Author: VidS

“Discuss the impact of the mass media on society today.”

In this current age, the mass media has played an integral part in the lives of both the young and old. The mass media, which comes in the form of publications, television programmes, the Internet, music and others, has had both positive and negative impacts on the society today, influencing their mindsets and beliefs. In my opinion, mass media has resulted in more negative effects than positive.

The mass media influences the mindsets of the young and impressionable; leading to a blurring of the distinction between right and wrong. One has to be discerning in what he believes, which is presented by the mass media. Without the knowledge of being able to differentiate between good and evil, it is easy for one to be easily swayed by the messages conveyed by the media. Take, for instance, violent television programmes such as WWF wrestling, which advocates violence. The programme depicts scenes of wrestlers beating each other up to a bloody pulp and hurling verbal abuses at each other. Youths and children who cannot differentiate between right and wrong are eventually influenced into having the misconception that violence and verbal abuse is a solution to problems or disputes. This may lead to insidious effects over time, such as imitable behaviour. A significant example to note is that the teenage gunmen behind the Columbine High School massacre were avid fans of certain violent video games. Although there is no concrete evidence that playing such games led them to commit their heinous deed, there is the possibility that they were influenced into thinking that killing is a solution to rid them of people they disliked. Hence it is evident that the mass media has influenced the beliefs of the young, and has resulted in an inability to tell right from wrong.

The mass media knows no boundaries, and thus certain messages conveyed may be offensive or inappropriate. While mediums of mass media such as the television and publications may be restricted by censorship or bans, the Internet is one medium that cannot be controlled. Anyone can easily make information available and accessible on the Internet, through websites, blogs and the like. In some cases, racial slurs or discriminatory messages against certain religions may even make their way onto the World Wide Web. An example is the controversial, anti-Islamic video, “Fitna”.“Fitna”, a short film by Geert Wilders, made its debut online and was even posted on Youtube, a video sharing website open to the public. The film linked the religion to terrorism and resulted in an uproar in the Islamic world. Supporters and followers of Islam were furious, and there were even protests against the film. The furore over“Fitna” is evidence the mass media has no limits, as there is no control over what is on the Internet. In“Fitna”’s case, there is clearly discrimination against Islam, resulting in many Muslims feeling angry and offended. Despite calls to ban the video, it is still available on various websites for public viewing. Thus it is clear that there are no boundaries in the mass media, regardless of the content of the messages conveyed.

The mass media may lead to bias in the beliefs of society, as there might be control imposed on the information conveyed, thus preventing the people from seeing the big picture. In several countries, the mass media has become a powerful medium of conveying messages of propaganda. Only selected information is made available to the public, with bans imposed on information deemed as inappropriate. An example is China. The people are fed with pro-government information, as the government has banned Blogger, a blog hosting website, and any form of publication or websites that are anti-government. 50 journalists and bloggers were arrested early this year, for posting anti-political party comments online. By disallowing opinions against the government to be made accessible to the public, the citizens in China are not provided with the big picture of their government. While some of the people are aware of the propaganda presented to them via the mass media in their country, many others are not as discerning, and pro-government values are inculcated in them. Even in other countries, it is only natural for the governments to use the mass media to present themselves in a positive light, as they want the support of the people. However, imposing restrictions on the messages spread by the mass media leads to a one-sided view of matters, and people will be unable to see the other side of the coin. Therefore the mass media has resulted in influencing society into having narrow mindsets.

On the other hand, the mass media has had beneficial impacts on the society in this age, as it is an efficient medium of spreading information. Forms of the mass media, such as the Internet, have made information easily accessible by the public. With a few clicks of the computer mouse, the public is exposed to a wide range of current affairs in the world. For instance, when cyclone Nargis in Myanmar occurred, blogs, websites and forums were flooded with news about it. Another form of the mass media, publications such as newspapers, also informed the public of the news. Regardless of country, it was only a short while before nearly everyone knew about the natural disaster. The governments of countries did not need to formally inform the whole country of the news, as the various forms of mass media had already done that. Hence it is evident that the mass media has impacted society positively, as it is a convenient and effective means of relaying information.

While the mass media has its benefits in society, its negative impacts outweigh the positive impacts. The mass media is able to influence the mindsets of the young, is without boundaries and plays a huge role in shaping the beliefs of a country’s citizens. Thus, I conclude that the mass media has had a negative impact on the society of today.

