Original articles:
Toothpaste scares in the US:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3463964
Food scares start from family level in China: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3352366
China blames international media for "exaggeration" on food scares:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=3380315
My response:
The first thought that came to my mind was: how much of these toxins has infiltrated our local AVA (Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority) and pervaded our bodies unbeknownst to anyone of us? If so, these toxins would have wrought untold damages to our wellbeing, plus raised the risks of cancer… not only to me, but to my family and the rest of the world, because it’s a fact that China's exports pervade the world today. Increasingly, China’s problems equate to global problems... and this problem has tainted more of China’s reputation as exporter than it has to its food.
A large proportion of the food scare can be attributed to larger enterprises, who, in maximising profit marginally, seek unscrupulous means when producing food. Chemicals provide the conduit for achieving their ends; they are acquired at rock-bottom prices, and by no means cheaper alternatives to their non-toxic counterparts, preserving and enhancing flavours of products flawlessly… but at a cost of the benefit of health and lives. Frankly, I find this all very revolting, because the ultimate aim of these producers is to provide hygienic, healthy food to the general public. Yet this falls short of the horrible truth experienced today, where economic needs takes precedence over the original intentions, leading to the perversing of ethics in business. I wonder, then, whether the aforementioned businessmen ever searched their conscience before they added antifreeze into toothpaste, causing 50 people to die in the Panama last year.
So much for moral constraints. But part of the problem also results from tiny “mom-and-pop operations”—small-scale businesses, but nonetheless deadly in terms of the toxins used. What distinguishes them from larger enterprises, however, is that they are operated by small groups under extenuating circumstances. These groups usually comprise family units who are increasingly edged out of the burgeoning economy, only to starve if not for their source of income from food production. Therefore, I emphathise with them, because they have to resort to this vicious mode of maximising profits so as to survive. It is highly doubtful that they are culpable for the food scares at all, because they have been forced into this conundrum, and, in all this while, have not realised that their actions are essentially dangerous.
The government’s job, then, is in intervention—to weed out companies engaging in such illegal activities, and encourage other companies to change their stance on utilising toxins. This, I feel, is lacking in the China authorities. Evaluating the news, I really don’t know if the foreign medias are “exaggerating information” on the extent of food scares (claims the China authorities), or whether the China authorities are hushing up the issue (claims the global media). But the very presence of food scares originating from China makes me believe that government has not been doing her job in preventing the problem from occurring. And indeed, the China authorities seem to adopt indifference- insignificant reforms, minimal review, and hushed-up reports- to the tumoral growth of both large and small enterprises. As the government- unfortunately, the only check and balance- fails, the problem is compounded as proliferation of toxin usage goes unchecked, staining the image of the government and country’s reputation.
As "Made in China" takes residence in all homes, who knows he/she would be the next? After all, who knows the extent of toxin circulation? I seriously fear that the next time it strikes, it homes in closer to home. As for now, I can only seek solace in the fact that the AVA monitors imported food products stringently, and the hope that the China government would finally take charge and end the problem once and for all. For itself.
Friday, August 24, 2007
English- the Way?
The Original Article: English for Everyone
Source: Newsweek, Aug 20- Aug 27
My Response:
It seems ironic that Chinese teachers often reason that since 40 million non-native speakers learn Chinese, it follows that we should all place emphasis on Chinese. Because unbeknownst to our dear Chinese teachers, while 40 million learns Chinese globally, 175 million from China alone learn English. This gives credence to the critical importance of English in today’s world, and its preeminent position as a global language.
Perhaps the most telling evidence of the English phenomenon is the presence of “English villages” in South Korea—fictional villages with all communications in English so that it can be practiced upon. I must say this is a very novel idea as speech and everyday usages are exceedingly important for the mastery of a language. Although this shows the rigour and energy the Koreans are willing to expend, more importantly, this is really a microcosm of the global resolve for English learning.
That aside, some experts predict the fall of the importance of English, and its replacement by Chinese. I have reservations about this notion because English is already the preeminent language of science and technology etc. Moreover, the numbers of the Chinese learning English is on an exponential rise as the Chinese join the bandwagon for economic benefits. Trends in China, no doubt, start trends in other countries in a domino effect, such that more countries emulate China and emphasise on the English language. When most of the world’s population converts to English speakers, people can converse effectively among one another in a complete global community network. This ease in communication prevents the reverting back to the emphasis on native languages. Thus, the presence of a dominant global language, and the comfort of status quo, would greatly hinder the rise of the Chinese language.
While English is set to become the lingua franca of the world, however, I find the method English is being taught as a second language very worrying. According to the article, Chinese parents enroll their children into English cram schools at tender ages so as to increase their propensity of having an edge over their peers. While it is understandable for parents to give the best to their children (our parents do that too), they are inevitably destroying their child’s interest for the language by restricting them into a fixed mode of rote learning. Even if the child gains sufficient mastery, I believe that he would not be able to engage in self-driven learning by his own. Is this what the English language wants to produce? Is this in the full spirit of independent critical thought which English possess an emphasis towards?
Yes, the learning of the Chinese language focuses on rote learning because of the sheer number of permutations to dots and dashes that make up a single word. These words must necessarily be recognised and known. So, teaching Chinese requires a certain style. Using this style to teach English, however, is not feasible simply because of the alphabet system in English. I worry that the incommensurability of Chinese and English is not felt by those teaching or learning English, such that mastery is merely surface and not in the essence.
Thus, the rise of the English language is fraught with implications, many of which I don't understand. But comewhatmay, I feel very privileged to be born and bred in Singapore, which has trained me to straddle English and Chinese, both of which set to become prominent global languages sooner or later. With that, I would also be exposed to differing perspectives of the East and West, of Communism and Democracy, via cultural bias inherent in all languages, putting me (and my peers) at an advantage in the global arena. My advice to all: Learn your English, but don't forget Chinese... and master your English.
Perhaps the most telling evidence of the English phenomenon is the presence of “English villages” in South Korea—fictional villages with all communications in English so that it can be practiced upon. I must say this is a very novel idea as speech and everyday usages are exceedingly important for the mastery of a language. Although this shows the rigour and energy the Koreans are willing to expend, more importantly, this is really a microcosm of the global resolve for English learning.
