Pornography is a form of entertainment which serves to arouse sexual pleasure in its audience. However, it is only introduced in recent years and hence we are still unable to determine its impact on the society. Should we ban pornography? Different people have different opinions, those who agree with the statement are those who are unable to accept pornography due to various reasons such as cultural ideology or the mistrust of one's life partner due to pornography as it gives people the idea that having sex with anyone is alright, but these opinions are usually based on one's own assumptions. Personally, I would say that we should not ban pornography before we are assured that pornography causes problems.
Firstly, we should not act based on our assumptions as the actual result may be much different from what we think. When we do scientific experiments, it is rather likely to obtain a result different from our hypothesis because we did not consider one or two factors which affected the result. Similarly, we cannot simply assume that porn is bad because we do not have any evidence. Hence, I feel that we should not ban porn for the moment to give ourselves a chance to prove or disprove our assumption of the effects of porn to the society, but at the same time, the government should be prepared to take measures in case anything happens.
Secondly, how can pornography be censored? If there was a video that shows frontal nudity scene but has the genitals censored, would that not arouse sexual desires in the audience but at the same time preventing the audience from getting what they want? For example, when an adult tempts a child by giving him a taste of a lollipop but does not give the lollipop to him, it would cause the child to get a lollipop in one way or another. On the other hand, if the adult does not tempts the child or give him the lollipop directly, would the child mention about the lollipop anymore? It would only result in a rise of rape cases if some people are unable to get the sexual pleasure that they want through non-violent means. Therefore, we can only ban porn completely or do not exercise any censorship as partial censorship would only cause the situation to be worse.
Furthermore, would the banning of pornography be beneficial to the society in a way such as decreasing the number of rape cases? If humans are born to mate with the opposite sex such that they can reproduce, there should be a natural tendency to have sex, regardless of whether one does it legally or not. Hence, it is still unclear whether banning pornography would make a difference. In Japan, porn is legal and it is not uncommon to find porn material along any street. However, rape cases are low compared to Africa where people do not have access to porn, although part of this may be due to Japan being a more civilised society. Therefore, pornography should not be banned.
In conclusion, there is no reason to ban pornography because we are still unsure about its effects on the society. Censoring porn partially would likely result in a rise of rape cases. Hence, porn should not be banned for the moment but we have to be prepared to take action if any problems arise.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
President’s Star Charity Show- is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?
Is there a need to donate to the President’s Star Charity Show? I feel that there is no point in doing so due to various factors such as the large amount of money which Singaporeans are already donating and also the misuse of these donations. We had already seen what NKF has done. It raised so much funds such that there is enough money for other purposes. However, it continued to raise funds and eventually led to the dissatisfaction of Singaporeans after knowing the abusage of such funds.
Would it be wise to donate to a show which broadcasts a person performing a stunt of high difficulty? I totally disagree with that idea. Why would someone perform a stunt to get people to donate money? If you say that he is dedicating his life to the needy people, a more logical way would donating all his salary to them. It does not make sense how such a show could encourage people to donate money. Furthermore, it does not assure people that hundred percent of their donation would be used to help other and neither does it tell people how their donation can help others. If we do not know where our money is going, then why bother donating?
A more logical way would be to use the profit of the tickets sold to help the needy, as most people would willingly watch a show to help the needy, even if they had to pay some money, because it should be the acrobat who is benefitting in the first place. However, when such shows are broadcasted on the television, the host of the show should not expect anyone to donate any money because no one should pay any organisation to watch the television and since they do not know how they can help, they should not donate.
Another idea would be simply increasing the awareness of people by showing statistics and the living conditions of the needy. Most people would willingly donate after realizing how lucky they are.
Other problems include the poor donating more than the rich. However, I do not think that the rich are the ones who are unwilling to donate, but simply because they have cars, are more busy, and thus has less chances to donate money to the needy because they do not encounter those people carrying donation cans at the MRT station. I would not donate to the needy if there was no one to tell me about there being people in the world who are unfortunate and needs some financial support. Hence, we can always give the rich more chances to donate such as using some of the tax collected at the ERPs to help the needy.
As we can see, there are many other ways of raising funds for charity other than getting an acrobat to perform a stunt. It is simply a way of getting people who do not think before they do to donate because they were touched by the level of difficulty and the sacrifices which the stars made to perform such a stunt.
For fund-raising events to be more effective, I would say that the charity organizations to get the needy to sign up for it. Hence, others can donate directly to the needy, which would also ensure that 100% of the donations is used in helping people, or rather the people running the organizations would not be tempted by the huge sum of money collected as most of them should have wanted to help the needy but were surprised by the amount collected and spent money for their own interests.
Hence, to encourage people to make donations, we can reduce corruption and help the needy through more feasible means and not perform a stunt to touch the audiences’ hearts.
Would it be wise to donate to a show which broadcasts a person performing a stunt of high difficulty? I totally disagree with that idea. Why would someone perform a stunt to get people to donate money? If you say that he is dedicating his life to the needy people, a more logical way would donating all his salary to them. It does not make sense how such a show could encourage people to donate money. Furthermore, it does not assure people that hundred percent of their donation would be used to help other and neither does it tell people how their donation can help others. If we do not know where our money is going, then why bother donating?
A more logical way would be to use the profit of the tickets sold to help the needy, as most people would willingly watch a show to help the needy, even if they had to pay some money, because it should be the acrobat who is benefitting in the first place. However, when such shows are broadcasted on the television, the host of the show should not expect anyone to donate any money because no one should pay any organisation to watch the television and since they do not know how they can help, they should not donate.
Another idea would be simply increasing the awareness of people by showing statistics and the living conditions of the needy. Most people would willingly donate after realizing how lucky they are.
