossible.

Furthermore, this similar concept can be applied to the role the media plays. The world has long witnessed the ubiquity of the mass media and how its innate nature permeates into our daily lives. Just like a Medusa in our midst, an apparition that mesmerizes, we cannot deny the influence of the media in shaping one’s perspectives in the issue as reported by the media, which sometimes can be rallying for a harmful cause that disrupts our current stability. This phenomenon is seen in China, Australia and Saudi Arabia where problems were drawn upon due to the contradiction of freedom of expression pushed forward by freedom fighters and censorship in media by authorities. It is argued that individuals should have the rights to express according to the Universal Declaration of Rights and therefore their voice not restrained by censorship. These freedom fighters also regard the opposing viewpoints as a means to improve the country. Only with opposition voices heard, the constitution can then adjust their policies or actions so that it creates betterment for the public as a whole. Therefore, considering the benefits of eliminating censorship could bring about, the advice that the authorities should forgo censorship and give back the full rights of expression become conceivable.

That being said, from my standpoint is that censorship cannot be totally eradicated as it is required to prevent insensitive voices that may incite physical conflicts. As seen in the insensitive Danish publish of satirical cartoons of Allah, it incited waves of religious hatred and discontentment of many Muslims. As a result, numerous serious protests and riots were initiated by the Muslims, which threatened the peace and stability of society. Also, there is a similar example such as the Maria Hertogh riots in Singapore where the media incited clashes between the Chinese and the Malays. Thus, according to the utility principle, censorship became necessary in preventing inconsiderate comments that may incite religious conflicts and threatened the peace of the society. Therefore, it should be abundantly clear that the advice that the authorities should not spend efforts to censor became not acceptable as they did it for the national security of the state and not because they do it for pleasure.

Based on the constellations of the above arguments, the general consensus is that mind your business is not good advice since it does not alleviate the situation any much better. While I must concede that in certain cases, the advice is arguably correct due to the ‘harm’ it may bring about, essentially, it boils down to a matter of choice, not between good and evil, but between good and evil, both of which are potentially deleterious, yet one is indubitably more inimical than the other. Faced with such a choice, it would certainly serve us well to refuse the advice as a necessary evil that can benefit us tremendously rather than look down on it with sheer contempt.

Somewhat confusing what you are trying to say.

The question is wide and far reaching. You can take the following positions:

1. Social –  should one group intervene in issues that plague another group. A good example is the AWARE saga in Singapore.

What about issues of domestic violence/abuse? Should we report?

2. Media – its effects and how it should be stopped from influencing the general public…When you say, “Medusa in our midst…” you want to cite examples that show that media does in fact

What about sales of pornography or contraband? Should we report?

3. Political atrocities – eg intervention during crises – This you have discussed quite well.

4. Environmental – you attempted to draw attention to the issue, but you did not do a good job of it. You need to show why environmental issues in one country can affect another – hence minding one’s own business is not the way to go!

The question is wide and far reaching. You can take the following positions:

This question also deals with privacy issues. Not having dealt with any privacy issues, it will fall short of a passing grade.

Divorce is the formal separation between the husband and the wife, releasing them from the responsibility of marriage. The most common causes of divorce are infidelity, financial constraints, incompatibility, and communication breakdown within the marriage. With divorce cases on the rise (Singapore: 2313 in 1983 to 7561 in 2018), it seems that divorce has become a social norm and society is more accepting towards such alternative family arrangements (53% of Singaporeans under the age of 30 find divorce acceptable). However, it does not necessarily posit that divorce is morally acceptable and good. Broken families are a host of many social problems such as juvenile delinquency, depression etc. [Avoid using etc. Give the full example] Divorce diminishes the value of marriage and its sacredness. Indeed, divorce is a social evil and a nemesis to society.

Studies have shown that divorce occurs most likely after 7 years of marriage, often known as the seven-year itch and within the first 10 years of marriage. If there are children in the family, they are most likely below the age of 10 and divorce is a cruel process for any child to experience, especially at such a young age. The disillusionment of once a loving, happy family is now on the brink of destruction inflicts great emotional distress beyond what they can handle. The loss of one parent can be a memory-haunting experience of which leaving the child to be constantly living in fear and insecurity that the parent in custody may leave them as well. All of these accumulated negative psychological and mental effects can birth forth manifold social problems. A recent U.S. study has shown that children of divorced parents are significantly more likely to be delinquent by the age of 15, than children whose own parents are married. In addition, the ill effects of a divorce may manifest on to the next generation. For instance, college students from divorced families use violence more frequently to resolve conflict. In their own marriages, children of divorced parents have a greater tendency to be unhappy and escalate in to conflicts.

Although divorce gives rise to a host of the social problem of its own, a modicum of truth is that there are circumstances where divorce would provide a better solution. If staying in the marriage breeds greater conflict and disharmony within the family, it would be better off for the parents to go in their separate ways and provide a more conducive environment (one that is of less violence) for the welfare of the child. In the event that the children are subjected to child abuse from an abusive parent, it would be an appreciable menace to initiate divorce for the good and safety of the child.

Divorce provides an escape clause for an irresponsible and uncommitted partner to shriek away from their roles and responsibilities. As such, it diminishes the value and importance of marriage. Marriage is both a union based on love and a practical partnership. Divorce perpetuates the erroneous mindset that it is the solution to a rocky marriage. Married couples fail to take the effort and time or have not done enough to salvage the marriage since divorce would be an easy way out them. Back in a time where divorce is taboo, there are no other alternatives but to stay in a marriage. Hence, marriage is seen sacred and utmost importance as it is likened to a life sentence

Ultimately, divorce is undesirable in the society as its impacts are manifold the negative consequences it brews pass on from one generation to the other. To ensure that the right to divorce is not abused, it will entail nothing less than a change in our mindset towards the idea of marriage and divorce. The government can play a part by providing marriage counselling for the married-to-be and strengthen current marriage support networks and organization so that in times of trouble, the society can be pillar support for them.