That aside, some experts predict the fall of the importance of English, and its replacement by Chinese. I have reservations about this notion because English is already the preeminent language of science and technology etc. Moreover, the numbers of the Chinese learning English is on an exponential rise as the Chinese join the bandwagon for economic benefits. Trends in China, no doubt, start trends in other countries in a domino effect, such that more countries emulate China and emphasise on the English language. When most of the world’s population converts to English speakers, people can converse effectively among one another in a complete global community network. This ease in communication prevents the reverting back to the emphasis on native languages. Thus, the presence of a dominant global language, and the comfort of status quo, would greatly hinder the rise of the Chinese language.
While English is set to become the lingua franca of the world, however, I find the method English is being taught as a second language very worrying. According to the article, Chinese parents enroll their children into English cram schools at tender ages so as to increase their propensity of having an edge over their peers. While it is understandable for parents to give the best to their children (our parents do that too), they are inevitably destroying their child’s interest for the language by restricting them into a fixed mode of rote learning. Even if the child gains sufficient mastery, I believe that he would not be able to engage in self-driven learning by his own. Is this what the English language wants to produce? Is this in the full spirit of independent critical thought which English possess an emphasis towards?
Yes, the learning of the Chinese language focuses on rote learning because of the sheer number of permutations to dots and dashes that make up a single word. These words must necessarily be recognised and known. So, teaching Chinese requires a certain style. Using this style to teach English, however, is not feasible simply because of the alphabet system in English. I worry that the incommensurability of Chinese and English is not felt by those teaching or learning English, such that mastery is merely surface and not in the essence.
Thus, the rise of the English language is fraught with implications, many of which I don't understand. But comewhatmay, I feel very privileged to be born and bred in Singapore, which has trained me to straddle English and Chinese, both of which set to become prominent global languages sooner or later. With that, I would also be exposed to differing perspectives of the East and West, of Communism and Democracy, via cultural bias inherent in all languages, putting me (and my peers) at an advantage in the global arena. My advice to all: Learn your English, but don't forget Chinese... and master your English.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Beware! Predator Alert!
The Original Article
Source: The Sunday Times
Day: Sunday
Pub Date: 06/05/2007
Page: 4
Headline: You’re 13? What’s your bust size?
By: CHERYL TAN
Page Heading: news
Picture Caption:
INDECENT PROPOSAL #1: Roger (above) suggested meeting at Hotel 81 to “get comfortable” and “take shelter from the afternoon sun”. The 32-year-old brought along a laptop to play his “movies” . He claimed to have met girls of all ages “for fun”. He did not believe I was a reporter.
INDECENT PROPOSAL #2: Josh
(left), 28, arranged for a meeting in a playground in Bishan. He promised to take me to lunch and shopping at Bishan Junction 8 before going to his home “to cuddle for a bit”. He later claimed that he had set up the meeting to recruit female basketballers.
INDECENT PROPOSAL #3: Darren (below) set up a meeting at a playground near the HDB flat he lived in. He said he wanted us to “chill out” together at his home.
Two hours after meeting him, a woman claiming to be the 27-year-old’s girlfriend called to say someone had impersonated Darren and posted his mobile phone number online.
Men prowl Internet chatrooms and lure young girls into meeting them for sex.
Cheryl Tan poses as a 13-year-old schoolgirl and gets one indecent proposal after another.
WITHIN four minutes of introducing himself in a local Internet relay chatroom meant for teenagers, Aauarius asked to feel my breasts.
Even after knowing that I was a 13-year-old schoolgirl, he asked for my height, weight, waist measurement and size of my “top”.
Claiming his real name was Eric, 22, he offered to take me shopping and to lunch – both at his expense.
“I treat you everything tomorrow,” he promised.
But I had to let him “feel feel” me.
Eric was just one of 90 men who messaged me within minutes of entering an Internet chatroom.
Even after I said that I was 13, the lewd offers still came thick and fast.
These men did not seem worried that, under the law, it is illegal to have sex with a girl under the age of 16.
The punishment for statutory rape is severe – the culprit will be jailed at least eight years and given a minimum 12 strokes of the cane.
Despite this, the number of men reported to the police for having sex with underage girls has shot up over the last six years.
Last year, the police received 217 reports of men who had sex with underage girls, almost double the 114 cases in 2001.
Just last month, three men aged between 18 and 23 were in court for having sex with a minor. The girl was only 12.
The laws will be toughened soon to deal with such paedophiles.
Psychiatrist Brian Yeo said men who target young girls do so to “feel in control”.
He said they get a “thrill” and consider it a “conquest” when a young girl gives in to their request.
Psychologist Daniel Koh added that because the young girls are sexually inexperienced, these men think they are “easier to please”.
But not all girls are that innocent, said Dr Yeo, and some crave the attention these men lavish. “They find it fun to have men go ga-ga over their photos.”
Even though I did not have a photo to show the men who were chatting me up, many still ended up proposing a secret rendezvous.
Finding out that I was only 13 did not deter 27 men from doing so. Only 10 dropped out of the chat after I said that I was 13.
I could barely keep up with the chat requests and respond to everyone.
Some started slow. They made small talk before moving on to more personal questions such as what underwear I was wearing and whether I had any sexual experience.
Others asked for sex from the word go. One man’s opening line was: “Want sex and quick cash?”
Another guy wanted to know how short my school skirt was. A few asked for my vital statistics.
One man tried to lure me out by saying that a pink bikini and denim skirt would be mine to keep if I went to his home. Some also asked if I had “petted” before and described in graphic detail what that meant.
One man, Andy, even boasted about his experience with a 15-year-old girl at a hotel. The 26-year-old claimed to be “skilful” at sex and promised that I would feel no pain.
Darren, whose pick-up line was to ask if I was keen on earning $1,500, called me “girl”. He asked for my age, my school, and why I was not in class on a Friday morning.
For that amount of money, all he wanted from me was to “accompany” him.
Going by the nickname Lucifer, the 27-year-old who claimed to be an advertising manager said he wanted us to “chill out” together at his home.
He asked to meet me at a playground near the HDB flat he lived in.
He offered to pay for my cab fare to his place, which would have come up to about $20. He said we could have breakfast and watch comedy movies. He gave me his mobile number.
When I got there and called him, he asked me again if I was really 13.
While I waited on a slide, Darren circled the playground several times. He then disappeared behind a block of flats and hid behind a pillar.
My phone rang – it was him. He claimed he did not see me at the playground and asked to meet at the lift lobby instead.
When I faked unfamiliarity with the area, he finally approached me.