‘Being a politician today is more difficult than ever.’ Do You Agree

T/S: Those who say that a being modern politician is the same as being a political figure in the past argue that the key factor of being a leader is an eternal constant; politicians portray themselves as compassionate yet powerful figures, capable of leading their nations to greater heights.

EG: Stalin and Putin of Russia both portrayed themselves as compassionate yet awe-inducing father-figures. Stalin often took photos of himself holding up young children with a wide smile, while Putin takes photos of himself spending time with animals like baby tigers or riding horses. Additionally, Putin often releases stories of himself accomplishing amazing feats such as discovering ancient Greek pottery during a recreational dive or successfully hunting down a large bear. Trump, a political outsider, blustered his way into the White House thanks to his effort in portraying himself as a strongman leader who could fight for “fair deals” with the Chinese “bullies”. Bernie Sanders was lambasted for being the oldest candidate and thus the most likely to die in the office should he be elected.

L/B: The main factor that decides the success of a politician is the portrayal of themselves as capable father-figures who are able to convince citizens that they can commandeer their motherlands and drive them to success.

T/S: However, the dynamic modern world with its interconnected global issues means that politicians must grapple with a new set of challenges while still satisfying the demands of local constituents that make their job more difficult than it was in the past.

EG: The British Exit (Brexit) from the EU was a very surprising and shocking event of which its impacts rippled across the globe. The British voted to leave in order to gain better control of their borders while the EU lamented the loss of the large British market. Ex-Prime Minister Teresa May and her successor Boris Johnson both got their positions mostly due to their claims that they would be able to reconcile the differing goals. However, May has failed, resigning in disgrace while Johnson seems to be treading down the same path. To be fair, they are facing a monumental task, the scale of which rivals the challenge Churchill faced during World War II.

 L/B: The complex relations that come with an interconnected world make it difficult for politicians to deal with both internal and external problems simultaneously, especially when those goals are in direct opposition of each other.

T/S: Additionally, the genesis of new media has led to the rise of various movements that challenge the decisions of politicians, making it harder to enact such decisions.

EG: The Hong Kong riots originated when Carrie Lam’s government implemented an extradition bill that would allow people in Hong Kong to be deported to China and be judged by Chinese law. While born out of good intentions when a murderer could not be judged while on Hong Kong soil, the prevalent fear was of China abusing this power to deport dissenters and judge them for speaking out against the Chinese government, causing massive riots to break out across the country. While police were deployed to stop them, protesters organized themselves using encrypted chat services such as Whatsapp and Telegram to plan where to strike as well as the locations to avoid. Additionally, the protests have gained the support of the Western world. Social media sites, like Twitter, have posters incessantly voice their support for the protests, garnering international attention and putting more pressure on Lam’s government. She eventually relented and dropped the bill, but the protests have yet to end, with the demands of the protestors yet to be fully fulfilled.

L/B: The rise of the 5th Estate that has almost no barriers to entry has allowed for the rise of the public consciousness that has the ability to refute government decisions, making it more difficult for politicians to do their jobs.

T/S: Voters are changing and are looking for a different set of values in their politicians, causing established figures to be unable to keep up and not be elected.

EG: In recent years, the low skilled have felt the strain of globalization with cheaper foreign labour taking their jobs, creating a disgruntled citizenry that desires nationalistic leaders who can protect their interests. Additionally, the rise of successful terrorist attacks close to home has entrenched Islamophobia in their society. This has led to the wave of nationalism that has swept the Western world. Donald Trump, Marie Le Penn, Jair Bolsonaro are just some of the examples of the innumerable nationalist leaders in the world.

L/B: The rise of nationalism has caused political extremists to be chosen in major elections and make the lives of established politicians more difficult.

Is a world dominated by science a dream or a nightmare for future generations?

Bleak, dystopian views of a world dominated by science have been around for quite some time. Literature and popular culture have successfully embedded in our collective psyche such nightmarish worlds as Orwell’s “1984”, Huxley’s “A Brave New World”, or more recently, the Wachowski brothers’ “The Matrix” – all of which are worlds in which science and technology have a powerful influence. However, one might argue that if we continue to use science in a way that is guided by sound morals and a desire for the greater good of humanity, then a world dominated by science need not necessarily be a nightmare for future generations. Science may not be a perfect dream in which one has nothing to fear, but it certainly does not have to be a nightmare that strikes terror in our hearts.

