“The book has no place in modern society”. Discuss.

As the world continues to progress and develop at an ever-increasing speed, so have mediums pertaining to information. Nowadays, due to the widespread use of the Internet and new technologies such as portable iPhones, many have gone so far as to claim that the traditional medium, books, has lost its intrinsic value in modern society. Nevertheless, although I feel that factors such as inconveniences, high financial and social costs involved and lack of interactivity with regards to the book have all led to the diminishing value of the book in recent times, it still retains some place in society due in part to its credibility and accessibility as major reasons.

Ever since the Internet was created by the United States Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) in 1958 to regain a technological lead over the USSR, and later spread to the masses, it has increased exponentially in popularity and usage in recent times. According to a study conducted by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the number of people connected to the internet worldwide has increased from 2 per 100 inhabitants in 1996 to 22 per 100 inhabitants in 2007. Plus, new technologies such as smartphones have been on the rise. On the other hand, revenue sale in the book industry have seen little rises in the previous years. Books had once been an integral part of mankind until a few decades ago, and its decline now has gained momentum over the years. Several factors have contributed substantially to this, in my opinion.

One is the convenience of the new mediums in contrast to books. Due to inconveniences associated with searching for information in books in the bookstore or library such as the time and effort involved, people are beginning to turn to faster and easier methods. The rise of Google, MSN and Microsoft’s bing.com have resulted in more effective and efficient online search engines, where any searches can come up with results pertaining to keywords in a matter of seconds. Just recently, Google released a revamped search engine, wanted to even 2 to 5 seconds of search time. Such continual optimizations have led to more people turning to online mediums to search for sources of information and entertainment rather than books. Furthermore, the development of portable digital devices like iPhones has allowed for easy searching of information or entertainment on the move, without worrying about the burden of lugging books around. One digital device, the size of a book but much slimmer, can contain more than 20 e-books, and only limited by its memory capacity. Therefore, as such, the book has lost its place in modern society, with other mediums
taking over, such as the Internet and new technologies due to the inconveniences that book pose.

Another factor is the financial and social cost of books as compared to the alternatives. Books require consumers to pay at the market price so that the firms operating in the book industry can maximise revenues and stay competitive. Thus, in some cases, books are much more expensive when contrasting with those online due to publishing costs, copyrights management, shipping, etc. In contrast, e-books have begun dominating the market at the turn of the century. Furthermore, they are cheaper substitutes, where studies conducted have shown that there are presently at least 2 million free e-books online. Although some online sources require nominal fees, citing reasons such as digital rights management, the overall costs are still lesser as compared to print materials. This is because searching, purchasing or shipping of the books require not only money but also time and effort whereas searching for online materials is much faster, possibly more efficient. Therefore, due to comparatively higher costs involved, other alternative mediums have gained more recognition and prominence, and books can thus be said to have lost its place in modern society.

In addition, the lack of interactivity of the book has also contributed to the declining book industry. Books are print materials which encompass only the author’s sole viewpoint or perspective pertaining to the issue at hand. More often than not, the comments in the book rarely look at other points of views or in different perspectives, thus causing many to feel a lack of immersion when reading a book as a source of information or entertainment. On the other hand, the expanding prominence of the Internet has given rise to new forms of communications like the development of discussion forums. These online platforms can then serve as effective places for the discussion of certain topics with different people so that everyone is able to understand viewpoints from across the world, say for example, what one Chinese feels about the policies in France. Such interactions can improve knowledge of global perspectives and also expand understanding regarding the issues, thereby allowing them to learn more from the online posts rather than from books. This is evident where discussion forums have come to become an integral part of countries such as Singapore with brightsparks and kiasuparent forums acting as widely popular platforms for discussing education issues within the community. Hence, the lack of interaction has resulted in the book losing its place in modern society.

But, the book still can be said to retain someplace in society today. This is because books are known for their credibility and accessibility. In most instances, books are written by credible writers and verified countless times by editors before being certified for publishing into the market. Such strict regulations with regards to the books show that books still form a significant part of society today by providing trusted information. However, online mediums do not have those regulations in place, instead, the internet is prided for being interactive and allowing anybody to change or modify content. One most notable example is Wikipedia.org, where anyone, regardless of who is capable of changing the information on any topic they desire. Therefore, the question of Wikipedia’s credibility has been raised by numerous sources, where Jorge Cauz, president of
Encyclopedia Britannica Inc commented on September 8, 2004, Washington Post article that Wikipedia’s information is rarely reliable. Therefore, books are able to retain some degree of place in society.

Plus books are also much more accessible as compared to online mediums. In most developing countries like some rural parts of China, India and Nepal, books are the only source of information. This is because those areas have not been connected to the World Wide Web and thus lack the online aspect. Thus, they are only capable of accessing books but not those that are on the Internet. Hence, books are still of much importance in many areas of society today.

Nevertheless, online mediums do not necessarily to suggest a lack of credibility. There is indeed a degree of unreliability, but such sources can be much more informative than that of books. This is mainly as these alternative forms of information are critiqued and modified frequently, sometimes by people who specialize in those fields. One significant example would be the Huffington Post, an American news website and content aggregating blog. In addition to columns by core contributors, The Huffington Post has over 9000 bloggers, ranging from politicians to celebrities to academics to policy experts, who contribute in real-time on a wide range of topics. Such learned and differing expert opinions on the issues at hand can prove to be an effective source of information and hence, also not necessarily very unreliable. Therefore, online mediums can also be
credible.

Furthermore, although many rural areas are subjected to the lack of connectivity to the Internet, extensive studies conducted have shown that many governments worldwide are taking steps to implement Internet services. In the developed countries alone, the number of connected people has risen from 0 per 100 inhabitants in 1997 to over 17 per 100 inhabitants in 2007. This is evidence that internet access has risen exponentially over the years, and thus books will not be the only accessible medium, and therefore, other alternatives are also able to hold someplace in modern society today.

In conclusion, the book has lost some ground in recent years not only due to its lack of interactivity but also the high costs and inconveniences associated with it. But although the book is still seen to be able to retain some place in society based on its credibility and accessibility, I feel that its hold on the people will continually be eroded by the increasing usage of the alternative mediums as sources of the information world.

‘Idealism brings disillusionment; realism brings results.’ Discuss.

What determines a person’s course of action? Is it based on ideals, often visionary beliefs, in order to achieve a means to an end, or rather, is it to accept the current conditions whilst taking into consideration the anticipated gains, costs, necessities and chance of success? One could argue that the latter would appear to be the more pragmatic choice. However, to state the idealism is without its merits is myopic.