Wearing spectacles, a bright red sweater and black bermudas, the first thing he asked me was: “Are you the girl I chatted with online?”
When I identified myself as a reporter, Darren immediately denied knowing that I was 13.
Even as he tried to inch away from me, he insisted that his motive was purely innocent. He “really just wanted to watch movies” with me at his flat.
Two hours later, a woman who claimed to be Darren’s girlfriend called to say that it had been a case of “mistaken identity”. She claimed that someone had impersonated Darren and posted his mobile phone number on the Net.
Another online chatter, who arranged to meet me at a playground in Bishan, lied about his age.
Claiming to be 19, Josh wanted to “cuddle for a bit” in his home. He later changed tack and said he was actually a 28-year-old basketball coach who trained schoolgirls as young as eight.
To entice me to meet him, Josh promised to take me to lunch and shopping at Bishan Junction 8 before going to his home.
Dressed in a white polo T-shirt and Adidas basketball shorts, he was calm when I said I was a reporter.
Lighting up a cigarette, Josh said he wanted only to walk around with me to “pass the time”. He also claimed that he had set up the meeting to recruit female basketballers.
The third man who coaxed me out promised a massage and the chance to watch movies which I was “not supposed to watch yet”.
Roger suggested meeting in Hotel 81 to “get comfortable” and “take shelter from the afternoon sun”.
He brought along a laptop to play his “movies”.
Towering over me, the 32-year-old who claimed to be a computer systems engineer said he has met girls of all ages and that it was only “for fun”.
Roger did not believe I was a reporter.
He continued to call me after we parted, asking if I was available to talk to him.
After all those were ignored, he sent the SMS message: “Can’t chat anymore?”
My Response:
This disturbing issue is hardly esoteric: sex offenders are rampant, and would find all means to achieve their devious aims. The internet adds a whole new dimension into the sophistication of this depravity, as offenders prowl popular online chat rooms to predate their next victim. It is astounding still that many blatantly made lewd proposals to a phony 13-year-old, showing how susceptible a genuine 13-year-old can be exposed to sex predators…
The report may have been exaggerated: a staggering 30% of the men who chatted wanted to rendezvous with the “13-year-old”, but alas I’m not aware of the statistics of sex offenders’ crime rates. But the astounding responses nevertheless reveal a thriving paedophile online community, who seek young females at the threshold of teenagehood, undergoing various physiological changes yet retaining mental naivety. These youngsters suffer higher risks of submitting to indecent demands and commit wrongdoings that easily leave an indelible scar, marring them for the rest of their lives.
Relatively speaking, the sex predators are extremely audacious and assertive. For instance:
“Roger did not believe I was a reporter. He continued to call me after we parted, asking if I was available to talk to him. After all those were ignored, he sent the SMS message: 'Can’t chat anymore?'”
The writer here writes rather dispassionately her experience, occasionally injecting thought-provoking and sensationalising humour, as present in this quotation. But aside from humour, a certain irony is expressed in this very apt ending. One may expect a potential sex offender to inch away after being informed of a reporter previously marauding as a teenager. But Roger refuses to believe it, continuing to hint, blissfully unaware that he might appear on newspapers. This leaves me incredulous and shocked as to the “openness” of the situation. This individual account suffices to eclipse the statistics—that even a single man can present himself this way shows the derring-do of sex-predators—they would stop at nothing.
Hence measures and punishments- whose mere mention was almost ominously avoided in this article- must be meted out urgently. Education is the most important psychological barrier, which MOE partially accomplished under “sex education” in schools. However, this often comes across as stodgy and dull, thus teachers must also engage in heartfelt talks with students to convince students to avoid sex predators. Parents, similarly, can monitor their daughters’ whereabouts and the people they befriend, watching out for potential offenders. Lastly, both teachers and parents alike should keep on a lookout for any symptoms of anomaly in their daughters, so as to detect the presence of sex predators in their lives. On the other hand, the authorities should regulate online chats such that young females cannot have access to these sites, hence effectively protecting them physically from these sex offenders.
To conclude, I think that young boys might also fall prey to online sex offenders, as I have no qualms that since paedophiles exist, so will homosexual paedophiles. I may be biased towards my (male) sex, but I think that my fears are not entirely unwarranted. While educating young females, young males and male teenagers should similarly be cautioned about the dangers of sex offenders, no matter how ridiculous it might seem.
(497 words)
Sidenote:
The basketball coach known as "Josh" was sacked after being spotted in the news. Although his face was covered, he was recognised by some teachers in a few schools...
-Source: The Sunday Times, 13/05/2007, Headline: School fires coach who tried to hook up with ‘13-year-old’
Source: The Sunday Times
Day: Sunday
Pub Date: 06/05/2007
Page: 4
Headline: You’re 13? What’s your bust size?
By: CHERYL TAN
Page Heading: news
Picture Caption:
INDECENT PROPOSAL #1: Roger (above) suggested meeting at Hotel 81 to “get comfortable” and “take shelter from the afternoon sun”. The 32-year-old brought along a laptop to play his “movies” . He claimed to have met girls of all ages “for fun”. He did not believe I was a reporter.
INDECENT PROPOSAL #2: Josh
(left), 28, arranged for a meeting in a playground in Bishan. He promised to take me to lunch and shopping at Bishan Junction 8 before going to his home “to cuddle for a bit”. He later claimed that he had set up the meeting to recruit female basketballers.
INDECENT PROPOSAL #3: Darren (below) set up a meeting at a playground near the HDB flat he lived in. He said he wanted us to “chill out” together at his home.
Two hours after meeting him, a woman claiming to be the 27-year-old’s girlfriend called to say someone had impersonated Darren and posted his mobile phone number online.
Men prowl Internet chatrooms and lure young girls into meeting them for sex.
Cheryl Tan poses as a 13-year-old schoolgirl and gets one indecent proposal after another.
WITHIN four minutes of introducing himself in a local Internet relay chatroom meant for teenagers, Aauarius asked to feel my breasts.
Even after knowing that I was a 13-year-old schoolgirl, he asked for my height, weight, waist measurement and size of my “top”.
Claiming his real name was Eric, 22, he offered to take me shopping and to lunch – both at his expense.
“I treat you everything tomorrow,” he promised.
But I had to let him “feel feel” me.
Eric was just one of 90 men who messaged me within minutes of entering an Internet chatroom.
