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.