In this modern age, it is believed that there is a common mutual interdependence amongst nations- much like the frail balance of an ecosystem- where an alteration in terms of one factor may have vast consequences to a seemingly unrelated outcome. Such is the nature of globalisation. In such a high stakes game, it would be madness to act solely on idealistic beliefs. As a result, to represent things in an ideal form, or as they might or should be rather than as they are, with emphasis on values, without considering the reality of the situation would be too great a risk to be deemed feasible. The violation of human rights occurs throughout many of the world’s nations. From an idealistic perspective, this phenomenon would be deemed undesirable, and we would naturally think that the complete eradication of such atrocities would hence be the most favourable course of action. However, in reality, this would amount to nothing more than a lofty pursuit. If a country should act unilaterally in invading another in order to exterminate such acts, the global consequence would be numerous. By espousing realism, on the other hand, there are tangible benefits to be gained. Instead of leaning towards a zero-sum game mentality, where it is all or nothing, progressive steps could be taken in order to solve such a problem. Perhaps by establishing international ‘watchdog’ organisations such as the United Nations, policies could be put in place in order to methodically curb such problems. Although such methods do not ensure that the problem would indeed be solved entirely, it is a step in the right direction.

Faced with such stark realities, one would be inclined to believe that idealism holds little value when realism brings about such concrete outcomes whilst the former seems to advocate that the object of external perception consists of mere ideas. What is interesting when considering these factors is that idealism is more often than not, the basis of future realistic action. Many of the things we take for granted today was once the brainchild of someone with a simple idea. It may not have amounted to much at the point of conception, but the process is nonetheless of vital importance. Take mankind’s fascination with flight for example. A couple of centuries ago, flight for man would have seemed improbable. However, with the constant belief that defying gravity is indeed possible, the Wright brothers altered the face of history. This idealistic goal has even propelled past aviation and has lead to advances in space technology by breaking the final frontier. In recent history, we can witness the benefits of idealism, where racial equality is concerned. Not too long ago, African-Americans were seen as the inferior race in the United States; subject to slavery by their white masters, they were deprived of many of the things we take for granted today, such as education, the right to vote or equality in employment. If not for the visionary aims of such figures as Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr, slavery might still be a common practice in America. In King’s speech entitled “I have a dream,” we see the embodiment of an idealistic aim, where although seemingly unrealistic at the time, is of vital importance in order to take realistic measures in the future.

In considering these binary opposites, it is important to note that simply gathering under either banner would be folly. Sheer idealism without undertaking a pragmatic outlook would indeed amount to nothing more than a dream, realism on the other hand, without any ultimate goal may yield some results an yet be without conviction. Hence, there is a need to acknowledge that despite being at opposite ends of the spectrum, the two are inextricably linked when anything of value is to be attained. We see examples of this fusion in our everyday lives. Take for example Singapore’s road to independence. What may have started out as mere nationalistic aspirations led to Singapore attaining self-governance? However, this did not come without a dose of realism as the British would only grant Singapore independence if it was certain that it would not fall to communism. As a result, operation Cold Store was put in place, in order to exterminate communist movements on the island. Similarly, the Obama administration espouses such slogans as “change”, and “yes we can”. This does indeed seem like a grand idea given the current economic situation. However, the importance of laying the foundations upon which realistic policies can be implemented so as to bring about this very change cannot be ignored.

Hence, it appears that it is a situational decision, of whether to adopt either notion or to integrate them to achieve a goal. For all the benefits of pragmatism, it must not be forgotten that realism is merely the process to which idealism was the impetus.

Joy and Sorrow

Introduction
Joy is something most people experiences in lives. It subjective but it is a matter of how we look at it. In general view, when one is affected positively either mentally or physically by an event and is able to feel extremely happy, Joy could be said to have been created to the self by the event. Hence, Joy is a feeling of great happiness, a state of mind that encompasses both physical and mental emotions gained from activities that create great happiness to the self. In the later part of the essay, I will be examining how human perceive joy and how it potentially differ in different culture.

Great happiness like joy can be obtained from pleasurable activities such as snow skiing. However, different people may have different perception; some may deem skiing as a pleasurable activity while some might not. A child from a country that does not has winter, for example, Singapore, may find skiing adventurous and a pleasurable activity to do. However, for a child who lives in a country that has winter, for example, Denmark, skiing may be a boring activity rather than a pleasurable one for them. However, how one perceives an activity as pleasurable may also depend on one’s characteristic. For example, a lazy man may find skiing on the snow rather a tedious and tiring activity, whereas a sporty man may find skiing on the snow an adventurous and pleasurable activity. After all, it depends greatly on one’s perception of pleasurable activity before one finds satiety in it. It is often conceptually believed that through bad experiences we are able to learn and obtain good memories and may eventually lead to great happiness it. For example, a lazy man may find it tedious and tiring to ski in the snow as he falls dozens of time while skiing. But the experiences of falling and picking up the skill of skiing may allow the lazy man to understand the joy in skiing. This enables skiing to be a pleasurable activity to him. After all, it really depends on how an individual may perceive what is a pleasurable activity and what is not.

Joy can also be obtained through physical emotion that brings satiety to the self. Examples of physical emotion include gaining better looks or appearances, to recover from illnesses and etc. To a dengue infected patient who has been hospitalized for weeks, recovery would bring satiety to the self as the patient would be able to resume his or her daily life. Satisfaction could also be gained from gaining better looks or appearances. When one gained a better looks, for example through plastic surgery, one may gain confident and be more satisfied as one’s desires of being more impressionable or beautiful is been fulfilled. However, different people may perceive the feeling of satisfaction through plastic surgery to gain better looks. People who believed in staying natural would definitely find gaining a better look through plastic surgery not satiety to the self. However, some people believed that plastic surgery is a privilege to have in this modern society as it could satisfy their desire which brings satiety to the self. For a born looks disfigured person, it is not their will to be born disfigured. However, reconstructive plastic surgery could bring satiety to the disfigured person as it allows him or her to looks like normal or even better. To some, there might be a temptation to acquire the physical or material satisfaction, but it is only the temptation that creates the devil. Often, after people acquire the physical or material aspect of what they previously tempted or desired to acquire, they usually feel unsatisfied and wants more. This is because, in economics, human wants and needs are unlimited. But however, to a certain point I believed, that when people acquire what they previously tempted or desired for, there is inevitably at least a minute satisfaction to the self.