Even after I said that I was 13, the lewd offers still came thick and fast.
These men did not seem worried that, under the law, it is illegal to have sex with a girl under the age of 16.
The punishment for statutory rape is severe – the culprit will be jailed at least eight years and given a minimum 12 strokes of the cane.
Despite this, the number of men reported to the police for having sex with underage girls has shot up over the last six years.
Last year, the police received 217 reports of men who had sex with underage girls, almost double the 114 cases in 2001.
Just last month, three men aged between 18 and 23 were in court for having sex with a minor. The girl was only 12.
The laws will be toughened soon to deal with such paedophiles.
Psychiatrist Brian Yeo said men who target young girls do so to “feel in control”.
He said they get a “thrill” and consider it a “conquest” when a young girl gives in to their request.
Psychologist Daniel Koh added that because the young girls are sexually inexperienced, these men think they are “easier to please”.
But not all girls are that innocent, said Dr Yeo, and some crave the attention these men lavish. “They find it fun to have men go ga-ga over their photos.”
Even though I did not have a photo to show the men who were chatting me up, many still ended up proposing a secret rendezvous.
Finding out that I was only 13 did not deter 27 men from doing so. Only 10 dropped out of the chat after I said that I was 13.
I could barely keep up with the chat requests and respond to everyone.
Some started slow. They made small talk before moving on to more personal questions such as what underwear I was wearing and whether I had any sexual experience.
Others asked for sex from the word go. One man’s opening line was: “Want sex and quick cash?”
Another guy wanted to know how short my school skirt was. A few asked for my vital statistics.
One man tried to lure me out by saying that a pink bikini and denim skirt would be mine to keep if I went to his home. Some also asked if I had “petted” before and described in graphic detail what that meant.
One man, Andy, even boasted about his experience with a 15-year-old girl at a hotel. The 26-year-old claimed to be “skilful” at sex and promised that I would feel no pain.
Darren, whose pick-up line was to ask if I was keen on earning $1,500, called me “girl”. He asked for my age, my school, and why I was not in class on a Friday morning.
For that amount of money, all he wanted from me was to “accompany” him.
Going by the nickname Lucifer, the 27-year-old who claimed to be an advertising manager said he wanted us to “chill out” together at his home.
He asked to meet me at a playground near the HDB flat he lived in.
He offered to pay for my cab fare to his place, which would have come up to about $20. He said we could have breakfast and watch comedy movies. He gave me his mobile number.
When I got there and called him, he asked me again if I was really 13.
While I waited on a slide, Darren circled the playground several times. He then disappeared behind a block of flats and hid behind a pillar.
My phone rang – it was him. He claimed he did not see me at the playground and asked to meet at the lift lobby instead.
When I faked unfamiliarity with the area, he finally approached me.
Wearing spectacles, a bright red sweater and black bermudas, the first thing he asked me was: “Are you the girl I chatted with online?”
When I identified myself as a reporter, Darren immediately denied knowing that I was 13.
Even as he tried to inch away from me, he insisted that his motive was purely innocent. He “really just wanted to watch movies” with me at his flat.
Two hours later, a woman who claimed to be Darren’s girlfriend called to say that it had been a case of “mistaken identity”. She claimed that someone had impersonated Darren and posted his mobile phone number on the Net.
Another online chatter, who arranged to meet me at a playground in Bishan, lied about his age.
Claiming to be 19, Josh wanted to “cuddle for a bit” in his home. He later changed tack and said he was actually a 28-year-old basketball coach who trained schoolgirls as young as eight.
To entice me to meet him, Josh promised to take me to lunch and shopping at Bishan Junction 8 before going to his home.
Dressed in a white polo T-shirt and Adidas basketball shorts, he was calm when I said I was a reporter.
Lighting up a cigarette, Josh said he wanted only to walk around with me to “pass the time”. He also claimed that he had set up the meeting to recruit female basketballers.
The third man who coaxed me out promised a massage and the chance to watch movies which I was “not supposed to watch yet”.
Roger suggested meeting in Hotel 81 to “get comfortable” and “take shelter from the afternoon sun”.
He brought along a laptop to play his “movies”.
Towering over me, the 32-year-old who claimed to be a computer systems engineer said he has met girls of all ages and that it was only “for fun”.
Roger did not believe I was a reporter.
He continued to call me after we parted, asking if I was available to talk to him.
After all those were ignored, he sent the SMS message: “Can’t chat anymore?”
My Response:
This disturbing issue is hardly esoteric: sex offenders are rampant, and would find all means to achieve their devious aims. The internet adds a whole new dimension into the sophistication of this depravity, as offenders prowl popular online chat rooms to predate their next victim. It is astounding still that many blatantly made lewd proposals to a phony 13-year-old, showing how susceptible a genuine 13-year-old can be exposed to sex predators…
The report may have been exaggerated: a staggering 30% of the men who chatted wanted to rendezvous with the “13-year-old”, but alas I’m not aware of the statistics of sex offenders’ crime rates. But the astounding responses nevertheless reveal a thriving paedophile online community, who seek young females at the threshold of teenagehood, undergoing various physiological changes yet retaining mental naivety. These youngsters suffer higher risks of submitting to indecent demands and commit wrongdoings that easily leave an indelible scar, marring them for the rest of their lives.
Relatively speaking, the sex predators are extremely audacious and assertive. For instance:
“Roger did not believe I was a reporter. He continued to call me after we parted, asking if I was available to talk to him. After all those were ignored, he sent the SMS message: 'Can’t chat anymore?'”
The writer here writes rather dispassionately her experience, occasionally injecting thought-provoking and sensationalising humour, as present in this quotation. But aside from humour, a certain irony is expressed in this very apt ending. One may expect a potential sex offender to inch away after being informed of a reporter previously marauding as a teenager. But Roger refuses to believe it, continuing to hint, blissfully unaware that he might appear on newspapers. This leaves me incredulous and shocked as to the “openness” of the situation. This individual account suffices to eclipse the statistics—that even a single man can present himself this way shows the derring-do of sex-predators—they would stop at nothing.
Hence measures and punishments- whose mere mention was almost ominously avoided in this article- must be meted out urgently. Education is the most important psychological barrier, which MOE partially accomplished under “sex education” in schools. However, this often comes across as stodgy and dull, thus teachers must also engage in heartfelt talks with students to convince students to avoid sex predators. Parents, similarly, can monitor their daughters’ whereabouts and the people they befriend, watching out for potential offenders. Lastly, both teachers and parents alike should keep on a lookout for any symptoms of anomaly in their daughters, so as to detect the presence of sex predators in their lives. On the other hand, the authorities should regulate online chats such that young females cannot have access to these sites, hence effectively protecting them physically from these sex offenders.
