In the light of the Murdoch phone scandal...

The news media should be blamed for the unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to the extremes for sensational news. How far do you agree?

I agree to a certain extent that the news media is to blame for this unhealthy paparazzi (defined as freelance photographers who take candid photos of celebrities for publication) culture, however there are other factors and parties (groups) to take into consideration.

The news media has the right to publish tabloids regarding celebrities and their private lives; it adds some spunk and liveliness to the papers, without which would be dull. The tabloids also provide a source of amusement for its readers, by dragging down haughty celebrities and pompous politicians into the dirt. Witty headlines add a sense of cheekiness and vibrance to the newspaper by announcing snippets of juicy stories and scandals, then reeling in the readers for more. Every journalist, no matter how serious, possesses a sense of admiration for Fleet Street tabloids, and its witty criticisms and mocking of celebrities and royalty, dragging them down and knocking them off their feet once in a while when they get too high and mighty. However, the phone hackings of News Corporation has gone too far in this tabloid business, violating the slender line of ethics in journalism. With the increasing cutthroat competition between tabloids, News Corporation has abandoned all pretenses of civility. It has declared war, and phone hacking is its nuclear arsenal. With all impunity that stemmed from Murdoch's cosy relationship with the British authorities, the News Corporation has hacked again and again, encouraging this paparazzi culture, all the while crossing the line of ethics while its readers and the law look on with indifference. It appears that the News Corporation is the mastermind behind the "extremist" culture of forcibly extracting juicy scandals.

But they are not.

The readers of News Corporation are responsible to a small extent. They were the ones who indirecty caused the hackings to happen; to phrase it another way, the News Corporation orchestrated the hackings in order to feed their appetite. However, this argument that they caused the hackings is unquestionably invalid: The tabloid business operates all over the world just to satisfy these appetites; to blame the readers would be to blame every single tabloid reader around the world, who read the tabloids for the same reason: entertainment. No, the readers are responsible in the sense that they stood by with indifference, while the News Corporation launched its nuclear arsenal. The readers could have criticised and rebuked the News Corporation for these extreme methods, however the disturbing fact is that they allowed their lust for the juicy news to overpower the ethics of journalism, which undoubtedly were struggling to break free of the chains of obsession and addiction (to the tabloids) somewhere in the back of their minds. Only when it was revealed that the hackings happened to a murder victim and the families of dead soldiers did morality boil to the surface in a searing wave, causing them to lose their appetite for the tabloids.

The British authorities and law enforcers have a lot to answer for. Why was Murdoch not apprehended? What is his relationship with the authorities? Why did the law act as a bystander instead of meting out punishment, retribution, and justice as it was meant to do? Laws are meant to place morality and ethics in formal context. What the News Corporation did was undoubtedly beyond the boundaries of ethics in journalism. It is the responsiblity of the law to keep the ravenous tabloids (which would like nothing better to descend upon celebrities and tear them apart) on a leash. Instead the News Corporation ends up being the one holding the leash- leashes, in fact, leashes secured to the necks of politicians, celebrities, and anyone who might speak out against the mighty Murdoch empire. With a tug of the leash, any potential threats to its reign would be silenced. The law was one of those secured to a leash. Degrading. But what makes it even more shocking was that it did so willingly- submitting to the almighty news media instead of bringing it to justice. The crux of the problem lies in corruption. Illicit payments made to corrupt police officers- the very slime of society. Despicable. Operation Elveden currently probes these payments.

To summarise, the responsiblity is borne upon the shoulders of the news media, the readers, and the authorities. However, the media and the authorities bear the bulk of the weight, having to pay for their despicable violation of ethics, corruption, and their treacherous conspiracy. The readers, though carrying a lighter load, face the question of why they remained bystanders.

Justice, Mercy, and Law/Judgement

By the end of the trial scene, do you think true justice and mercy was achieved? Reflect and write on the following questions:

1. Is there true justice? Why?
I believe true justice was not served in the trial. However, I would like to clarify that there is no "true justice", due to the fact that the opinions of many have to be taken into account, as well as religious practices and beliefs, morality and different moral concepts. Therefore, the "justice" we believe in is merely a righteous moral concept reinforced and applied by the law and in the court. In the case of the trial, the matter of justice being served is all a matter of perspective.