Different state of mind affects differently how people perceive joy. A mentally perverted person may find murdering a sense of satisfaction to his or her physical and mental emotions, which leads to great happiness. However, to the norm, it is regarded as something inhumane and insane, and creates negative physical and mental emotions rather than satisfying it. In this case, different thoughts or mental thinking may lead to different perceptions of satisfaction. One common idea mentioned was, a pianist may find gardening rather a satisfying activity while a gardener may find playing the piano a satisfying activity. In this scenario, the pianist finds joy in gardening while the gardener finds playing the piano a joy. This is a clear example of how different people may perceive joy differently. It sadistic to treat murdering or inhumane behaviour as a joyful thing to do, the person who commits the act may find joy at that period of time but may find it horrifying or guilty when the person repented after his or her thoughtless act. However, we should be aware that each individual has a different perception of joy at different period of time, during the period when the person commits something inhuman the perception of joy is different when he repented. We should take into consideration the fact that at that period of time, the person, indeed experiences joy as his or her physical and mental emotions at satisfied.

In conclusion, satisfaction from physical emotion depends largely on people’s different perception of satiety. Also, we have to take into consideration that at different period of time people also have a different perception of joy. Once one is able to gain satisfaction through physical emotion or mental emotion that they gained from their activities, one is able to gain joy or great happiness.

Introduction:
Sorrow is something we have to face in our lives. It is inevitable but it is a matter of how we perceive it. In general view, sorrow is perceived as when one experiences great suffering from negative instances which negatively affect both physical and mental emotions. Hence, sorrow is a state of mind, mental suffering that encompasses both physical and mental emotions gained through a series of unfortunate events or negative instances. In the later part of my essay, I will be examining how sorrow may potentially differ in a different culture and how human perceive joy.

Unfortunate events can bring about great mental suffering to one as one is negatively affected. For example, John, a national soccer player, has lost his legs during a car accident. For John, it could be one of the worse events he could ever have as his legs are one of the most important things to him as he earns a living with them. Not being able to live a normal life, has to be wheelchair-bound and not being able to continue his career as a soccer player, John emotions could be devastatingly impacted. This not only brought sorrow to John, but it also brought sorrow to those who are close to John, especially his parents. In this scenario, negative impacts to one’s emotion brought by unfortunate events or negative instances could bring sorrow to one. If John were to look at it on the brighter side, he could carry on with another career perhaps painting or coaching for soccer. These other fields of opportunities that he could possibly carry out may bring him to greater heights in achievement in his lives and may also bring joy. However, the fact that he lost something precious could not be escaped; sorrow will still exist even at least temporary before he finds joy when he takes things on the brighter side of life.

A loss of kin, someone or something close to one could bring sorrow to one as it affects one’s physical and mental emotions negatively. For example, one may think that it is a sorrow for John as his grandfather has passed away. However, if John’s grandfather has been suffering great pain from kidney failure for years, it would be a sigh of relief for John that his grandfather finally could rest in peace than feeling sorrow about it. In this case, the child’s physical and mental emotions are not negatively affected. However, if John were to lose his grandparent due to an accident at a young age, it could be a sorrow to him and could even affect the growth of the child. In this case, the child’s physical and mental emotions are negatively affected; hence it is sorrow for the child after the unfortunate accident. For John to lose his grandparents due to an accident may be a sorrow to him but it may not be as well. If John did not know he has a grandfather or has not seen his grandfather since birth, he might not have affection towards his grandfather. Hence, the death of his grandfather would have a minor or no impact on John. Since it is not a negative instance it may not result in mental suffering gained from this instance. However, we have to understand that John is still the grandson of his grandfather and they are blood linked. Sorrow may still come indirectly from the parents of John as John’s parents may experiences sorrow from the loss of their kin.

A change in lifestyle or culture could bring about great suffering to the self as it affects one negatively on their physical and mental emotions. For example, a billionaire family may have got used to the royal way of life for years but after a sudden bankruptcy, their lives could be completely changed. They might have to live in a slum, eat expired loaves of bread or a minute amount of staple food every day. This sudden change in lifestyle for them, in their own perception, could be treated as negative instances. This negative instance has created mental suffering to their physical and mental emotions. But it is a matter of perception of how they perceive it as a negative instance. If the family has a positive mindset and always tends to look at things on a brighter side, they might find it not a negative instance but a great chance for them to experience new life before their wealth could be rebuilt. However, we must also consider the fact that they have been enjoying life for years and this sudden change might take time for them to be inured. During the period of time when they are trying to get themselves accustomed to this situation, they might find it negative and thus create mental suffering to their physical and mental emotions.

In conclusion, it is often revolving around the feeling of losing something in various aspects of lives, which is important, that create mental suffering. Very commonly, the series of unfortunate events often have a link to losing something, such as the loss of close ones, precious items, wealth and many more. Also, it also important that the perception of losing something or someone important may potentially change an instance from being a negative one to a positive one. When one perceives a loss of something or somebody important as a negative instance, mental suffering could be present as the physical and mental emotions are often negatively affected as well.

Is courage a necessary virtue?

Courage refers to one’s bravery in times of fear or distress and bringing about an action that shows fearlessness and valour in a person. One may receive praise or applause for displaying bravery or showing courage at unexpected moments yet at the same time, there are people who are criticized for showing the same sort of grit and valour. Hence, people wonder whether or not courage can necessarily be seen as a virtue. Although courage may not be seen as virtuous if it is inflicted upon others instead, and no effective actions or solutions are seen, this essay agrees to a large extent that courage is in fact virtuous in the aspects of leadership, wars, and when one is fighting for a cause.

Courage is virtuous in the aspects of leadership as it is essential in order to carry out laws that may not be appreciated by others. As a leader, one has to do what is right and what is good for the betterment of people. However such may not be seen as popular or receive much support from the public should it not be what the public want or desire. As such, it takes courage to stand by-laws implemented for the good of people even if leaders may face ridicule and criticism from their own people. For example, changes in healthcare in the USA have caused many people to criticize Barack Obama’s administration even if these laws of increased self-reliance and less dependence on the government were meant to help people to be more responsible for their own well being and healthcare. Even so, Obama’s administration still stands by these laws displaying Obama’s courage while he leads his people despite the criticism he may face. Therefore, courage is a virtue in the area of leadership as it is essential in order to carry out laws that are necessary for the betterment of people.