To conclude, I think that young boys might also fall prey to online sex offenders, as I have no qualms that since paedophiles exist, so will homosexual paedophiles. I may be biased towards my (male) sex, but I think that my fears are not entirely unwarranted. While educating young females, young males and male teenagers should similarly be cautioned about the dangers of sex offenders, no matter how ridiculous it might seem.
(497 words)
Sidenote:
The basketball coach known as "Josh" was sacked after being spotted in the news. Although his face was covered, he was recognised by some teachers in a few schools...
-Source: The Sunday Times, 13/05/2007, Headline: School fires coach who tried to hook up with ‘13-year-old’
Driving the message home
The Original Article
Source: The Straits Times
Day: Wednesday
Pub Date: 16/05/2007
Page: 26
Headline: LAWS ON DRINK DRIVING-
Make it legal duty to stop drivers
By: ANDY HO
Page Heading: REVIEW
DRINK driving has been in the news too much recently. The number arrested for the offence jumped from 2,929 in 2004 to 3,733 last year, say the Traffic Police.
Whatever the reason for this spike, there is a case to be made that your drinking buddies – and bartenders, bouncers, valets or those who ride in your car – are morally bound to stop you from taking to the wheel after you have had a few stiff ones. But since they do not seem to be doing that frequently enough, why not impose a legal duty on them to do so?
Bartenders could be empowered to hold on to a patron’s car keys before he starts drinking and refuse to hand them over at the end of the night. This might require such establishments to have breathalysers, for instance. The law could require valets, bouncers and friends to even pull car keys from the ignition if an intoxicated fellow were to try driving off.
Some lawyers, however, caution against passing a law that requires a person to do something to help another, even if it potentially prevents people other than the helped one from getting maimed or killed. In contrast to laws that forbid murder or rape, for example, such a law would punish not an act of commission but one of omission, something not traditionally accepted in common-law countries like Singapore.
Yes, taking a life is different from failing to rescue one, but do the two differ so much that, while capital punishment is justifiable in the former, no legal condemnation is acceptable in the latter case?
Detractors say criminal law punishes individuals for what they do, not for being selfish, callous, uncaring or for thinking bad thoughts. Whether or not to do a good deed is something you decide as your conscience dictates. In a pluralistic society like ours, there is no consensus on the moral values on which a duty to rescue might be based, so the Government should take no stand on the issue. Moreover, the Government should not be in the business of monitoring the religious and moral system, opponents argue.
But it seems to me that no Singaporean would vigorously disagree that your drinking buddies, say, have a moral duty to stop you from driving if you are quite intoxicated. The only disagreement is whether to enforce this legally.
Most of us, in fact, have no problem with the legal enforcement of shared moral values. For instance, we can all agree that parents are morally obliged to protect and provide for their children, so legally requiring them to do so is uncontroversial. Also, criminal law assumes that I do not rape, murder, or rob because I (should) know that it is (morally) wrong to do so.
This is true even where the law requires me to do something instead of merely refraining from an act. For example, the law requires me to stay put at the scene of an accident in which I have been involved, call for aid and assist law enforcers in their investigations. Just to be sure I do, there are penalties in place – including jail time – to ensure there is something else to deter me from evading my responsibilities if my moral restraints are weak.
We also ask of a person accused of a civil or criminal wrong not just if he had committed the act but also whether he was blameworthy. That is, the ethical quality of his actions determines whether he is to be blamed.
But if the law focuses on not just if an act was carried out but also if the actor is ethically worthy of blame – that is, if moral culpability is the real basis of legal responsibility – we should also be moving away from distinguishing between whether harm resulted from a person’s act or his willful non-act, to asking, instead, whether failing to act is equally blameworthy.
Sure, it takes a lot to stop your friend from driving off but doing nothing takes some effort as well.
Opponents of such a law also say it would infringe upon the individual’s right to liberty. But when the liberty to choose is agonisingly sullied by bad conscience, it must be a liberty worth little.
At any rate, there are times when the moral duty to act supersedes our freedoms. Thus, we pay taxes so that, among other things, the poor can be helped and we do not flinch from prosecuting those who evade taxes.
By analogy, requiring friends and bartenders to prevent the intoxicated from driving off is yet another situation where the duty to help others – including potential victims of the drunk driver – is arguably more important than our own liberties.
Finally, some opponents even suggest that any action that is not freely chosen is not truly virtuous, so a law that imposes the affirmative duty to act does not bring out the best in us. Surely no one who could be saved by such a law should have to lose life or limb while the rest of us good folks ascertain if our altruism is truly beyond reproach.
The problem with these objections is that they are raised in the abstract, so that failing to help means simply a lack; that is, a lack of response to someone else’s problem.
But in real life, there is no telling who your inebriated friend might run into down the road.
The concreteness of such situations – of which all are morally significant – justifies a law to compel people to stop the inebriated from driving.
andyho@sph.com.sg
Some background information:
“On May 9, the court saw ex-show host Benedict Goh, 37, being charged with two counts of drink driving. The next day, actor Christopher Lee, 35, was sentenced to four weeks in jail and fined $4,500 for drink-driving and hit-and-run offences.”
“At roadblocks in Outram and Tampines roads between 11.30pm on Friday and 4.45am the next day, one in four of the 39 motorists tested were arrested for drink driving.”
“Till March this year, 914 motorists – 141 of whom were involved in accidents – were held for drink-driving. In the same period last year, 753 people were held, including 134 involved in accidents.
“Last year, 25 people died in crashes involving drunk drivers, up from 20 in 2005, and 336 were injured – a 50 per cent jump from the previous year.”
—all adapted from “1 in 4 fail police drink- driving test”: Straits Times on Monday, 14/05/2007
My Response:
In light of the recent spate of drink driving cases, this writer makes an interesting proposition of institutionalising a mandatory law for bar establishments to stop inebriated people from driving. He manages to present both sides of the coin succinctly, synthesising points into a full argument in a convincing manner.
Drink driving concerns not only a driver’s life, but also the safety of potentially imperiled pedestrians, car drivers, or property that may cross his path. The enormity of the situation cannot be ignored, and preemptive measures must be taken to prevent the unnecessary ramifications caused by this offence.