From the viewpoint of the self-righteous Christians, justice was meted out along with a healthy dose of mercy- Shylock's sentence was lightened, his life was spared, and he was converted to Christianity (which might have been doing him a favour, from their point of view). This was an obvious show of leniency as Shylock had repeatedly turned down alternate offers and Portia's beseechment to show mercy. The Christians probably believed that Shylock deserved whatever punishment that he got, as his thirst for vengeance was glaringly obvious throughout the trial (the New Testament discourages vengeance), and that the scales of justice were in balance as Shylock's flat refusal to show mercy and insistence on justice (for the sake of his vengeance) eventually backfired on him, courtesy of Portia.

However, to consider the trial from Shylock's perspective would show a drastic and shocking change in one's opinion and stand taken with regards to the whole event as well as the issue of justice. Shylock comes to court seeking the rightful payment of his bond, but instead loses his job, dignity, religion, friends, and wealth. Furthermore, the majority of the court of Christians was already prejudiced against him as a Jew, tipping the scales in their favour. Even the "noble" and self-righteous Duke who is supposed to be impartial is obviously sympathetic towards Antonio, and makes attempts to dissuade Shylock from wreaking vengeance. Besides, it was Portia's intention from the start of the trial to bend the law and manipulate the court (and even Shylock himself) into convicting Shylock, invoking an obscure Venetian law and taking everything away from him, even his life. If I were Shylock (vengeance aside), seeking payment for my bond, but eventually being unfairly convicted and sentenced to a miserable existence following a faith I do not believe in, then I want no part in this "justice".

2. Is there true mercy, as expounded by Portia? Why?
Again, the issue of mercy is another grey area- a matter of perspective. By converting Shylock to Christian, Antonio could have thought that he was doing him a favour by sparing him from the infernal hell he believed Shylock would go to, converting him to a Christian, which, in his eyes, was the ideal faith to follow. However, to Shylock, Antonio was further exacerbating his situation by ripping away from him the one thing that he loved most, the thing that gave him his identity and made him who he was, despite attacks from people around him- his faith. Mercy is to sympathise with and to show compassion and forbearance towards an offender. Further aggravating the situation by robbing him of his religion- is this mercy? Furthermore, Antonio's motives for converting Shylock remain obscure, thus it is difficult to discern if Antonio is using his opportunity to show mercy as an opportunity to take revenge while Shylock was vulnerable.

Also, we must not turn a blind eye to the ambiguity in line 380, "To quit the fine for one half of his goods". This can mean two things: Antonio is beseeching the court to renounce its claim to half of Shylock's wealth (maybe even the fine), OR that he agrees that the fine should be paid instead of the full penalty (half of Shylock's wealth). Antonio also states that the half of Shylock's wealth that now belongs to Antonio be returned to him and bequeathed "upon his death unto the gentleman that lately stole his daughter". This obviously is a reference to the Lorenzo, whom Shylock probably hates for being a Christian and stealing his daughter. This again can be seen as a double-edged blade of mercy and revenge.

From Shylock's perspective, Antonio is inflaming the situation by increasing Shylock's losses, which greatly outnumber the mercies displayed to him and his punishments lightened. On the other hand, the Christian court may observe much (maybe even too much) mercy being displayed to Shylock: The lightening of the state's claim as a fine, Shylock being able to keep half of his wealth which was originally Antonio's, and even his conversion to Christianity. This one-sided mercy, behind which may crouch the malicious intent and thirst for vengeance against the Jew, may have some direct connection to the plot. This is due to the fact that Shylock is the main antagonist who gets his just desserts, yet mercy is still shown to him by the "righteous" Christians, contributing to a happy ending in which the Christians go home with clear consciences and Shylock with heavier burdens (added by the Christians) weighing him down.

One-sided mercy that may be used to exact revenge instead of showing compassion is not mercy at all, however it depends on the characters' intentions, especially Antonio's, which remain obscure and ambiguous.

3. Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. Comment on this with reference to the text and other real-life cases and examples.
The matter of Justice and Law being bent by powerful people crops up every now and then. In the Merchant of Venice, Portia (as a lawyer) manipulates not only the bond and the court, but also the law, to convict Shylock by invoking a deadly Venetian law. Likewise, figures of authority and power such as Dominique Strauss-Kahn, ex-minister and director of the Inter-Monetary Fund, a global financial organization, are able to bend the law to their advantage, in Strauss-Kahn's case, possible dismissal of felony charges may allow him to get away with his vile act of sexual assault. Although people in power and politicians have always been a target of conspiracies and scandals, efforts to tarnish their reputations, obvious cases in which justice is warped by figures of authority to their advantage (such as said case of sexual assault), are evidence of how people in power evade the law- but most of the time, the long arm of the law catches up with them.

Dear Mr Heng...

1. To what extent do you agree with the issues that the student has raised here? Point out some issues of agreement and possible contention

I agree wholeheartedly with the definition of learning as described by Dictionary.com, as well as the fact that the essence of learning is curiosity, as opposed to memorisation and regurgitation. The purpose of education is to ‘prepare oneself or others intellectually for mature life’, and our talent is being suppressed to meet the demands of the education system. For example, my talent lies in story- writing, which was only touched on for a mere term in Secondary One, with the rest of the year (as well as the next) being dedicated to expository writing. Furthermore, students are pressurized to memorise and regurgitate without comprehension, which obviously defeats the purpose of learning- obtaining knowledge via clarification. The students of today are not taught to ask or wonder, to ponder and search for answers. Their talent is suppressed and their potential rots away. Moral education is TESTED, and moral educations lessons are, as I am sure is the case with many primary schools, replaced with academic subject periods as teachers compromise morality by placing the importance of PSLE before moral education. Education, for education's sake, often falls short of its goals.

2. Examine her tone and attitude in this letter. Do you think it’s a well-crafted letter with the appropriate tone?

Janelle has taken a stern and firm tone with the minister, yet remains polite throughout the letter. I find the tone acceptable, however the aggressive reinforcement of her stand results in the letter sounding mildly challenging and defiant, however she remains polite and is not overly offensive.

3. If you should write a letter to Minister of Education, what are some issues you would raise? Remember- your intention is to make the system better for society’s betterment via CONSTRUCTIVE ideas.

I feel that Janelle should have stated how Moral Education should be taught, and how the education system might classify and nurture the students' talents and interests accordingly. SHe could also have raised examples of successful or in her opinion, ideal education systems of other first-world countries.

Money in Matrimony

In your opinion, is money important in a relationship? Consider the 'transactional' element observed in the relationships between the couples. Do you think there is an upward trend of relationships and marriages valuing money over other qualities? Provide examples for your responses.

I feel that money is important in a relationship to a certain extent, however the nature of marriage is true love. There is indeed heavier weightage on financial matters in marriage as shown in The Merchant of Venice, as well as a "transactional" element, shown when Bassanio borrows money from Antonio to court Portia, to cover his expenses to Belmont as well as to impress her into marrying him. Some say that Bassanio married Portia because of her wealth, this is untrue, however, proven in Act 3 Scene 2, where both of them express their mutual "love at first sight". Another example involving money entwined with love in The Merchant Of Venice occurs in Act 2 Scene 3 to 6, where Jessica devises a cunning plot to "make fast the doors and gild myself with some more ducats, and be with you straight", showing how money can buy happiness to a certain extent, however the source of Jessica and her lover's happiness stems from their true love, which is in truth what holds a marriage together. Copious amounts of money are insignificant compared to pure, true love, and will not sustain a marriage for long.

Some people marry others for the materialistic purpose of living off their wealth. Such people can be likened to parasites, draining away the money of others without giving anything in return. Marriage is not only a union of financial resources, but a union of hearts and minds. Pooling financial resources help the couple to "buy" a certain amount of happiness as well as support the family and meet their basic needs, however those who live off others for the sole purpose of enjoying an extravagant and luxurious life, taking advantage of this financial union and not appreciating the true love that should be felt and enjoyed when a man and woman meet in matrimony. The opposite is also true: a couple who are financially weak can still enjoy the warmth of each other's company. I feel that the statement regarding an upward trend in these "gold diggers" is untrue, however, as people in modern society tend to aim to strike a balance between the two: they look for a mate whom they understand, appreciate, and admire, but also wish to be secure and comfortable financially so that they can enjoy their marriage more.