However it may be argued that courage may not be a virtue should that courage inflict fear into others hence creating uncertainty and worry in others thus, it is not deemed as virtuous. Courage is termed when one chooses to ignore or target the fear that one feels and decides to take concrete actions because of the newly found courage to do something. As such, it would only be natural if one would choose to empower another person to take courage too. However, there are instances where people inflict fear upon others in times of difficulty and hardship. People do this to display their own bravery and honour and sometimes even their authority over other people. This then creates an element of fear and worry in their victims hence cannot be seen as virtuous but rather tyrant like and cruel. For example, the hijackers of the 9/11 attacks were empowered by their leaders to take courage and to fight for the good of their families and people so as to create a more utopian world to live in. They gained courage through influential speeches directed to them and even the provision of weapons to prove to them that they were more than capable to handle the job. Yet, at the same time, the newly found courage was used to create mass terror and fear among passengers in the hijacked aircraft. Thus, depicting them as cruel, heartless people rather than courageous people who gave up their lives so as to contribute to the betterment of their people. Although it took courage to take up arms and rage a war against the West through the 9/11 attacks, that courage was not perceived as virtuous or brave and was rather seen as impulsive, insensitive, and cold due to the loss of lives and fear instilled in the hearts of millions. Therefore, courage may not be deemed as virtuous when pain or despair is inflicted upon others instead.

Having mentioned that, courage is still seen as a virtue because courage displayed in times of war shows an unwavering commitment despite the dangers and risks posed hence is viewed as admirable and virtuous. In times of war, uncertainty runs high and a lot is at stake, especially the lives of innocent people. This is especially so when one puts his or her own life ahead of others so as to protect other people and to carry out a job that needs to be done. As such, due to the many dangers and risks posed to a person such as casualties and even death, courage in times of war is admirable. For example, the assassination of Osama bin Laden was deemed as one of the greatest counterterrorism victories of all time. This was so because the job was well done by US special forces, the naval SEAL who displayed immense courage even with the pressure to carry out the job successfully and to keep themselves alive and lit. Their courage was admirable because, despite the difficulties that they faced or treaded upon, they managed to successfully capture the most wanted terrorist in the world, thus receiving much praise for their valour because their discipline and commitment were seen as virtuous and something to be admired and modelled after. Although, it may be argued that these men are trained to be able to react to difficult situations such as these their courage can still be seen as virtuous because it shows, to give up their own life so as to save millions more thus is virtuous and courageous. Therefore, courage is a virtue, especially so as one’s life is at risk for the sake of many others.

 Conversely, courage may not be a virtue if there are no real solutions or actions that help ease the current situation hence overriding the idea of courage being seen as a virtue. Even if one shows courage and bravery, if that bravery is not channelled to produce concrete actions for results, that courage would not be at no avail and would mean nothing especially if one has failed to carry out certain aims or goals planned in mind. Moreover, this may no longer be seen as a virtue but the person may not even be seen as courageous anymore but rather impulsive and impractical instead. For example, Gorbachev was praised for mustering the courage to improve relations with the West and USSR through reforms and plans. However, even with the courage mustered to save relational problems with the West and improve standards of living in USSR, his reforms such as perestroika and glasnost were not radical enough hence no real concrete or desirable actions were carried out. Whatsoever, not only did it cause a lower standard of living in USSR, Gorbachev lost the confidence of his people and his courage was no longer seemed like a virtue but rather a curse. Therefore it can be said that unless concrete actions or solutions are seen courage is not a virtue as it may very well be just as bad as not having any courage.

However, there is no doubt that courage is a virtue when one makes use of their courage to fight for the rights of others so as to help them and ease their pain or burden. When someone challenges the status quo, it is likely that he or she will come under scrutiny or even be ridiculed. Yet their courage is a virtue because they are pushing on so as to see through their plans to help others and improve their lives and even make a difference to the lives of the people they support. People like Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther Jr. are famous not for the lives they led but by the number of people they inspired and touched through their valiant acts and were controversial yet acceptable especially when it was meant to help others. Whatever problems that they had on their hands, they managed to juggle that and successfully do what they set out to do. As such, their courage in times of complexity and wanting to improve the lives of others is seen as a virtue. For example, not only did Nelson Mandela have to protect his people, he had to fight the criticism and ridicule he faced while he was protecting the blacks. However, instead of ridiculing the whites for their lack of empathy and compassion, he tried to reconcile with them and to take a conciliatory role with them so as to bring about peace among all people in his nation. Hence, his courage is seen as virtuous because he was willing to run into an angry mob of unhappy people and to be criticized in order to fight for the rights of people, at the same time, make an effort to understand and reason with the whites which took him immense courage especially since his life and his family’s lives were at stake too. Therefore, his valiant acts are virtuous. Although it may be argued that Mandela could have chosen not to mediate with the whites he took the extra step and effort to take a compromising role with them further reinforcing the fact that his courage is virtuous and righteous. Thus, fighting for the rights of others is virtuous especially so when one does not need to do so and still chooses to so as to make a difference in the lives of others.

In conclusion, although it may be argued that courage may not always be seen as virtuous when pain is inflicted on others and brings about no concrete action, courage is still largely a virtue when one is expected to do what is politically right when one gives up his or her own life for others and fights for the well-being of others. Courage will always be present in times of hardship and fear but it is how people choose to display their courage and improve the lives of people around them. As C.S Lewis once said, “ Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point,… the point of highest reality.” Therefore, there is without a doubt that courage is, in fact, a virtue.

Are entertainment celebrities worthy idols or bad Influence?

Entertainment celebrities have become an intricate part of our daily lives. We see them on television, hear them on radios and even read about them in newspapers and magazines. With media exerting considerable influence in our everyday lives, so have entertainment celebrities who utilise the media to gain popularity. Some people may argue that the influence has led to a positive effect on our everyday lives while others say they have detrimental consequences on our daily lives. In this essay, I will present both points of argument before finally explaining why in my opinion entertainment celebrities are more of a bad influence rather than worthy idols. 

Idols exert a bad influence on people as they instil wrong values into people’s mindsets such as having good looks are imperative. This is due to the popular portrayal of entertainment celebrities by the media as extremely appealing. The media also portrays beauty as being the norm. This has caused people to increasingly pursue good looks by means such as plastic surgery. Statistics have shown a rise in the cases of youth undergoing plastic surgery. Not only plastic surgery is highly unnatural it also causes potential risk with the possibility of adverse side effects. A greater emphasis has also been placed on outer instead of inner beauty. This has led to a vainer society which pursues beauty instead of higher moral standards. 

Entertainment celebrities have also been shown to display undesirable traits such as dabbling with drugs or promiscuity. One such example would be Lindsay Lohan who has been known to consume drugs and is frequently placed in rehabilitation centres. Another example would be of famous pop Idols such as Britney Spears or Lady Gaga who actively promote sexuality through their songs and music videos. We may well be subconsciously picking up these traits just by listening to our MP3 or through other portals of media. 

In addition, entertainment celebrities can lead to an unhealthy obsession of people towards their idols. For example, recently a Korean pop concert held in Singapore saw an unprecedented number of youth attending the event although it was close to the examination period. This shows how youth are willing to forgo their studies to watch their idols perform. This has also led to worship by fans and various cults put in place in reverence of these celebrities. We are simply forgetting that entertainment celebrities are not exceptional nor special, they are normal human beings just like you and me.