A law with moral grounding is by no means a strong one. When an intoxicated person is unaware of the exact implications of his actions, the bystander is morally bound to guide him into act desirably and harmlessly. A legal duty will serve to strengthen what is already a moral action by imposing a punishment onto those who disobey it.
Detractors would of course lambast the law as an impeachment of (democratic) choice and freedom. This view is entirely valid, as the action of preventing others from committing offences is ultimately voluntary, implying that inaction is an offence, a debatable point because inaction almost never considered criminal in today’s judiciary. The severity and scope of the law is also questioned, as the majority of drink drivers are not involved in accidents.
Although opposing stances are dealt with, I feel that the writer has failed to delve into the more practical aspects of the law, which is as important as its moral components. Regarding this, I do have reservations on how the laws can be enforced. When a drunk drives away undetected and gets involved in an accident, the only person we would accuse as culpable is beyond doubt the drunk. This loophole allows bar employees to escape punishment, even though they have failed to stop the driver. But even if bar employees are held responsible, they can merely deny all charges and succeed; by sheer prosaicness of the “crime”, potential witnesses would not, for example, notice anything wrong in a boxer’s lack of interest in a drunk, hence the lack of eye-witnesses. Without eye-witnesses, a judge would rather believe an accused bar employee who is perfectly capable of discernment than an accuser who is “not in the right frame of mind” at the time of the “crime”. Come-what-may, the offender would always get away scot-free with the crime.
Perhaps I am too skeptical, and being a pragmatist, believing practicality to be priority. Being a conservative Singaporean, I believe that freedom is a façade, that strict laws must be implemented to ensure the betterment of society. But much as I applaud the writer’s insights into this very pressing issue, I must accede that the law, this time round, cannot solve this issue. Rather, I suggest the government astutely educate the public not only by “scare tactics” of an accident’s “crippling” effects, but also the moral consequences behind the irresponsible offence of drink driving.
(500 words)
Source: The Straits Times
Day: Wednesday
Pub Date: 16/05/2007
Page: 26
Headline: LAWS ON DRINK DRIVING-
Make it legal duty to stop drivers
By: ANDY HO
Page Heading: REVIEW
DRINK driving has been in the news too much recently. The number arrested for the offence jumped from 2,929 in 2004 to 3,733 last year, say the Traffic Police.
Whatever the reason for this spike, there is a case to be made that your drinking buddies – and bartenders, bouncers, valets or those who ride in your car – are morally bound to stop you from taking to the wheel after you have had a few stiff ones. But since they do not seem to be doing that frequently enough, why not impose a legal duty on them to do so?
Bartenders could be empowered to hold on to a patron’s car keys before he starts drinking and refuse to hand them over at the end of the night. This might require such establishments to have breathalysers, for instance. The law could require valets, bouncers and friends to even pull car keys from the ignition if an intoxicated fellow were to try driving off.
Some lawyers, however, caution against passing a law that requires a person to do something to help another, even if it potentially prevents people other than the helped one from getting maimed or killed. In contrast to laws that forbid murder or rape, for example, such a law would punish not an act of commission but one of omission, something not traditionally accepted in common-law countries like Singapore.
Yes, taking a life is different from failing to rescue one, but do the two differ so much that, while capital punishment is justifiable in the former, no legal condemnation is acceptable in the latter case?
Detractors say criminal law punishes individuals for what they do, not for being selfish, callous, uncaring or for thinking bad thoughts. Whether or not to do a good deed is something you decide as your conscience dictates. In a pluralistic society like ours, there is no consensus on the moral values on which a duty to rescue might be based, so the Government should take no stand on the issue. Moreover, the Government should not be in the business of monitoring the religious and moral system, opponents argue.
But it seems to me that no Singaporean would vigorously disagree that your drinking buddies, say, have a moral duty to stop you from driving if you are quite intoxicated. The only disagreement is whether to enforce this legally.
Most of us, in fact, have no problem with the legal enforcement of shared moral values. For instance, we can all agree that parents are morally obliged to protect and provide for their children, so legally requiring them to do so is uncontroversial. Also, criminal law assumes that I do not rape, murder, or rob because I (should) know that it is (morally) wrong to do so.
This is true even where the law requires me to do something instead of merely refraining from an act. For example, the law requires me to stay put at the scene of an accident in which I have been involved, call for aid and assist law enforcers in their investigations. Just to be sure I do, there are penalties in place – including jail time – to ensure there is something else to deter me from evading my responsibilities if my moral restraints are weak.
We also ask of a person accused of a civil or criminal wrong not just if he had committed the act but also whether he was blameworthy. That is, the ethical quality of his actions determines whether he is to be blamed.
But if the law focuses on not just if an act was carried out but also if the actor is ethically worthy of blame – that is, if moral culpability is the real basis of legal responsibility – we should also be moving away from distinguishing between whether harm resulted from a person’s act or his willful non-act, to asking, instead, whether failing to act is equally blameworthy.
Sure, it takes a lot to stop your friend from driving off but doing nothing takes some effort as well.
Opponents of such a law also say it would infringe upon the individual’s right to liberty. But when the liberty to choose is agonisingly sullied by bad conscience, it must be a liberty worth little.
At any rate, there are times when the moral duty to act supersedes our freedoms. Thus, we pay taxes so that, among other things, the poor can be helped and we do not flinch from prosecuting those who evade taxes.
By analogy, requiring friends and bartenders to prevent the intoxicated from driving off is yet another situation where the duty to help others – including potential victims of the drunk driver – is arguably more important than our own liberties.
Finally, some opponents even suggest that any action that is not freely chosen is not truly virtuous, so a law that imposes the affirmative duty to act does not bring out the best in us. Surely no one who could be saved by such a law should have to lose life or limb while the rest of us good folks ascertain if our altruism is truly beyond reproach.
The problem with these objections is that they are raised in the abstract, so that failing to help means simply a lack; that is, a lack of response to someone else’s problem.
But in real life, there is no telling who your inebriated friend might run into down the road.
The concreteness of such situations – of which all are morally significant – justifies a law to compel people to stop the inebriated from driving.
andyho@sph.com.sg
Some background information:
“On May 9, the court saw ex-show host Benedict Goh, 37, being charged with two counts of drink driving. The next day, actor Christopher Lee, 35, was sentenced to four weeks in jail and fined $4,500 for drink-driving and hit-and-run offences.”