Some may argue that a world full of surveillance technology is reminiscent of a nightmarish world where Big Brother is always watching. Privacy would become a thing of the past and there would be no guarantee that the surveillance information gathered will not be abused. While it may be true that surveillance technology in the wrong hands may violate one’s right to privacy, one must remember that in most democratic countries today, there exist checks and balances on the powers of governments to prevent or at least minimize this sort of violation. The answer to Juvenal’s famous question “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (ie. Who guards the guards?) is a range of checks and balances like legislation, the media, and lobby groups.

Others may say that a world where biotechnology plays a dominant role cannot be anything but a nightmare – one characterized by Frankenstein food, armies of clones or a highly stratified society where being born an Epsilon Minus condemns one to a life of drudgery. Biotechnology may indeed have its dangers, but so does just about any other tool wielded by mankind. We do not refuse to use fire just because fire can pose a great danger if it goes out of control. In the same way, we should not refuse to use biotechnology just because there are risks associated with it. The fact is that biotechnology if used with prudence and caution, could do a great deal of good for humanity. Laws have been put in place to ban the practice of human reproductive cloning; research is being done to find viable alternatives to the sacrifice of embryos upon the extraction of stem cells; etc.

Yet others may say that the spread of nuclear power technology around the world ensures that our world will meet a nightmarish, apocalyptic end in the near future. Already, intransigent states like North Korea and Iran, as well as terrorist cells the world over, are suspected of being in possession of nuclear weapons. It will only be a matter of time, they argue before these are unleashed upon the world. The concept of “mutually assured destruction” is an insufficient deterrent to some of these groups as they may have no qualms about sacrificing their own lives besides those of others.

The fear that groups in possession of nuclear weapons may use them to destroy others and themselves is indeed very real. That is why the international community continues to engage with North Korea and Iran today, to try to broker agreements for disarmament. There has been some success lately, with North Korea pledging to disable its nuclear facilities and declare its nuclear programmes in exchange for energy aid and political concessions. At the same time, there is greater global cooperation today in dealing with terrorist networks and there have been some successes in foiling terrorist attacks. Etc.

Thus, science is to some extent a nightmare rather than a dream because it has the potential to threaten people’s privacy. It also poses dangers in the field of biotechnology. The fact is science can be a dream if used with prudence and caution. It has the potential to do a great deal of good for humanity.

The world has done enough to conserve the environment. Do you agree?

Ever since the Industrial Revolution, rapid industrialisation in many countries had caused a lot of damage to the environment. Many forms of modernization have also contributed to environmental problems such as global warming and water pollution. In recent years, things such as the ozone layer depletion and the melting of glaciers in the North and South poles have raised an alarm to the world. As a result, man efforts were put in by the world to conserve the environment such as trying to reduce the number of emissions of greenhouse gases. However, I do not agree to the statement that the world has done enough to conserve the environment as there are contributors of environmental pollution being overlooked and several large-scale projects being carried out which are harmful to the environment.

Recently, there are indeed global efforts to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. For example, there is a treaty brought up by the United Nations to be signed by all countries to reduce their annual emission of carbon dioxide by a certain percentage. This is to try to bring down the global emission of greenhouse gases by a significant amount and is seen as a global effort to conserve the environment. However, it is not deemed as successful as main contributors of greenhouse gases such as the United States of America refused to sign the treaty. The reason for the refusal is because they are unhappy that rapidly industrializing countries such as China are only subjected to reduce by half the amount of that required of USA. Hence global efforts are hard to succeed as many countries are thinking of their own benefits above the benefits on the environment. Projects to conserve the environment may just be an empty proposal as countries are more concerned about their economic growth and are unwilling to compromise. Efforts are not put in enough especially by the developed countries and there is hardly any significant change to the environment through these projects.

In addition, there are many sources of pollution that are overlooked by the world. Underground activities and also activities carried out in rural areas of developing countries are slowing causing deadly harm to the environment as well. However, there are often overlooked by the world and nothing is done to prevent and reduce these activities. An example will be the disposal of high-tech trash. Every day, thousands of used computers and electronic gadgets are transported and dumped in rural areas of China, Indonesia and other developing countries. The job for many people there is usually to sell the copper obtained after burning away the rubber insulation with fire. This is a harmful process which emits carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and many other harmful gases. The process is repeated and carried out at a large scale in the villages as it is the livelihood of many. The consequences of this improper disposal of high-tech trash can be more deadly than those emitted from industries in a developed country. However, no efforts are done to stop transporting the high-tech trash or to stop this kind of trading copper for cheap cash. It will be a silent killer to the environment and conservation efforts are not covered at all in this aspect. In another village in China, waster like high-the trash is dumped into rivers while people living downstream consume the water every day. Water pollution done can be fatal and will increase collectively over the years if countries fail to discover and try to take action to prevent these from happening.

