Category: Social Issues

‘The media is guilty of misguiding’. To what extent is this true?

The media can be said to play an important role in contemporary society. It is present everywhere from traditional media such as television or newspapers to new media such as social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter. In my opinion, the media is guilty to a large extent of misguiding with regards to negatively influencing the mindsets of individuals in the aspects of race, politics and education.

Media can cause conflict through inflammatory remarks and deepen racial divides. For example, in 1964, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) a political party in Malaysia., utilised the local Malay newspaper, Utasan Malayu to incept anti-racial thoughts into Malays, particularly through the dissemination of rumours that Malays in Singapore were ill-treated by other races and the People’s Action Party. This led to racial riots across the Causeway in both Singapore and Malaysia leading to heavy casualties.  Hence, conflict can arise from untrue generalisations through the use of media in which anti-racial sentiments is brought up. These may then be sensationalised by the Media which may intensify anti-racial thoughts. This is largely indicative of how the media is guilty of misguiding in displaying anti-racial rhetoric which can cause different races to turn against one another.

[you only cited one example – you have to address it quickly if this is an anomaly or something that occurs regularly]

Media may also be extremely biased especially when it is state-controlled in which false claims are published. For example, at in a national North Korean state-sponsored website, it was cited that close to 99% of North Koreans voted in a national poll for the ruling party in ‘free and fair’ elections. This is obviously untrue and is published probably to deceive the international community as well as North Koreans that North Korea’s leadership is well received and is in a stable position so as to consolidate power. Hence this shows how the state, or in this case, the leadership of the state may utilise the media to further their own agendas thus proving how media may be extremely biased towards a state or in this case, leadership of a state. Thus, it largely indicates how the media is guilty of misguiding through the deception of the common masses especially by state-controlled media in which may result in manipulation of the people to reach its objectives.

[why is the above point on North Korean elections viewed with trepidation? Why can one NOT believe that is said in the N/Korean press?]

Media can also negatively influence individuals through popular portrayals which may result in undesired social consequences. For example, the Success Tech Academy shooting in which resulted in the death of students believed to be caused by bullying and social trauma. Although it is undeniable that the social pressure exerted on the shooter by the bully may have largely compelled him, however, the Media may also have played a role in this unfortunate accident. Through popular violent portrayals in mediums such as television, teenagers may become negatively influenced and misled into thinking that violence was justifiable under various circumstances and that human life has little value. Had there not been popular violent portrayals, the perpetrator might have to think twice about taking a human life thus it may have inadvertently caused the shooting to occur. Hence, this shows how the media may exert negative influence onto individuals, instilling the wrong set of values thus misguiding individuals into heinous acts as such.

However, some may argue that media can also help in edifying individuals particularly through the rise of various platforms.  For example, e-learning implemented by schools worldwide can help students to learn through the internet with the use of multiple interactive websites. Online learning can also provide a plethora of resources through numerous websites which may contain a surfeit of useful information. This can help students to gather more information in regards to a particular field of study and conduct research more effectively. Thus, this shows how the media is not only not guilty of misguiding but is in fact useful in guiding students particularly in education for example, in aiding with research and providing more information in which students can learn and understand better. Although this may be true, however, advocates of this claim have failed to realise that these platforms can at the same time, be guilty of misguiding individuals (in this case students). For example, although the use of interactive websites may be useful for learning, however, these websites may also be biased and provide false information. Eg? Students, being unequipped with prior expertise, may fail to realise that they may be in fact absorbing wrong facts and may lead to grave misconceptions. Thus, although interactive media can aid in learning, however, it has limitations and is still largely guilty of misguiding particularly through wrong facts and may thus obscure understanding and application of learning concepts.