However, entertainment celebrities cannot be said to be totally bad influences as there are certain aspects to them that make them worthy idols. They add colour and zest into our otherwise boring and dull lives. For example, comedians help to relieve stress and make people happy. Entertainment celebrities have also helped to spread culture through popular media such as soap operas. For example, recently aired drama “The Little Nonya” helped to reignite popular interest in Nonya culture. This has led to an increased awareness in traditions and customs that might have been long forgotten. But conversely, entertainment celebrities have also caused erosion of culture. For example, popular television dramas from the US such as the Vampire Diaries have caused people to become more interested in foreign culture instead of local cultures due to better appeal. This may be dangerous as youths are increasingly forgetting their roots and cultural essence in favour of foreign culture. 

On the other hand, entertainment celebrities have also instilled important morals into people’s minds through popular dramas, for example, growing up, highlight important life lessons. Historical dramas inform people about important past events to remind people not to commit similar mistakes and also to edify people more on history and to spark an interest in learning history. However, due to the desire to grasp the attention of audiences, historical dramas may distort facts and are melodramatic leading to inaccuracies and imparting of false facts. 

In conclusion, I feel that entertainment celebrities are a bad influence as they impart the wrong values in people and cause an unhealthy obsession among fans. Their visual appeal only serves to boost people’s vanity in the pursuit of unattainable perfection in beauty. People should always remember that entertainment celebrities are only humans and certainly not the complete guiding light as to how we will lead our lives.

Is there still a place for charity in today’s world?

With globalization on the rise, societies may be increasingly preoccupied with bringing in the dollar bills and squandering it to raise their living and comfort levels. As such, would it be possible that the poor, homeless, and the destitute would be left displaced in society without any source of help? Personally, I do believe so. Despite the presence of charitable organizations and programmes to help raise funds for the less fortunate, it is even more evident that charity is given less priority in today’s world. As modernization and rising affluence begin to assume control in this world, many people in the Third World and those marginalized in developed societies would be at a greater disadvantage, as charity seems to be displaced from society.

Some may argue that with globalization and modernization, the charity has evolved into what is known as ‘modern philanthropy’, taking action rather than supporting charitable organizations with one-off donations. Previously, while acts of charity were usually associated with monetary donations and supporting donation drives, the charity has now evolved into action, with people travelling across countries and helping those in need. Locally, schools have made overseas Community Involvement Programme (CIP) an integral part of the school curriculum, especially at the secondary and tertiary levels of education. Not only do these programmes allow for well-rounded education, but they also provided opportunities for students and teachers alike to understand the plight of the less fortunate and to take action in building wells, schools and other facilities to help them meet some basic needs. On the global stage, the creation of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) could be seen as one of the leaders of modern philanthropy. From Africa to Asia, the foundation has impacted countries positively in line with their belief that ‘all lives have equal value’. They are concerned with educating the poor, eliminate poverty and have given out grants and donations in order to try to nip these problems in the bud. Henceforth, philanthropy in today’s context may not merely be about monetary donations. Rather, charity is still relevant today because of how man uses it as a tool to help better the lives of others.

Furthermore, charity is still existent today as it allows people to understand what compassion is truly all about. In a world where globalization seems to numb people, inhibiting their ability to feel for the destitute, charity still has a place to help them regain consciousness of the plight of fellow men in other parts of the world. For instance in Singapore, local celebrities Priscilla Chan and Alan Tern had been giving recognition for their charitable works overseas by Channelnews Asia. On the international level, an entirely new industry centred on giving has been created. Philanthropy workshops and coaches have emerged, helping people to narrow in on what they genuinely are concerned about, guiding them in managing their finances and taking the right action in contributing to charity. Philanthropic coaches go an extra mile in helping their clients create mission statements based on the type of change they envision and help them to plan their giving, both in mode and magnitude. As such, proponents of the claim that charity still has a place in the world today may be valid as charity takes on a different and more meaningful nature when people get their hands dirty and create change in the world.

On hindsight, however, rather than allowing the charity to gain some control over the world today, greed seems to be the new “virtue” that many subscribe to. With rising affluence in many parts of the world today, one cannot help but start to practice material hegemony, igniting a desire for material pleasure. Even with a greater amount of wealth, it would be surprising that man would donate a portion of it to charity purely out of goodwill rather than desiring to be recognized for such a major contribution. The recent Wall Street meltdown is an apt example of how a rich and developed country led to its own downfall and adversely affected the global economy. In the USA, citizens took mortgages from the banks without being able to pay them off due to their desire for their dream house without being fully informed of the risks involved, in a bid to increase their pool of wealth. Locally, there are also instances in which people bought Minibonds that were repackaged and sold through local banks, losing thousands of dollars overnight, showing how greed is perhaps innate and universal. Therefore, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to claim that in today’s world, charity is becoming more displaced and greed has taken its toll on society?

Aside from Greed, the power that Pride yields seem to be usurping the throne that Charity once held, in the 21st Century. As people become more prideful about their wealth and status, the charity may have become more obsolete in their lives. America is a good example, again, of how a nation slowly and painfully learns the truth behind being humble. For the past few years, the USA has prided itself for being brilliant, her greatness in moral convictions, the superiority of its intelligence and the seemingly blameless nature of her actions and decisions. Involvement in war-torn countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan have pulled American into uncomfortable realizations of how far its pride has led it to squander global goodwill and cooperation and in the process, make a number of enemies worldwide. A poll conducted after the Wall Street meltdown was even more telling of how pride blinds people, causing them to be even more self-centred than before. The poll saw a half of Wall Street workers dissatisfied with their 2008 bonuses while the rest of the world suffered from the repercussions of the financial turmoil, with retrenchments and bills that could not be paid off. As people become increasingly preoccupied with meeting their level of happiness and comfort, the charity would seem to disappear from the list of ‘must-dos’, leaving the less fortunate with little hope for the future.

Lastly, laziness seems to be getting the better of the world when it comes to charity. It is ironic how the world is in a constant buzz and yet Sloth stealthily kicks in to help people settle for what is most convenient. Be it struggling to complete one’s PhD, keeping the family together at the dinner table and loving one’s difficult relationship entails costs and sacrifice. Sloth, or rather, laziness propels individuals to choose the easy way out, thereby neglecting what is more pressing. It is no wonder that the larger affairs of the world such as poverty continue to remain unresolved despite the many years of international cooperation. Even with money flowing through the banks of charity, the hands of the people are not yet dirtied as they seem to believe that mere dollar bills would indeed make the world go round in happiness and hope. These people share the common belief that one-off donations would indeed make a difference, but they may not be clearly aware that their laziness in taking action to create changes in the world would ultimately, prevent the less fortunate from envisioning a better life in the coming years ahead. As such, I do believe that charity is becoming increasingly displaced as the world today would rather choose to settle for the most convenient things in life.