Furthermore, developed countries are still promoting environmentally unfriendly projects for their own economic benefit. Influential countries such as the US are not taking the lead and conserve the environment. This will cause a chain effort and many other countries are increasingly unwilling to compromise for conservation efforts. The adoption of nuclear power is a very good example. Nuclear power is a process where it emits a large scale of harmful gases and causes more environmental problems than the currently used fuel. If adopted totally by the US and put to use at a large scale, the environment will deplete at a faster rate than anyone would imagine. However, the US is unwilling to rethink about it and no follow up methods are done to reduce the number of harmful gases being emitted as well. Hence, half-hearted efforts by developed countries also make conservation efforts seem weak.

In conclusion, there is generally not enough effort put in by the world to conserve the environment. Many contributors to the pollution done are not recognized and dealt with while there is no full support from economically strong countries such as the US. The world is still not fully aware of the consequences that may come. If the countries do not try and start to conserve the environment now, the environment will be even depleted at a much faster rate and the damage done may be irreversible.

Young Offenders should be given a second chance. Do you agree?

In the world of today, the young are subjected to all sorts of influences, be it positive or negative. Friends, television programmes, movies and games inoculate the young with trends, attitudes and thinking. With the mind of the young still undergoing development, such influence affects their actions, and the fact that much of the content of the media consists of violence and crime, it is inevitable that the young commit offences. In recent times, the number of young offenders is on the rise and punishment is employed to reduce crime by young people. Should young offenders be given a second chance? I believe so for the most part.

First of all, these young offenders– first-time offenders no less– are but young individuals aged thirteen to nineteen. Their minds are still undergoing development and are not very capable of rational thinking. As such, they more than likely did not mean to commit their first crime. If they understood the situation and consequences, things will be very different. A study by the American Youth Foundation shows that at least two-thirds of all young first-time offenders committed their crime simply because they were either not thinking clearly, subjected to peer pressure or being unaware that it is a crime, to begin with; reasons displaying a lack of rational thinking. It is unjust to punish one when one was not thinking rationally or did not mean to commit the offence in the first place. It is the same as subjecting chastisement to a toddler for flaunting vulgarities. Simply put, it is not fair. Therefore, young offenders should be given a second chance as they are not very capable of rational thinking since their minds are still developing and it is unfair to punish them.

Secondly, by punishing them when their minds are still undergoing development, a scar will be etched into their minds. In this way, we are forcing them to link the committing of offences to pain and suffering. These methods are barbaric. We can not possibly employ methods we use on beasts of burden to young people. For instance, we whip horses to run faster and beat cows that leave the boundary designated by the farmer. These animals feel the pain and link their so-called “wrongdoings” to the abovementioned pain. Treating animals like this is bad enough; to do the same to a fellow human is reprehensible. Instead of punishing them on their first offence, counselling should be employed. Not only will they be fully aware of their crime and learn from it, but it is also humane. Therefore, young offenders should be given a second chance and not be blindly punished simply because they broke a law.

Thirdly, young offenders should be given a second chance as it is their first offence. By punishing them, we are refusing their right to fully comprehend the severity of their crime. By doing so, they are simply suffering although they do not know why, potentially leading them to a repeat offence, or even leading them to be recalcitrant offenders. The whole point of punishment is to prevent young offenders from repeating their crime. If the young offenders repeat their crime, the purpose of punishment is defeated. A study done by the Juvenile Court in Britain has shown that at least three-quarters of repeat offenders committed their crime a second time as they were punished on their first offence and were not entirely clear why thus spurring them to repeat the same offence a second time. Indeed, it is ludicrous to punish young offenders on their first offence. Instead, counselling should be employed as mentioned above. Only then will the young offender be completely aware of their wrongdoings and prevent history from repeating itself. Therefore, young offenders should be granted a second chance as punishing them on their first offence proves to be an ineffective way of preventing them from repeating their offence.