On the other hand, detractors may also argue that Media can help to provide fast and accurate news through eyewitness accounts with the rise of citizen journalism. This can be done through social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. An example of this would be the recent General Elections in Singapore where the latest news was constantly updated in various social websites as well as blogs and video blogs (vlogs). By providing up to date news through eyewitness accounts, more information can be provided. Hence, the media is not guilty of misguiding but can, in fact, guide individuals into better decision making with more information provided. While I agree this is true, however citizen journalism can also be laden with inaccuracies as well as bias. For example, people may not report their findings objectively and may, in fact, report things from one party’s point of view to get others to see things in his/her perspective. Eg? In addition, the news reported in various sites, especially social networking sites may be filled with inaccuracies as people may attempt to sensationalise a piece of news to cause greater impression or even garner a greater commotion. Eg? Thus, although the media may in some cases guide individuals by providing more information through citizen journalism, however, it is still largely guilty of misguiding individuals due to bias as well as inaccuracies.

In conclusion, I feel that the Media is largely guilty of misguiding by creating false impressions and misleading untruths. This misguidance may have broader implications in an increasingly wired society which is dependent on media particularly new media. With the rise of new media, ever greater complex issues will begin to surface with the examples of cyber-bullying and shootings such as that of the Californian shootings. (which one?)_ It may well be up to individuals to discern information and extricate themselves from the misguidance media may bring.

Hi Alan.

An interesting essay, but you’ve not seen the big picture. Your counter-arguments are non-existent, and the balance is too short and not in-depth.

C: 14/30  L: 12/20

What is truth? Discuss this in relation to the world today.

Truth has not only occupied minds of philosophers in the past but has been a relevant topic even in today’s world. The quest for truth has led people into new directions leading to the redefinition of the term. Truth in today’s world is not within grasp and appears to be intangible. Truth has become elusive. Truth today requires thought.

Detractors to the above stand contend that the prominence of truth today can be seen in scientific advances. Scientific advances have made truth easily reachable. Modern world looks at everything today through the lens of science. For example, politicians of many countries have termed climate change as fake, but research conducted by scientists from all around the world provides evidence to show that our planet is heating up and the cause is human activity. Similarly, people revert to science to know whether poor diet leads children to develop obesity. Barring the ego’s of some doctors and scientists who have purposefully put out false information about health, vaccines and dangers from cell phone usage, science has largely been able to provide us with truths. Therefore, truth in today’s world is viewed primarily through the lens of science. The champions of this stand suggest that people today take an empirical approach to truth. 

While the drums of science continue to validate what is true and false, truth today has taken the shape convenience. Truth today is spliced with lies. People today only tell the truth that fits their worldview. For example, someone reselling a house only reveals good things about the house without revealing issues about the house. Similarly, a car seller might only tell how excellent the car is but will not reveal the problems. People today only speak the truth that benefits them or caters to their interests and motives. Social media influencers also fall within this category, promoting a product or service for which they receive some benefit.  It is not surprising then that people today reject any piece of information or fact that threatens or contradicts their perspective.

Although access to the internet makes it easier for people to find truth that fits their perspective, many are unable to tell fact from fiction. For example, people can find varying articles on issues of gun violence, immigration and politics but many are unable to logically and rationally digest the information. The bigger issue the arises from this is the formation of echo chambers, and hence the reverberation of misinformation and hence, disinformation. The social media troll farms from Moldovia are a prime example of how truth can be distorted, and how lies can impact an election. Therefore, truth in today’s world is based on convenience rather than objectivity. Some might go as far as to say that truth is based on herd mentality.

However, while truth has become increasingly subjective today, there are objective truths that exist as well.  Objective truths remain true even when nothing exists. For example, fact-checking websites like Snopes and Politifact do present truth to the audiences. In a world where truth is subjective, fact-checking websites allow objective truths to be revealed. But despite such methods of validation, truth today needs to be sought and rationalised.

It is quite apparent that the concept of truth has become subjective in modern society. People believe only in the truths which do not contradict their opinions. There are only a few entities that believe in the objectivity of truth in today’s world. Truth gives us clarity and exposes the anomalies in the society. With the rising use of social media, the emergence of AI technology and cases involving deep fakes, the future of truth remains uncertain. 

Young people today never had it so good. Is this true of Singapore?

There is a widely held view that Singapore’s youth has grown up in sheltered, comfortable environments and enjoy high standards of living – a far cry from the struggles and hardship that the older generations had to overcome.