To sum up, charity, I believe begins with the heart. With people whose hearts are filled with greed, pride and laziness, how can the world be rid of the current problems that have to be tackled? Poverty would continue to exist in the future if people are unable to realize the increasing importance of charity in the world today. Without charity, there probably would not be any glimmer of hope for the poor and destitute. As the “virtues” of greed, pride and laziness pounce forward and assume control of the world, charity seems to be marked out of the list of priorities in the world today.

“It is better to be a woman than a man” To what extent is this true in today’s world?

There is a common perception that women are incapable, weak and powerless. However, this is invalid in First World liberal democracies as women are highly educated and independent. The quote suggests that men have been taken over by women in many aspects of life and females are in a better position in the modern world. There is an evident increase of advantages in being a woman today than before yet it does not hold true in every part of the World. Women in third world nations and countries governed by Islamic law are seen to be ill-treated and fit the characteristic of the common perception. It is certainly more favourable in being a man than a woman in such parts of the world. 

 Women in patriarchal societies do not have the power to defend themselves. The high incidence of honour killings, rapes and bride burning suggests that women do not have the voice in these societies. In Pakistan, honour killing cases occur 1000 times annually, of which the majority accounts for women. With these continuous events growing women are still seen as helpless in such situations and the failure to address this issue is due to bad governance. There are no policies in favour of women and they live in fear. Any dishonour brought to the family has no right to resolve the issue through killing as there is no law to support such actions. Yet these uneducated women who have no control of their lives are unable to fight for their rights and to stop such outrageous practices. 

 Men are also more favoured in Eastern countries as they are able to produce male progeny. In terms of food, health and education men are always receiving the best and parents are biased towards boys. In a country that does not practice gender equality, men will continue to dominate and women will be at a disadvantage. The tradition to carry on one’s ancestral line is pivotal to a family in Eastern countries as compared to the western cultures. The desire for a male child is so strong to the point where extreme measures such as sex-selective abortion are practised although it is against law. Giving birth to a female is often said to be a waste as girls can no longer contribute to the family after marrying off to their husband’s families as they have the responsibility of taking care of their in-laws. Thus,  men still have the upper hand in Eastern countries. 

Seen in another light being a woman in a Scandinavian country is more advantageous as there is egalitarianism. The ‘Equal Opportunity Act’ in the United Kingdom serves as a law to protect women from any discrimination they face. Women are accorded the free rein to discover their full potential and men are sometimes marginalised. Stores, goods and services are often designed to suit women’s taste. Female politicians are also given the chance to be elected as the President such as Hillary Clinton who is currently competing to become the next President of the United States. Even in societies, women are able to hold higher positions in the corporate world such as Marissa Mayer, the recently appointed CEO of Yahoo. These examples really show how it is better to be a woman than a man. However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is too absolute to assert that women are absolutely better than men. 

 In conclusion, different countries have different cultures and law. There is still a large proportion of women suffering due to gender inequality. For women to be in power in future, more measures have to be put in place. If voices of women are not heard, there will be more social unrest in the future as more women right activists seek justice for these women. Hence in today’s world women are yet to be better than men.

To what extent should society embrace and encourage the widespread use of automation?

A new technological revolution is upon us, with ever-expanding research bringing us closer to the day where humans will be rendered obsolete in numerous workplaces that are currently run by humans, and in some sense has already accomplished that in certain areas. This new technology will bring forth what has been dubbed the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, where much like the textile industry in the nineteenth century, our manufacturing capabilities will skyrocket to unprecedented heights. This change is within the foreseeable future and has led many to question whether we as a species can handle such dramatic changes, or if the implications of such a revolution are worth the increase in productivity that we might have, thus approaching the situation with caution or outright baulking at the thought. While this revolution that is automation will not leave everyone happy, I believe that we as a society should embrace the use of automation with open arms and spread it as far and wide as possible, for we as a species have gotten to where we are now through advancing our technologies, and we too shall see a net benefit from pushing our efficiency beyond the capacity of what we have now.

With that being said, I understand that not everyone will see automation in a positive light, for there are tradeoffs to efficiency. Take for example the argument that an increase in automation would lead to the loss of jobs, as machines that are automation would lead to the loss of jobs, as machines that are able to manufacture products more efficiently and at a lower price are sure to displace their human counterparts. Companies care greatly about their bottom line and are willing to trim down the number of employees that they have in favour of machines that can do the same menial tasks, machines which never need rest, never have the need for a salary, and machines which do not have labour unions to fight for better working conditions for them at the expense of the company. Workers may then be retrenched and unable to find new occupations fitting their previous wages, especially when they do not have the qualifications that higher-paying jobs require, nor would they have the means to attain these qualifications easily. Take the coal industry in the United States of America, where despite the President’s claim that there is a war on coal with climate change regulations clamping down on jobs, coal production remained relatively stable in the past decade albeit decreasing slightly, even as the number of employees in the industry dwindles at a steep rate. This seemingly odd contradiction is due to automation allowing for coal to be extracted more easily by machine, and thus have been needed to retrieve the same amount of coal. These coal workers having a little qualification in other fields can then only sit around unemployed as they live on meagre welfare benefits, leaving them disgruntled and more open to making questionable choices in electing people to power. Hence, as automation can lead to a loss of jobs and in turn a lowering in quality of life for some, I cannot say that automation can come without fault.

Proponents of obstructing automation will also argue that expanding the use of automation can have harmful effects on those who cannot afford such machines. While automation is able to make manufacturing more efficient and cost-effective, such machines may carry with them hefty price tags, costs which a manufacturer can only recover their investment from if they produce massive quantities of goods with said machines. Small and medium enterprises which do not produce goods on a large scale would thus be unable to afford such automation, leaving only large corporations with the revenue to afford such machinery given their larger scale, thus giving them the competitive edge in manufacturing goods. By owning these machines, large corporations can produce and sell their goods at a price which small and medium enterprises cannot sustain, and may, in turn, use this power to force smaller companies out of the market by selling their goods at a far lower price, a term called ‘predatory pricing’, as smaller companies will lose out greatly on sales, eventually giving the large corporations a monopoly over their market and will give them the ability to exploit this as they please. As embracing automation may give an unfair advantage to certain corporations that can ultimately give them great power and leverage over their market, one would be justified in their scepticism of accepting automation.