“At roadblocks in Outram and Tampines roads between 11.30pm on Friday and 4.45am the next day, one in four of the 39 motorists tested were arrested for drink driving.”
“Till March this year, 914 motorists – 141 of whom were involved in accidents – were held for drink-driving. In the same period last year, 753 people were held, including 134 involved in accidents.
“Last year, 25 people died in crashes involving drunk drivers, up from 20 in 2005, and 336 were injured – a 50 per cent jump from the previous year.”
—all adapted from “1 in 4 fail police drink- driving test”: Straits Times on Monday, 14/05/2007
My Response:
In light of the recent spate of drink driving cases, this writer makes an interesting proposition of institutionalising a mandatory law for bar establishments to stop inebriated people from driving. He manages to present both sides of the coin succinctly, synthesising points into a full argument in a convincing manner.
Drink driving concerns not only a driver’s life, but also the safety of potentially imperiled pedestrians, car drivers, or property that may cross his path. The enormity of the situation cannot be ignored, and preemptive measures must be taken to prevent the unnecessary ramifications caused by this offence.
A law with moral grounding is by no means a strong one. When an intoxicated person is unaware of the exact implications of his actions, the bystander is morally bound to guide him into act desirably and harmlessly. A legal duty will serve to strengthen what is already a moral action by imposing a punishment onto those who disobey it.
Detractors would of course lambast the law as an impeachment of (democratic) choice and freedom. This view is entirely valid, as the action of preventing others from committing offences is ultimately voluntary, implying that inaction is an offence, a debatable point because inaction almost never considered criminal in today’s judiciary. The severity and scope of the law is also questioned, as the majority of drink drivers are not involved in accidents.
Although opposing stances are dealt with, I feel that the writer has failed to delve into the more practical aspects of the law, which is as important as its moral components. Regarding this, I do have reservations on how the laws can be enforced. When a drunk drives away undetected and gets involved in an accident, the only person we would accuse as culpable is beyond doubt the drunk. This loophole allows bar employees to escape punishment, even though they have failed to stop the driver. But even if bar employees are held responsible, they can merely deny all charges and succeed; by sheer prosaicness of the “crime”, potential witnesses would not, for example, notice anything wrong in a boxer’s lack of interest in a drunk, hence the lack of eye-witnesses. Without eye-witnesses, a judge would rather believe an accused bar employee who is perfectly capable of discernment than an accuser who is “not in the right frame of mind” at the time of the “crime”. Come-what-may, the offender would always get away scot-free with the crime.
Perhaps I am too skeptical, and being a pragmatist, believing practicality to be priority. Being a conservative Singaporean, I believe that freedom is a façade, that strict laws must be implemented to ensure the betterment of society. But much as I applaud the writer’s insights into this very pressing issue, I must accede that the law, this time round, cannot solve this issue. Rather, I suggest the government astutely educate the public not only by “scare tactics” of an accident’s “crippling” effects, but also the moral consequences behind the irresponsible offence of drink driving.
(500 words)
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Islam in Indonesia
Title of Article: A Call to Prayer
Source: Time issue- 5th March 2007 (Pg 16-20)
My Response:
Indonesia faces an unprecedented societal problem: the Islamisation of the nation and the administering of Shari’a, or Islam-inspired laws, a manifestation of the puritanical interpretations of Islam’s role in society. Proponents of conservative Islam contend that Shari’a laws are perfect systems and God’s will, and therefore are superior to secular laws. By being stricter, these laws could promote morality by punishing even the smallest of immorality or indulgence: drinking and gambling. The proponents could well be right that these laws could lead to a better society. These laws could well be deterrence; a criminal would most likely think twice before committing an offense.
On the flip side, however, such puritanical forms of piety have undermined the Indonesian secular government by restricting freedom of expression and rights to religion. By coercing non-Muslims or other Muslim sects to obey their laws, they are ultimately imposing their strong beliefs on people who do not believe in them. The Muslims can continue applying their Shari’a laws to daily life, but why make it a compulsory for everyone? By doing so, they suppress Indonesia’s vibrant and diverse culture by forcing a uniform code of conduct and dressing through Shari’a laws.
I am not familiar with local conditions, thus I am in no position to evaluate which side is more correct. Practically speaking however, these conservative Islam ideologies dampen foreign investors’ interest in Indonesia, sending direct investments plummeting, posing disadvantages to the Indonesian economy. But it’s easy to see the allure for people to choose to believe in such ideologies. Ever since the fall of the “dictator” Suharto who suppressed any power that could oppose him, Islam communities and leaders have proliferated, these being conservative as is the global trend of conservatism in Islam. The new government’s incompetence in eradicating poverty and solving problems sparked people to believe that these conservative groups are a panache for their problems or an alternative to the government. As conservatives believe strongly, it is easier to brainwash or influence them as compared to moderates, whose belief is subtle but complex.
How can this be solved? Because of the conservative nature of Islam, questions or doubts cannot be freely raised without a conferment of punishment. The tides of time wait for no man; the trend of conservatism cannot change, and the proliferation cannot be reversed. I think that the solution lies with the government. By upping its competence and minimising its corruption, people will on the whole be wealthier and move away from conservative Islam. It should also highlight the incommensurability between Islam and violence; Islam in the purest form does not promote violence.
Islam and secularism can co-exist. The less strict secular laws must be obeyed by everyone while the Shari’a laws are obeyed by its believers. As long as the Islamic leaders and Indonesia’s leaders do not struggle for dominance, both will survive. This applies to the much debated issues of race in Indonesia. Indonesians and other races can live in harmony, and tolerance is the key.
(498 words)
Source: Time issue- 5th March 2007 (Pg 16-20)
My Response:
Indonesia faces an unprecedented societal problem: the Islamisation of the nation and the administering of Shari’a, or Islam-inspired laws, a manifestation of the puritanical interpretations of Islam’s role in society. Proponents of conservative Islam contend that Shari’a laws are perfect systems and God’s will, and therefore are superior to secular laws. By being stricter, these laws could promote morality by punishing even the smallest of immorality or indulgence: drinking and gambling. The proponents could well be right that these laws could lead to a better society. These laws could well be deterrence; a criminal would most likely think twice before committing an offense.