Revolution of War

The 100 years war, the battles of the Han Dynasty and the Three Kingdoms, the siege of Troy, the conquests of Genghis Khan and the rise of the Mongol Empire- Even in the past, man has relied on war as a solution to his problems, a tool to get what he wishes, be it blazing ambition, raging desires, morality, religion, or the tangled web of power and politics. Even when problems can be solved by negotiations and compromising, Man resolves conflicts with what he sees as the simplest of ways: war. Human greed is insatiable, likewise human opinion, beliefs, and morals are hard to quash. Man has always let his heart rule his mind, labeling massacres and bloodshed with honor and valour, backing them with causes he deems "worthwhile", fueling the furnace of war. Menelaus besieged Troy simply due to desire: he was willing to risk his army for Helen, the face that launched a thousand ships. Genghis Khan the conquerer slaughtered and slaughtered again to expand the vast, ever-growing Mongol Empire to cover most of Eurasia.

However, war is also waged within the animal kingdom: wolf packs tear each other apart upon meeting, Jane Goodall herself documented a war between groups of chimpanzees in 1974. In fact, the essence of war is similar to that of the wild: kill or be killed. Therefore it can be argued that "war" is a manifestation of this animalistic aggression displayed in the wild, the human version of this animal behavior. While animals fight due to territoriality and competition, this behavior, perhaps, manifests itself in Man as warfare, which Man supports with reasons such as desire (not unlike animal survival and competition) as well as beliefs, led by decisive leaders who seek war (e.g. Napoleon and Hitler).

While the nature and the essence of war remains unchanging, its manifestations shift from shape to shape throughout the ages. The first men fought with primitive spears of wood and sharp stone, clubs of stone and wood. Following that, swords and spears were forged with metal, increasing their potential for destruction. Human ingenuity has also spawned various weapons such as the cannon, developed with the discovery of gunpowder, and the chariot, pulled by beasts tamed by man for the sole purpose of war. As the modern age approached, ornate armour of bronze morphed to camouflage uniforms, arrows were replaced by pellets of metal and heat-seeking missiles, steeds and mounts of war were transformed into machines with pelts of titanium and steel. The destructive potential of these weapons constantly increase as mankind adds its emerging technology to boost its capacity for war. The advancement of technology has accelerated the destructiveness of human modern warfare to unacceptable and irrational levels.

Reflection on "The Soldier" by Robert Brooke

1) Annually we need young men in Singapore to do National Service. Why do you think National Service is compulsory in Singapore and why is this important?
Singapore has a small population, and as such, does not have the luxury to make serving in the army a regular job, in which people are paid to defend the nation; even if it was, the army of regualrs would definitely not be sufficient to maintain a strong military defence force. Furthermore, the nation does not have enough financial resources to pay those working soldiers who serve the army as a job.

National service is important as it forges between Singaporeans from all walks of life, and fosters racial harmony between the various ethnic groups, allowing them to find a common identity and purpose in serving their nation. It also develops ruggedness in Singaporean men, pushing them to their physical limits, thus allowing them to achieve physical fitness and be ready to defend their nation if need be, reservist or recruit.

2)In the poem the speaker expresses his love for his country, England. Do you have this same spirit of patriotism towards Singapore? Why? Do you find this same spirit of patriotism in Singapore? Why? Do you consider yourself a patriot to your country?

The speaker evidently views his country as a great mother figure, which provides him with a last gift, an English heaven, and peace even in death. I do feel patriotism towards Singapore (though not to the extent of being a patriot, as I have not shown any actual devotion), being the country in which I grew up and was nurtured, a country which guides me - and possibly other Singaporeans- toward success, allowing us to soar and achieve our dreams. It is both home and a metaphorical "mother". Yes, I do find patriotism in Singapore: the glory of our soldiers in serving their nation, the cheers of the people when they fly the flag, the way their hearts soar as they sing the anthem, and the pride that the elders, veterans, and even MM Lee, show when they share the story. That is evidence of patriotism.