Despite all the negatives that may be associated with automation, I believe that automation can bring about many positives that outweigh these, with one upside being that efficiency will be dramatically increased. Where it would have taken twenty people to man twenty counters at a grocery such as Fairprice in Singapore, you now only need five employees to man the same number of counters, which is all thanks to automation. This applies to many other industries as well, where manufacturing and assembly lines filled with people would now have machines and robots instead, inserting each piece of a good with extreme precision and clockwork timing. To implement automation would cut down costs drastically as goods and products can be made with the purpose of doing one role, much like a human would usually do, but with more consistency, as they never grow weary as they work. Such efficiency can lead to higher quality goods for consumers and at a lower cost, allowing us as a society to enjoy a better quality of life. As such, given that we have the chance to allow more people to have access to higher quality goods as they become cheaper and are more likely within the means of lower-income groups, we should embrace automation to give us such a future.

Moreover, with automation, no humans are involved in the work, or if they are, they are able to work on the sidelines. This can allow a workplace to be far safer, as it would be machines that are put at the front lines rather than the worker. Workers enjoy better safety as, in an automated environment, their interaction with the products is minimal and most people would play a role more in line of supervising the automation line, reducing the need to move heavy objects or move products to machinery which can seriously harm someone if they are not careful, and prevent exposure to dangerous substances. Workplace accidents are virtually nonexistent at Amazon warehouses, despite them being a shipping and cargo delivery company that would naturally involve moving heavy containers. Such a feat is achieved by their use of automated robots which can zip across the warehouse floor, moving crates exactly where they need to go, and operating like a well-oiled machine with other units to ensure that not a single collision will occur. Should an unexpected situation arise whereby a heavy object falls, only the poor robot will be crushed by the crate, as no human would directly work with the cargo. Such an environment for a workplace would be excellent, as no person should be exposed to the potential danger when it is avoidable, especially when their livelihoods depend on their health. Hence, I believe that society should push for the widespread use of automation in various workplaces, so as to make the working environment a safer place for all.

Finally, automation should be expanded in its use as it allows society to plan ahead for the future potential of technological developments or other needs rather than to stagnate with the same inefficient jobs where technology could do the same work in a better way. As manufacturing jobs are phased out and replaced by machines, demand for workers in such a sector would fall, indicating to the children of today and the workers of tomorrow that this industry is no longer viable and that they should look elsewhere and attain the qualifications for those jobs which have potential in the future. Much like how the electronic fridge rendered ice carvers obsolete, automation will more effectively produce our goods and render manufacturing line jobs obsolete. This can encourage people to look towards other industries with less attention that cannot be replaced by automation and develop them, such as computer sciences and healthcare services which require a human touch. By displacing future job openings in sectors which depend on mindless menial work, our youth may instead look to other opportunities and thus increase the number of people working in other sectors, so that we as a society can be more efficient in developing other aspects of discovery, so that we may expand at an even greater rate than before. Hence, with automation forcing youth to disperse to other industries to allow these industries to have more manpower and more minds at work, I believe that these industries may also grow as a result, even if they are not directly affected by automation. Therefore, we as a society should accept with open arms the future that automation may bring us, and do our best to spread its influence.

Humans do not simply stagnate, for it is in our nature to expand on what we already have. From the coal engine to the internet, to automation, it is only right that we advance ourselves further so that we may all live better lives. Hence, society should embrace automation to maximize its capabilities.

Technology only serves to benefit humanity. How far do you agree with this statement?

There is no doubt that technology has become heavily integrated into our everyday lives. There is almost no escape to it and mankind often debate whether technology is good or bad to humanity. Many people believe that technology can only cause harm to their lives and society, while many others strongly defend that technologies have made their lives much more leisurely and enriching than it could have been several hundred years ago. In this 21 century, the advancement in technology has caused both significant negative and positive impacts on mankind. It would be simplistic to say that technology only serves to benefit man. Technology is a double-edged sword concur that technology brings comfort, make life more luxurious for us, however, there are detrimental impacts that have not benefitted mankind at all.

In the perspective of the working economy, the growing technology will lead to a high level of unemployment. In the business world, more and more machinery and computers are taking over man jobs. Since machinery is more efficient than human, machines will be more beneficial to the industry as the production level will increase. As such, this leads to unemployment as machines have replaced human’s work. Standing in the perspective of a manager, since most companies are profit-driven, they would hire more machine than man. The cost of production of producing one quantity of a commodity would decrease as less manpower is needed in the working force. This ultimately means that as technology grows, more and more jobs will be lost which will lead to unemployment. If the majority becomes unemployed due to technology, it may lead to inflation and riots within a country, which will affect the stability of a country. Hence, with the replacement and advancement of machinery, it is no doubt that in this aspect, technology did not help man.

Additionally, technology causes adverse health and psychological impacts. In the area of computers and advanced gadgets, people are spending more time playing computer games, using social networking sites for entertainment and knowledge, chatting and interacting with unknown people and making friends online. Once they are addicted, they do not think of going out and making real friends. These gadgets have attractive features that can cause an individual to be addicted, and plug into the virtual world all the time. This virtual world is known as the internet. As such, the time spent interacting with people physically reduces. At a later stage, this may lead them to loneliness, depression, frustration when betrayed by unknown people besides social isolation from friends and family members. When people of all age become overly addicted to games like Audition SEA or grand theft auto (GTA), these lead to negative impacts such as skipping meals, rejecting people away for entertainment reasons. This kind of addiction does not seem to benefit humanity.

Adding to that, advancement in gadgets technology causes the art of conversation to be diminished. We live in a world where we are constantly connected to our peers. Technology has provided us with ways to always be connected and interact with them at any time of the day. Nowadays, we are so dependent on technology, and since it is always at your fingertips, face to face communication has become less frequent. Instead of one on one communication, we opt for text, email, tweet, or Facebook in the name of convenience. Although technology’s efficiency is greatly appreciated, this causes the art of conversation to be lost. For example, text messages and email allow us to communicate in short, carefully-edited sentences that lack immediacy. It also completely removes the contextual information provided by the tone of voice and body language. As a result, people who connect with others primarily through technology might find it difficult to engage in normal conversation, since they may have issues understanding non-verbal cues due to lack of practice with face-to-face interaction that cannot be paused, edited or filtered. As such, in this aspect, it did not benefit mankind.