On the flip side, however, such puritanical forms of piety have undermined the Indonesian secular government by restricting freedom of expression and rights to religion. By coercing non-Muslims or other Muslim sects to obey their laws, they are ultimately imposing their strong beliefs on people who do not believe in them. The Muslims can continue applying their Shari’a laws to daily life, but why make it a compulsory for everyone? By doing so, they suppress Indonesia’s vibrant and diverse culture by forcing a uniform code of conduct and dressing through Shari’a laws.
I am not familiar with local conditions, thus I am in no position to evaluate which side is more correct. Practically speaking however, these conservative Islam ideologies dampen foreign investors’ interest in Indonesia, sending direct investments plummeting, posing disadvantages to the Indonesian economy. But it’s easy to see the allure for people to choose to believe in such ideologies. Ever since the fall of the “dictator” Suharto who suppressed any power that could oppose him, Islam communities and leaders have proliferated, these being conservative as is the global trend of conservatism in Islam. The new government’s incompetence in eradicating poverty and solving problems sparked people to believe that these conservative groups are a panache for their problems or an alternative to the government. As conservatives believe strongly, it is easier to brainwash or influence them as compared to moderates, whose belief is subtle but complex.
How can this be solved? Because of the conservative nature of Islam, questions or doubts cannot be freely raised without a conferment of punishment. The tides of time wait for no man; the trend of conservatism cannot change, and the proliferation cannot be reversed. I think that the solution lies with the government. By upping its competence and minimising its corruption, people will on the whole be wealthier and move away from conservative Islam. It should also highlight the incommensurability between Islam and violence; Islam in the purest form does not promote violence.
Islam and secularism can co-exist. The less strict secular laws must be obeyed by everyone while the Shari’a laws are obeyed by its believers. As long as the Islamic leaders and Indonesia’s leaders do not struggle for dominance, both will survive. This applies to the much debated issues of race in Indonesia. Indonesians and other races can live in harmony, and tolerance is the key.
(498 words)
Environmental Responsibilities
Title of Article: UN chief warns on climate change
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6410305.stm
Date of Article: 2nd March 2007
The Response:
Although Mr. Ban’s first address on the issue of climate change was clichéd, the focus on climate was timely, if not late, in the face of recent observance of erratic weather on a global scale. Hopefully through this, and future talks on climate, we can expect more emphasis and rigour in deriving a solution on the current problem.
Mr. Ban has presented a very fresh perspective, stating that climatic change could spark war or conflict. This claim is fairly doubtful as this phenomenon is caused by many factors over many countries, and thus difficult to pin the blame on anybody. But Ban worries are justified because his target audience was none other than the US.
The US produces a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol. If a sudden wave of climate change occurs, the blame will be pushed towards the US. The US reasons that it does not want to be hindered by such restrictions by Kyoto and that it has no one to answer to. But ultimately it should be less obstinate and take some responsibility in clearing up the debris it generated from its developments. Since the US comes in tops for harming the environment, the onus is on her to take the lead in undoing its wrongs and offsetting the global trend of widespread pollution.
Mr. Ban warned that less developed countries in Africa and small island states would suffer most from global warming, although they were least responsible. But look at Nigeria, whose corrupted administration led to an inefficient system of the extraction of crude oil, resulting in pollution being released in uncontrolled amounts, ultimately resulting in contributions to global warming. What about Singapore, equally contributing to global warming through industrialization? Nowadays, it seems that no one can declare to be innocent or blameless in causing global warming.
But a hard fact to swallow is that we will suffer greatly the ramifications of global warming. With a double impact- that we are both at the tropics and an island state- we will be hit doubly hard by global warming. Before I go on to yet another clichéd ending on conservation, I would like to highlight an irony: that while many other sources regard human’s hand in climate change a self-evident truth, the truth is that this is only a likelihood and not an established truth, as shown in this article. In the past, scientists project habitat loss and animal extinction as consequences of human activities. Now they project climate change. What next? This goes to show how we lack an intrinsic understanding in this whole spectrum of knowledge. But do we need to understand how we cause climate change to act on it? Isn’t the loss of species enough to deter us from polluting the environment? Must it have a true impact on our livelihood that we start thinking about how to save the environment? Mr. Ban expresses hope for the future, and I hope it is so.
(499 words)
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6410305.stm
Date of Article: 2nd March 2007
The Response:
Although Mr. Ban’s first address on the issue of climate change was clichéd, the focus on climate was timely, if not late, in the face of recent observance of erratic weather on a global scale. Hopefully through this, and future talks on climate, we can expect more emphasis and rigour in deriving a solution on the current problem.
Mr. Ban has presented a very fresh perspective, stating that climatic change could spark war or conflict. This claim is fairly doubtful as this phenomenon is caused by many factors over many countries, and thus difficult to pin the blame on anybody. But Ban worries are justified because his target audience was none other than the US.
The US produces a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol. If a sudden wave of climate change occurs, the blame will be pushed towards the US. The US reasons that it does not want to be hindered by such restrictions by Kyoto and that it has no one to answer to. But ultimately it should be less obstinate and take some responsibility in clearing up the debris it generated from its developments. Since the US comes in tops for harming the environment, the onus is on her to take the lead in undoing its wrongs and offsetting the global trend of widespread pollution.
Mr. Ban warned that less developed countries in Africa and small island states would suffer most from global warming, although they were least responsible. But look at Nigeria, whose corrupted administration led to an inefficient system of the extraction of crude oil, resulting in pollution being released in uncontrolled amounts, ultimately resulting in contributions to global warming. What about Singapore, equally contributing to global warming through industrialization? Nowadays, it seems that no one can declare to be innocent or blameless in causing global warming.
But a hard fact to swallow is that we will suffer greatly the ramifications of global warming. With a double impact- that we are both at the tropics and an island state- we will be hit doubly hard by global warming. Before I go on to yet another clichéd ending on conservation, I would like to highlight an irony: that while many other sources regard human’s hand in climate change a self-evident truth, the truth is that this is only a likelihood and not an established truth, as shown in this article. In the past, scientists project habitat loss and animal extinction as consequences of human activities. Now they project climate change. What next? This goes to show how we lack an intrinsic understanding in this whole spectrum of knowledge. But do we need to understand how we cause climate change to act on it? Isn’t the loss of species enough to deter us from polluting the environment? Must it have a true impact on our livelihood that we start thinking about how to save the environment? Mr. Ban expresses hope for the future, and I hope it is so.
(499 words)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)