The young never had it so good. There is a widely held view that Singapore’s youth has grown up in sheltered, comfortable environments and enjoy high standards of living – a far cry from the struggles and hardship that the older generations had to overcome. While this view is not an unreasonable one, we must also consider the fact that youths today face challenges in a world that is becoming increasingly uncertain. The prevailing set of challenges in the political, economic and social domains may be radically different from those in the past, but they are no less daunting and pernicious. It would be superfluous to agree that young people in Singapore lead easier lives than ever before.

Proponents of the view that young people have never had it so good until today point to the abundant education opportunities made available to youths today. It is undoubtedly true that compared to past generations, youth enjoy far greater access to learning in today’s day and age. In Singapore’s context, the government has gradually introduced a greater number of education bursaries and scholarships offered to students from less-privileged backgrounds to ensure that the education system remains a meritocratic one that rewards those who work hard, while not denying access to those who may not afford education. This is a vast improvement from the past where it was not uncommon for young people to skip school because of the need to stay at home to look after their siblings or to work in order to contribute to the monthly household income. In recent years, the government has created diverse education routes and pathways. The musically or artistically inclined can now choose to pursue their secondary education in the School of the Arts (SOTA), while budding athletes can opt to enrol in the Singapore Sports School.   In this sense, today’s education landscape in Singapore has made life for young people much more accessible and empowering. If strictly measured by this yardstick, then we can say that young people never had it so good.

Apart from better education opportunities, young people in Singapore today enjoy higher standards of living compared to the generations that came before them. Rapid urbanisation and modernisation in the last few decades have witnessed attap-roof houses and family farms being replaced with high-rise flats, high-technology buildings and manicured streets lined with trees that are regularly pruned to prevent overgrowth. While communal public toilets, non-air-conditioned buses and potholes on muddy roads form a bulk of the memories of many older generations in Singapore, many Singaporean youth today cannot imagine sleeping without air-conditioning or deprived of the many creature comforts they have now. Many, as such, view the young people today as a mollycoddled bunch who are unable to survive physical hardship and discomfort. In addition to increased standards of living, the increase in spending on luxury and branded items amongst the young in Singapore today lead many to regard this as evidence that youth today have a much easier life as compared to before.

However, when one takes into account the circumstances and the new set of challenges that our young people have to face, the perspective that young people never had it so good before appears one-dimensional. In the economic sphere, the vicissitudes of what has been termed the ‘roller-coaster global economy’ has led to much fear and anxiety over jobs, inflation and economic uncertainty. The oldest millennials born in 1981 would have entered the workforce at a time when the global economy was suffering from an unprecedented collapse of the financial sector, and research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis go as far as to suggest that these millennials might be unable to accumulate sufficient wealth for retirement. Younger millennials born in the 1990s and 2000s have to contend with economic uncertainties like the US-China trade war, the implications of climate change on supply chains, and rapid unprecedented rates of technological disruption to traditional industries. This is a vast contrast to the situation in Singapore’s early days of economic development in the 1960s and 1970s which saw the creation of large numbers of jobs in the rapidly growing manufacturing industry, and strong and sustained economic growth rates. Young people in Singapore today thus face greater pressure to remain competitive and employable, contrary to the perception that they lead smooth-sailing lives with their whole lives charted out for them. From an economic perspective, young people today never had it so good.

Additionally, while young people today are generally more educated than past generations, the overall increase in education standards means that there are greater expectations to do well academically and it is even more difficult for one to stand out amongst a sea of university students, especially when 4 in 10 Singaporean youth will eventually be degree holders. Moreover, the influx of foreign talents in recent years has raised the bar for many graduates, making it more competitive in getting jobs. As a result, young people, despite being given more education opportunities, now face greater difficulty in getting their desired jobs, and often have to make do with jobs that do not match their qualifications or aspirations. A recent research study conducted by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and the Ong Teng Cheong Labour Leadership Institute suggest a pernicious, worrying underbelly of underemployed millennial graduates, some of whom are earning less than $2,000 a month from their full-time jobs despite their education qualifications. This suggests that young people in Singapore may not necessarily be better off compared to past generations when we take into consideration the increasingly competitive and uncertain job landscape in which they have to survive and thrive in today.

