Response 5

The Taliban is fighting a losing battle in Afghanistan. Their leaders are being captured; there are too many troops against them. They have resorted to kidnapping to get what they want. The kidnapping of these twenty-three Korean aid workers is not the first case; the Taliban have previously abducted two German engineers and an Italian reporter as well. I think its is cowardly and cruel to use innocent people as hostages.

In this kidnapping, there are some who feel that the Koreans have to take some responsibility as well. They were reckless to travel in a small group in that region without a bodyguard, opening themselves to ambush.

The Taliban has left the Afghan government in a dilemma. From the humanitarian point of view, twenty-three lives were at stake, two have already been sacrificed. Since there is a possibility of saving them, why not? What could be more important than saving a life? However, from the political point of view, giving in to the terrorist demands will only open a Pandora’s Box. President Karzai faced severe criticism from the West when he released five Taliban prisoners in exchange for an Italian reporter in March. If the government gave in again, it would lose its authority and kidnappings would become more rampant. Also, it would be unjust to the families of victims of the Taliban. Either way, President Karzai and his government are facing political hara-kiri.

My heart goes out to the hostages and their families. The hostages, who went to Afghanistan out of goodwill, now find themselves in a dangerous situation. Their lives are at stake and they are now suffering and terrified. Their relatives must be worried sick. We can all empathise with their point of view that the government is being unreasonable and hard-hearted in not acceding to the Taliban.

How can this grim situation apply in safe and sound Singapore? Does it mean that we should not send any more aid workers to Afghanistan or similar places? But we know that in these countries, the people are suffering and they need aid. If nobody goes, the locals will suffer. In the end, it is a personal decision for each volunteer-is it worth the risk? But for those who decide to go, it is their responsibility to take the necessary precautions for their own safety. They should not hurt their country and the international community by unnecessary risk-taking.

The final decision adopted by the Afghan government has long-term implications. It will serve as a benchmark for future similar situations. Terrorists will know if they can continue using kidnapping as their modus operandi.

This hostage crisis has left even politicians and diplomats in a dilemma. A layman like me would only have limited knowledge and information, nor would I know what the “right solution” is. However, I do know that the biggest injustice of this whole matter is that the only winner is the terrorists. It brings home the point that terrorism must be fought at all costs.

Response 4

The Yasukini Shrine has been a controversial part of Japan’s recent history. The issue of Prime Ministers visiting this shrine has been debated in the region since 1975 and especially during the term of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

Shinzo Abe’s recent act of leaving a sacred potted plant with a wooden tag reading ‘Prime Minister’ at the shrine has again stirred up controversy on this subject. It can be interpreted as a gesture of respect that his voters demanded or a way of infuriating his neighbours or both. It may seem like a big hullabaloo over a small thing but in truth, this matter goes to the very bottom of Chinese, Japanese and Korean hearts; for this shrine houses and honours the war criminals and militarism of Japan in World War Two. To the Chinese and Koreans, honouring the shrine is tantamount to an insult on their nationals who died from Japanese atrocities in World War Two but to the Japanese it is a mark of respect for their citizens who gave their lives honourably for Japan.

The theme underlying all this controversy is patriotism. These countries were bitter enemies during World War Two and there remain till today many unresolved issues. I can sympathise with the Chinese and Koreans, especially those who lost loved ones in the war. Understandably, they are furious that Japan continues to honour the men who perpetrated these atrocities, as Abe is doing now. However, we must understand that many of today’s Japanese, because of the Reductionist Policy, know little about these atrocities and war crimes that their ancestors committed. Hence, I can understand why they view visiting the shrine as visiting heroes, since this is how these men have been portrayed. Patriotism is not an issue alien to Singapore and Singaporean students. The government has been trying to cultivate patriotism towards our Singaporean identity through National Education and Social Studies in schools. This issue teaches that patriotism and nationalism are not always good and can have negative effects, which is a new concept for me personally.

One lesson we can learn from Abe’s actions is compromise. Shinzo Abe must be under immense political pressure from his supporters to visit the shrine and from China, Korea and the international community to abstain from doing so. He may have felt that his actions were a compromise that could appease both the Japanese people and the foreign powers, although neither side appears to be totally pacified. Personally, I think there is no easy or perfect solution to this problem and sympathise fully with Mr Abe who has to deal with this difficult task.

Political issues are indeed very complicated, with many sides and views to consider and weigh. As a lay person reading this article, one is often swayed by the arguments put forth by the author. However, the article may not have covered all the background issues surrounding this matter, which may allow us to arrive at a better assessment of the problem.

Response 3

Many students of Virginia Technological University will remember April 16th forever as a day of bloodshed and fear. On that fateful day, thirty-three bright futures and minds ceased to exist in what will be remembered as one of the worst massacre in American History.

I think this attack teaches us an important lesson about violence. Looking at Cho’s writing, we can see that violence was present within his mind and may well have been a factor in this shooting. If we delve deeper, we can see that Cho’s mind was a bubble of anger and hatred waiting to explode. And explode it did.

Anger and violence among the young in our society is more common today and our schools and institutions of higher learning are not spared from this trend. What are the reasons behind this alarming development? I think the excessive portrayal of violence on television programmes and even computer games is a major contributing factor. These shows and games tend to glamorize violence, where the heroes will often defeat the ‘bad guys’ in sensational fashion and never ever seem to get hurt or in trouble with the law. The mass media seem to make light of violence and do not portray the consequences of violence – the loss of loved ones on family members, the injuries sustained and the arduous treatment needed to regain one’s health and even the permanent disabilities that result from injuries.