LA home based learning- poem analysis

We Slept With Our Boots On

They unloaded the dead and maimed right before our eyes
They washed out the blood, we loaded our ruck’s and then took to the skies
Over the mountains, villages, and valleys we flew
Where we would land we had not a clue
Bullets are flying, the LZ is hot
We’re leaving this bird whether we like it or not
30 seconds they yelled, Lock N Load and grab your shit
Get ready to go and make it quick
My heart is pumping adrenalin through all of my veins
I run as fast as I can through the lead rain
The noise is tremendous, terror I can’t define
The only reason I survived that day was divine
I kept pulling the trigger and reloading and pulling some more
You do what you have to do, with that I will say no more
We fought from the valleys to the mountain peaks
From house to cave, to car to creek
Dirty and tired and hungry and scared
We slept with our boots on so we were always prepared
Those majestic mountains so steep, so high they kiss the skies
The Hindu Kush has changed so many lives
Up the mountains with heavy loads we trod
Who knew hell was so close to God
Beauty and terror are a strong mixed drink
So we drank it like drunkards and tried not to think
Good men and bad men, Mothers lost son’s
Everyone loses their innocence when they carry guns
Washed in the blood, and baptized by fire
I will never forget those who were called higher
They say blood is thicker than water, well lead is thicker than blood
Brothers aren’t born they’re earned. In the poppy fields, the tears, and the mud
And when I get to heaven to Saint Peter I will tell
Another Paratrooper reporting for duty sir, I spent my time in hell


Steve Carlsen


Task 1:
Background information
Steve Carlsen was born and resides in Dowagiac, Michigan. He joined the US Army in October 2000, went through Infantry Basic Training and Airborne School. He was deployed to Kosovo in November 2001 for peacekeeping operations, and following that, to Afghanistan in December 2002 to take part in the war.He was honourably discharged from the army in 2003, and currently attends Southwestern Michigan College, where his professor, Dr. Michael Collins, challenged him to write about his experiences. Therefore, the poem is written from Steve's firsthand experiences, most likely in a negative light.

LZ: Landing Zone

Hindu Kush: 500-mile long mountain range located in Afghanistan to Pakistan

http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/2010warpoetry.html

Task 2:
The poem is written from a first-person point of view, as opposed to poems in second-person point of view, which often describe the scene in general instead of from the perspective of a single individual. This suggests that the writer has memories and has experienced the war firsthand, which is further confirmed and supported by his background information- his history as a soldier in the war.

The poem is written in past tense, thus implying it is a recollection by the writer, set in Afghanistan, supported by the mention of the Hindu Kush as well as the writer's background information (having fought the war in Afghanistan). The poem narrates the writer's feelings and experiences as he fights battle after battle day after day, revelling in the thrill of the fight but also overshadowed by the fear ("beauty and terror are a strong mixed drink"). The poet does not mention much of the enemy they were fighting on the physical plane, but instead reveals the true enemy to originate from the emotional and psychological aspect of their thoughts. Therefore in this case the theme is Man vs Oneself, where the writer struggles with glorifying the war ("washed in the blood, baptised by fire") and rejecting it out of guilt and fear ("everyone loses their innocence when they carry guns"). "Lead is thicker than blood, brothers aren't born, they're earned"- this shows that the writer's perception of the war has been slightly warped; he glorifies the brotherhood formed with his comrades through battle and bloodshed. The writer makes his stand unclear until the last 11 lines in which he reflects and lastly concludes that war= hell ("Another paratrooper reporting for duty, sir I spent my time in hell").

The poem follows an AA BB rhyming pattern where the last word of the first line rhymes with the last word of the next line. The writer narrates the scene in a oxymoronic and contradictory manner (e.g. "Beauty and terror are a strong mixed drink" and "who knew hell was so close to God"). The writer also manages to bring out the desperation, the rush, and the turmoil of war through the fast pace of the poem in which the writer and his comrades continuously rush from place to place, fighting chaotic battles ("We fought from the valleys to the mountain peaks, from house to cave, to house to creek"). Adjectives such as "tremendous" and "dirty, tired, hungry, and scared" are used to describe the battle and its effects and outcomes.

I feel that this poem does manage to bring out the essence of war through the writer's thoughts and experiences. The rhyming pattern gives the poem a slightly "catchy", fast-paced rhythm which aids in the description of war and the battle in general. The writer also manages to bring out his inner turmoil, (thrill vs fear) and finally rejects war in the concluding lines of the poem. Ultimately, the theme is Man vs Oneself.