In our world which is increasingly fraught with fear, insecurity and uncertainty, the young are living in a Singapore that is beset with novel challenges that previous generations did not have to grapple with. As the famous historian R G Collingwood once said, “every new generation must rewrite history in its own way”. In this light, when assessing this or any generation, both the positive and the challenging aspects must be taken into account. Therefore, notwithstanding the better education or job opportunities available to this generation, it would be inaccurate to say that the young in Singapore never had it good if we understand also the myriad issues surrounding today’s generation.

‘Longer life expectancy creates more problems than benefits.’ Discuss.

Longer life is only good when the elderly have the financial resources to look after themselves. Longer life does indeed create more problems than benefits.

Right up to the late nineteenth century, life expectancy was short, people were considered fortunate enough to live till their fifties. However, advancements in the field of medicine has changed this completely. People have started living longer thanks to vaccines and medical treatments. Though science should be celebrated for coming up with better cures for untreatable diseases, there is no denying that science has also led to problems by stretching the life expectancy of the people. Thus, it can be said that problems of longer life expectancy outweigh the benefits because it has led to deterioration in quality of life, plus has brought various social and economic problems.

Longer life expectancy has allowed people to have multiple career paths. They are not bound to follow a single career path. It can be thus said that longevity has allowed people to contribute much more to society with their skills and talents. Unlike the past, people do not have to regret for not being able to accomplish their plans because of a shorter life span.  Longer life expectancy also allows for greater sharing of traditions and allows grandchildren to have more experience and exchange with their grandparents. Thus, it can be said that longer life expectancy has created many opportunities for people to fulfil their life goals.

However, longer life expectancy has also led to multiple problems like deterioration of quality of life. Though people today have access to medicines for various diseases, it has not helped in improving their quality of life. In fact, most patients suffering from terminal illnesses like heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer’s derive little health improvements. People suffering from these illnesses gradually get worse and this makes people wonder if a long life is even useful.  There are medical processes available today that prolong life but do not guarantee recovery for example, processes like dialysis, which are used for kidney failure are very painful and do not improve quality of life.

Similarly, in case of cancer, people are usually recommended to undergo chemotherapy, while it may seem to extend the life of the patient, it may put the patient in a lot of duress. While the drugs used in chemotherapy are powerful enough to destroy cancer cells, they also destroy the healthy cells within a patients’ body. For some patients the process chemotherapy is worse than the disease itself. Thus, it is evident that though medicines extend life, it creates more problems than benefits because people’s quality of life deteriorates.

Some might argue that longer life expectancy means that the older generation can guide and instruct the younger generation. The wisdom and skills of the older generation can help the younger generation overcome problems they face in their work or personal life. For example, senior employees can help younger employees to understand the challenges of work. However, it is not necessarily true that longer lives make older folk wiser. With our ever changing society it can also be said that wisdom of the past is not relevant today.  Although there are seniors that are adapting to social and technological changes, but they are few in numbers. Thus, longer life does not mean that people live a wiser life and more than benefit it becomes a liability.

Another important point is that people who have a longer life expectancy can become a burden on their children. This can lead to poor living conditions. Though children love their parents, it is common to come across cases of parental abuse and children keeping their parents in poor condition because they can no longer care for them. Japan is a prime example of this point. Japan has the highest percentage of aging population, which is expected to rise to forty percent in 2050. With changing family dynamics, more parents are being left alone by their children, which leads them to die alone.

The future of the elderly seems even bleaker when we hear cases where parents are left alone on streets to fend for themselves or abused by their own children. For example, a survey conducted in India by Age well foundation, showed that 7o per cent of the elderly were harassed and mistreated by their own family members and relatives. Longer life expectancy of parents might put financial and emotional burden on the children leading them to take unexpected steps. Therefore, it can be said that longer life expectancy brings more problems than benefits.

In conclusion, longer life expectancy is more problematic than beneficial because it leads to crippling effects on the elderly, it also deteriorates the quality of life of people and puts an immense burden on the younger generation financially and emotionally. Long life is only good when it enables people to lead quality productive lives. Longer life is only good when the elderly have the financial resources to look after themselves. Longer life does indeed create more problems than benefits.