Other problems include the poor donating more than the rich. However, I do not think that the rich are the ones who are unwilling to donate, but simply because they have cars, are more busy, and thus has less chances to donate money to the needy because they do not encounter those people carrying donation cans at the MRT station. I would not donate to the needy if there was no one to tell me about there being people in the world who are unfortunate and needs some financial support. Hence, we can always give the rich more chances to donate such as using some of the tax collected at the ERPs to help the needy.
As we can see, there are many other ways of raising funds for charity other than getting an acrobat to perform a stunt. It is simply a way of getting people who do not think before they do to donate because they were touched by the level of difficulty and the sacrifices which the stars made to perform such a stunt.
For fund-raising events to be more effective, I would say that the charity organizations to get the needy to sign up for it. Hence, others can donate directly to the needy, which would also ensure that 100% of the donations is used in helping people, or rather the people running the organizations would not be tempted by the huge sum of money collected as most of them should have wanted to help the needy but were surprised by the amount collected and spent money for their own interests.
Hence, to encourage people to make donations, we can reduce corruption and help the needy through more feasible means and not perform a stunt to touch the audiences’ hearts.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore
Before we ask ourselves about whether there should be regulations of political commentary, we should ask why there is political commentary on the internet in the first place. Most of the time, it is due to the dissatisfaction of the people with the government. However, most people are either too scared to challenge the government directly or feel that there would not be any point in doing so. Hence, people use the internet as a medium to voice out their own opinions to make themselves feel better and at the same time, criticise the government indirectly.
Why are Singaporeans unsatisfied? People say that Singapore is corruption-free. However, is there a need for corruption if the government officials have such a high salary, much higher than the governments in countries with the largest economies such as China and USA, each month? They could put the tax which we pay to better use if they were to cut down their salaries as more could be spent on the development of Singapore instead of the government’s own personal needs. Other reasons include ERPs and rise in taxes, which are not very effective in solving the problems in Singapore. Hence, if there were regulations of political commentary on the internet, it would only be a way of achieving social stability by force, to prevent people from stirring up anti-government feelings in others, instead of hearing Singaporeans’ voices and acting accordingly. Hence, the government should remove the regulation of political commentary.
Furthermore, if the Singapore government claims that Singapore is a democratic society where people has a freedom of speech, then why are there restrictions to what people can say on the internet? If they want to change the way people feel about the government, having regulations on political commentary would only reduce the number of critiques, but the way which people feel would remain the same. You would still be able to hear taxi drivers complaining about the government once in a while. Hence, I think the government should be slightly more understanding instead of thinking that they are always right or think so highly of themselves.
However, as the actions of the government which are disapproved by Singaporeans are still within the acceptable boundaries. Hence, there is no real need to criticise the government for what they are doing as the situation in other countries are much worse compared to Singapore. In most countries, the taxes are much higher than in Singapore and so is the cost of living. Hence, the continuingly increasing in oil prices or the increase in COE would not pose much of a problem to Singaporeans, but it does make people feel that more of their hard-earned money is going into the ministers’ pockets.
Websites like MrBrown.com and TalkingCock.com only contain comments which are humorous and do not means to stir up any anti-government feelings. Furthermore, it also tells the government about the dissatisfaction of Singaporeans so that the government is more aware of what it is doing and could make improvements if there are any flaws in its plans.
Just like the things which we do in life, we would never know that we are doing something wrong if no one told us as we would not do something when we know that it is wrong. Hence, the government also needs to know what others feel about what it is doing. The government should hear the voices of the people and hence should look over the regulation again. However, I think that there should be a set of rules for people to follow so that some people do not cross the line by making racist comments on the internet and cause social backlashes.
Why are Singaporeans unsatisfied? People say that Singapore is corruption-free. However, is there a need for corruption if the government officials have such a high salary, much higher than the governments in countries with the largest economies such as China and USA, each month? They could put the tax which we pay to better use if they were to cut down their salaries as more could be spent on the development of Singapore instead of the government’s own personal needs. Other reasons include ERPs and rise in taxes, which are not very effective in solving the problems in Singapore. Hence, if there were regulations of political commentary on the internet, it would only be a way of achieving social stability by force, to prevent people from stirring up anti-government feelings in others, instead of hearing Singaporeans’ voices and acting accordingly. Hence, the government should remove the regulation of political commentary.
Furthermore, if the Singapore government claims that Singapore is a democratic society where people has a freedom of speech, then why are there restrictions to what people can say on the internet? If they want to change the way people feel about the government, having regulations on political commentary would only reduce the number of critiques, but the way which people feel would remain the same. You would still be able to hear taxi drivers complaining about the government once in a while. Hence, I think the government should be slightly more understanding instead of thinking that they are always right or think so highly of themselves.
However, as the actions of the government which are disapproved by Singaporeans are still within the acceptable boundaries. Hence, there is no real need to criticise the government for what they are doing as the situation in other countries are much worse compared to Singapore. In most countries, the taxes are much higher than in Singapore and so is the cost of living. Hence, the continuingly increasing in oil prices or the increase in COE would not pose much of a problem to Singaporeans, but it does make people feel that more of their hard-earned money is going into the ministers’ pockets.
Websites like MrBrown.com and TalkingCock.com only contain comments which are humorous and do not means to stir up any anti-government feelings. Furthermore, it also tells the government about the dissatisfaction of Singaporeans so that the government is more aware of what it is doing and could make improvements if there are any flaws in its plans.
Just like the things which we do in life, we would never know that we are doing something wrong if no one told us as we would not do something when we know that it is wrong. Hence, the government also needs to know what others feel about what it is doing. The government should hear the voices of the people and hence should look over the regulation again. However, I think that there should be a set of rules for people to follow so that some people do not cross the line by making racist comments on the internet and cause social backlashes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)