Still, it is not logical to let them be scot-free on their first offence. It really depends on the offence. Exonerating a teenage boy for committing murder is exorbitant. Therefore, they can only be granted a second chance if their crime is minor enough to warrant a chance, such as stealing or shoplifting. However, since most of the first-time offences are minor, it is logical to grant young offenders a second chance in general. Statistics by the Singapore Police Force shows that at least 2% of all crimes committed by young people are severe enough to warrant severe punishment, such as manslaughter or murder. Therefore, since such a small percentage of crimes committed by young people are severe, second chances should be granted to the first time, young offenders.

In conclusion, I believe that young offenders should be given a second chance for the most part as their minds are still undergoing development which undermines their ability to think rationally, it is their first offence, most of the crimes are minor, to begin with, it is only moral to use humane methods and it is their right to be fully aware of their crime and punishing them on their first offence is unjust. This second chance should be coupled with counselling so that they may be fully aware of the severity of their crime and prevent a repeat in history.

Progress is Good. Discuss

Progress — the word commonly employed to describe improvements and advancement with regard to the passage of time, invoking positive connotations. Yet is what we typically call progress all that good— for us and the world at large?

The passing of recent centuries, most notably the nineteenth to twentieth, has been described as steps forward for mankind. One would frequently come across commentators talking about the “progress” we humans have made since the 20th century. Indeed, we have been pushing the frontiers of science, making huge break-throughs in innovations and understanding. Average life expectancy globally is and has been on the uptrend with the advent of modern medical science. Previously hugely dangerous and potentially fatal child-birth has been conquered by knowledge gains in gynaecology and measures developed to counter the myriad of hazards. Innovative mechanisation of mundane and repetitive tasks like production lines have been turned over to more efficient robots. Judging by these yardsticks, no doubt we have progressed positively over the years.

Yet, on the other hand, the same period saw the exponential increase in military capabilities. We went from fighting localised contained wars into dreaming of global annihilation. From shooting muskets round by round on horseback in the Napoleonic Wars, we have “progressed” into mowing down advancing waves of each other with machine guns while hiding in the trenches of World War I. World War II saw the spreading of destruction from the battlefield into the population at large through indiscriminate allied airborne bombing runs. The Cold War brought about winds of change bearing nuclear bombs. Opposing sides began threatening each other with the ability to destroy each other’s half of the planet with a rain of nuclear detonations. In light of all these, militaries continue to use “progress” to describe the upgrading of their capabilities when all that does is to spur each other into acquiring progressively deadlier weaponry to keep up. How exactly is this “progress” beneficial?

On the political front, leaders who make little or no change to the status quo are described as conservative, even regressive — as opposed to leaders who make sweeping changes and supposedly help the nation progress. No doubt some positive quantum shifts have been made with regards to women rights and their roles in society. Yet more often than not, progress described as beneficial and introduced by “progressive” politicians are nothing more than policy oscillations between political leaders. Take the Woman’s Charter in Singapore for an example. In Singapore’s formative years, women typically took a back seat to males and the Woman’s Charter was hailed as a huge progressive step in the right direction for woman rights. Yet progress now is defined by the rolling back of certain parts of the Woman’s Charter and implementing the rolling-out of a “Man’s Charter” to enshrine gender equality. As such, how does a person even begin to ascertain the benefits of progress in the political sense when it is nothing more than skin-deep policy vacillations to suit voter sentiments of the moment?

Perhaps one can ask about the global economy – surely, we must have progressed in that aspect? No doubt average incomes and wealth worldwide have generally increased and by western standards, the standard of living has increased too. Yet absolute figures do not tell the whole story. Much of the world is labouring under the umbrella of capitalism despite its inherent imbalances. Capitalism generally rewards the person with the most resources at his disposal, leading the rich to get richer and the poor to get comparatively poorer as the gap widens. This is akin to letting the sprinter who jumps the gun and emerges first to win. In addition, who is to say that leading simple carefree lives by subsistence farming and living off the land, having shorter life expectancies as compared to leading a longer modern life of consumerism, makes a person any less well off? Thus, how exactly can such progress be said to be beneficial, if it can even be called progress in the first place?

Progress, as we know it today, is based upon the western world’s ideas of advancement and can hardly be described as universal. However, going by that yardstick, it is beneficial only in certain aspects where it is ambiguous at best for the rest. In this light, we should be more discriminating in areas for advancement and not progress for progress’ sake; rather, we should weigh the consequences of each advancement to allow the world to benefit from progress together.