Also, in the area of food technology, the creation of genetically modified food give consumers harmful health impacts. Although the storage time for GM food is longer, the process of genetic modification involves inserting a gene from bacteria or a virus into an organism where it would normally not be found. For instance, fish genes are tweaked with a growth hormone that causes the fish to double in size far more quickly than it usually would, so fish farmers can increase their profits. Soybeans that have been genetically modified, for example, can survive applications of herbicides that would destroy an organic soybean plant. To date, GM food has no be certified 100% safe for consumption as there may be hidden harmful impacts when a consumer consumes GM food for a long period of time. No scientist can confidently say that GM food is absolutely safe for consumption. There are no labels on food to identify them as GM food, and this will cause distress to those who consume GM food by accident, or those who do not wish to consume the chemically modified substance. Hence in the area of technology, it can bring anxiety and distress to the people in terms of possible health impacts and unknown consumption of GM food. This shows that food technology in this aspect did not benefit humanity.

On the flip side of the coin, education has been greatly advanced by the technological advances of advanced gadgets, aiding students better than before. Where pen and notebooks formed the toolkit of previous generations, today’s learners come to class armed with laptops, smartphone and iPod. There is the use and promotion of several learning portals that allow a student to learn online even when they are unable to attend lessons. The current era of pervasive technology has substantial implication to education. Adding to that, students are able to learn on a global scale without ever leaving their classrooms. Classrooms are becoming more technologically involved than before. For example, the tablets not only offer students the chance to browse for information in quick fashions, but they also allow them to more easily collaborate on projects and become more engaged in their learning process. They have become exceptional tools that soon every classroom will strive to have in the aspect of mobile phones to be used in school. In addition to providing access to social media platforms which allow students to more freely interact, they also provide easy access to useful information and knowledge which betters a child’s overall learning experience. As compared to the past, one would need to flip the thick books in order to find the information they need. Now, students are able to attain information more efficiently. Also, access to education online has by far been the biggest advancement in education Like never before, students are able to access any type of information about any subject matter they choose. Asknlearn, YouTube, and numerous other forums have fuelled the learning experience and allowed student access to resources necessary to supplement their own education.

In conclusion, although technology brings enjoyment, convenience, and make life more luxurious for mankind, there are unfavourable impacts that did not benefit mankind at all. Such unfavourable impacts include people losing their jobs due to the work done by advanced machinery, people losing the experience and opportunities of having face to face conversation. In the area of food technology, although there are ways to prolong food, there are hidden health impacts which can be undesirable to mankind. Also, the addition of such an advanced gadget will cause psychological impacts to us unknowingly. Thus, I do not concur that technology only serves to benefit mankind since there are negative impacts that will not benefit man.

‘If people become ill it is largely their own fault.’ How far do you agree?

In this era, personal responsibility is very important in helping oneself stay healthy and not fall sick. It is often being said that you are what you eat. This is certainly true when one’s lifestyle can be responsible for his or her health. However, blaming an individual solely or to a great extent for becoming ill is deluding because the responsibility in keeping an individual healthy is split among the individual, government, society and private sector. The government is responsible for intervening to encourage people to lead a healthy lifestyle whereas society needs to be socially responsible in preventing the spread of contagious disease. The private sector, on the other hand, should always put consumers’ health first before profit. However, in a totally different scenario where illnesses are passed on from one generation to another, no one is to be blamed if an individual inherits the disease. So the statement, If people become ill it is largely their own fault, is not true.

Firstly, we must acknowledge that getting ill can be an individuals’ fault because today, more than ever, personal health responsibility or taking charge of one’s own health is a vital phase in disease prevention as well as protocols for recovery and healing from disease. Personal health responsibility encompasses active participation in one’s own health, keeping fit with regular exercises and watching a healthy diet. Therefore, a person who does not lead a healthy lifestyle can be at fault if he or she falls sick. Moreover, lifestyle plays a huge part in most of the illnesses in developed countries. Six of the ten major factors responsible for the global burden of illnesses are linked to lifestyles. These lifestyles include smoking and high consumption of tobacco-related products, consumption of alcohol, indulging in unsafe copulation and having a high intake of cholesterol. Thus, if individuals lead these lifestyles and then fall sick, they can be at fault.

Nonetheless, individuals do not hold full responsibility for their health because the government plays a crucial role and holds the responsibility in preventing their people from getting sick. In countries like the United States of America where huge commercialisation of fast-food has caused a great problem of obesity among its citizens, the state has a responsibility to step in and enforce a healthier diet and restrict excessive marketing campaigns by fast-food companies. Methods such as educating can be utilised by the government to educate people about the negative impacts of consuming too much unhealthy food. Although having a healthy diet lies in the hands of an individual, the state plays an important role in this because the government is the one who sets laws and determines prices for the food products. It is in the power of the state to regulate the prices of various healthy food products. The government can provide incentives or subsidies to farmers and other food producers to lower the prices of healthy food products so that it is very affordable and comes to the reach of every individual. Thus, this shows that the government can prevent its citizens and its people from getting ill by leading a healthy lifestyle. So, if the government does not play its role, then if people become ill it can be partly the governments’ fault.

Apart from the government, society is also responsible for preventing people from becoming ill. In this period of a global H1N1 flu pandemic, employers have the responsibility in providing a clean working environment for its employees. Employers always have to be ready and prepared with the necessary solutions for cleaning, disinfection and sterilisation. For example, a diluted household can be used for disinfecting and cleaning common areas like counter surfaces, telephones, computer keyboards and doorknobs on a regular basis. Moreover, when people are infected with the contagious diseases like the H1N1 flu or develop its symptoms, they should call the non-emergency ambulance and not take public transport or get close to anyone to prevent the spread of the disease. Infected people should also control their mobility and stay home from work. These are part of social responsibility which if neglected can be responsible if people become ill.

Often overlooked, the private sector also holds responsibility in preventing people from falling sick. Private sectors involve in producing food products should not sacrifice consumers’ health in profit-making. This is seen in the recent Chinese milk scandal where a chemical appeared to have been added to milk in order to cause it to appear to have higher protein content. As a result, it has caused deaths of six infants and hospitalising another eight hundred and sixty babies. Thus, for this reason, the private sector is at fault when consumers become ill.

It is undeniable that many figures are responsible for a person’s health. However, in a few cases where people become ill, nobody is to be blamed. If people are infected with hereditary diseases, nobody is at fault because this is linked to the fate which cannot be controlled. Most hereditary diseases such as diabetes, cancer and hypertension are passed on within families from one generation to the next generation. Thus, just as children can inherit facial features like thick eyebrows or blue eyes from their parents, they can also acquire certain disorders and hereditary diseases. So, are they to be blamed for having these hereditary illnesses when they cannot prevent themselves from inheriting it?

In conclusion, to say that it is largely an individual’s fault when he or she becomes ill is fallacious. This is because health responsibility not only lies on the shoulders of the individual but the responsibility is also split among the state, society and private sector. Moreover in cases like a hereditary disease, as discussed earlier, we can only blame fate.