This trend of anger and violence amongst the young is a problem in Singapore as well, as seen in the recent cases of school bullying reported in the media. A good example is the recent report in the Straits Times about a female student who was stripped and beaten up in the school toilet by a group of classmates. I think it is time for our schools to take the problem of anger and violence amongst students more seriously before it gets out of control.

How can this problem be addressed? Is this just a case of a few bad sheep in our schools or a wider problem resulting from our fast-paced achievement driven society. While I cannot be completely certain, I suspect it is the latter. Many students today come from families where both parents spend long hours at work. This has resulted in parents spending less time imparting good values to their children. Instead, the wrong values are learned from the computer and television. Students today are driven to learn more and compete aggressively with each other. They tend to be more individualistic, aggressive and less tolerant of others. Some may exhibit a lot of anger from this stress.

I think schools should take a greater role in identifying ‘at risk’ students and provide counseling and mentoring from teachers as well as lessons on stress and anger management. I am not sure if this will work but I think this will be a useful start to recognizing and addressing this problem. Hopefully we can prevent another similar tragedy from occurring.

Response 2 (to Article 2)

Of the environmental issues of the 21st century, global warming is rooted firmly at the summit. It is now so severe that it will cause a whole different world in the upcoming century. The implications are mind-boggling. Sea levels will rise, causing widespread flooding in areas like Southeast Asia and Western Europe. North Africa will get drier than it is now, ushering in a whole new climate for our planet.

At the heart of the matter is the emission of greenhouse gases. Although the Kyoto Protocol came into force on February 16 2005, it has hardly helped to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The United States, one of the signatories to the treaty, has not even ratified the treaty while China, the second greatest emitter of greenhouse gases, and India have been granted exceptions. So, while other countries work hard to meet their targets, several countries are just negating the effects of their work.

Whose problem is it anyway? Developing countries feel that developed countries created this problem and have the most resources and should therefore solve the problem. Developing countries also demand the right to develop, whatever the consequence. Clearly, global warming requires an entire planet’s efforts to combat. Australia, for example, is refusing to shut down its coal-fired plants because it says the effects will just be negated by China’s everlasting drive to build coal-fired plants. The USA puts economy before environment and refuses to change their stand. Canada is giving up because they say they cannot meet their targets.

There is presently no global coordinated effort to counter global warming. Only a handful of countries have reduced their emissions by the 8% stated in the Protocol, such as Sweden. The problem is so bad that some have started to brace themselves for the effects of global warming. To them, global warming is here and can no longer be stopped or reversed. Although they seem defeatist, they could be right.

In Singapore, we will not be spared from the effects of global warming. We are a small island, surrounded by water, and will cease to exist if sea levels rise by 10 or 20 inches. For my part, I am ready to help in whatever way I can, be it recycling my waste or using energy-saving alternatives whenever possible such as florescent bulbs instead of incandescent ones. But our efforts alone cannot solve global warming. It requires the combined efforts of all nations; especially major polluters such as China, India, USA and Australia.

Since global warming cannot be completely reversed, we should also look at how to deal with its consequences. We need to prepare for a hotter and drier world with more extreme storms and droughts. We will need to develop new crops that will thrive in these conditions and even construct flood defenses. These are actions we can undertake ourselves without the need for complicated coordination with other nations. While trying to counter global warming, we must also be prepared for it.

Response 1(To Article 1)

On January 11 2007, China fired a ground-based ballistic missile and destroyed one of its own ageing weather satellites. On the surface, this may seem a domestic affair and a trivial achievement when compared with the far greater advancements made in space by the Americans and Russians. On closer examination, it is an event of far greater significance. It may well mark the beginning of an expensive and dangerous “Space Race”.

As I see it, the Chinese were doing more than just “house cleaning” in space. They have served notice to the world that they have the technology and capabilities to operate in space. Till now this is an area dominated very much by America.

For America, this test is a great affront to their dominance in space and the security of their country. It is well known that America has many spy and communications satellites in space that are vital to many civilian and military activities. These satellites will certainly be high value targets for any enemy contemplating military action against the United States (US). Till now, the Americans have never felt these assets to be vulnerable to attack. This test has changed these assumptions dramatically!

According to a survey by TIME magazine, the Chinese believe they should play a greater role in world affairs given their growing wealth and economy. This test may be a message to the rest of the world on the ascendancy of the Middle Kingdom. China clearly has aspirations to be a world superpower, a status currently enjoyed by only the US, after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The other repercussion of this Chinese missile test is “space debris”. The satellite destroyed by the Chinese while in orbit has created a million pieces of space debris, some large enough to cause damage to other satellites in orbit. While the problem is not a new one, a French satellite, Cerise, was the first verified case of a collision between two objects in space, the act has been viewed as irresponsible by many nations.

I am concerned that this test may lead to increasing tensions between the US and China with the potential to spill over to trade and economic issues. For Singapore, this is not good news. Singapore’s economy is highly dependent on external trade and both China and the US are major trade partners of Singapore. Icy relations may lead to protectionist policies causing a world recession.

Singapore is a close ally of the US in international affairs and it also enjoys very good relations with China. If the US and China were to become enemies, which side is Singapore going to take?

A “Space Race” between nations is going to be very expensive and potentially harmful to the environment. Instead, we should focus our resources and attention to addressing the many pressing problems on earth such as global warming, famine, poverty and religious fanaticism. But, of course, not everyone agrees.

Welcome

Hi everyone,

Welcome to my blog. YAY!! I'll be posting the serious stuff from the next post onwards

Kevin