Can justice and mercy co-exist?

I think that justice and mercy are not mutually exclusive. Both justice and mercy are virtues, and virtues generally are not supposed to clash. Justice is about matching people to their fair desserts while mercy is about forgiveness and kindness. A society without justice is corrupt and inefficient; a society without mercy is stifling and restrictive. We can see that both virtues are contrasted with the vice of cruelty. Justice can be served within the boundaries of mercy. For example, the law prohibits a criminal from being tortured and treated inhumanely. The humanity of the criminal is taken into consideration, while equity and fairness is sought.

Justice should not be viewed as retribution – an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth – but rather a resolution. The “tit for tat” concept is only for revenge, and justice is not revenge. While justice is built upon a foundation of ethics recognised by both the victim and the offender, revenge is outside the boundaries of ethical conduct. The aim of revenge is to inflict greater pain onto the offender than that originally inflicted onto the victim. On the other hand, the purpose of justice is to ensure the well being of the society and more often than not, this can be secured through mercy rather than punishment.

An example of mercy in justice is the recent example of the Iranian woman, who was blinded and badly disfigured in an acid attack, stopping a retributive blinding sentence from being carried out on her attacker at the last moment when the acid was about to be applied by a doctor. The victim’s magnanimous act has saved her attacker from the cruel sentence, but we cannot deny that justice is not served – the attacker would probably have to be jailed for a long, long time.

Mercy provides the offender with the opportunity to change over a new leaf, while giving peace of mind to the one who gives mercy. It is possible that mercy may embolden criminals, but most of the time it emboldens virtue by giving people a second chance. For example, Singapore’s Yellow Ribbon Project has given ex-offenders a second chance at life and inspired concerted community action to support them. Rehabilitating a criminal to make him a useful member of society is more effective than punishing the harm out of the criminal.

In conclusion, justice and mercy can co-exist, perhaps in different spheres. Both justice and mercy are required for a good, functioning society. The key is knowing when to show mercy and when to show justice as an excess of either may threaten the stability of our society.

Term 3 Week 5 Assignment

Shylock is the most vivid and noteworthy character in The Merchant of Venice and one of the greatest creations of Shakespeare. However, no consensus has been reached on how to read Shylock’s character, on whether Shylock is a man “more sinned against than sinning”. With The Merchant of Venice being a romantic comedy, Shylock is basically portrayed as a comic villain, a clownish Jewish stereotype, and also a bloodthirsty usurer.

Shakespearean England was prejudiced against Jews, considering Jews as the incarnation of the Devil (they were thought to have horns). Shakespeare grew up in a prejudiced world and presumably shared its prejudices. Shakespeare probably wants his audience to perceive the merciless Shylock as a religious contrast to the generous Christians.

Shylock is depicted as cunning as he craftily gets Antonio to sign the bond (Act 1 Scene 3, 138-146), “This kindness will I show./Go with me to a notary; seal me there/Your single bond, and, in a merry sport,/If you repay me not on such a day,/In such a place, such sum or sums as are/Expressed in the condition, let the forfeit/Be nominated for an equal pound/Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken/In what part of your body pleaseth me.”

Shylock is also money-hungry and mercenary as he seems to value money more than his daughter (Act 3 Scene 1, 78-84), “Why, there, there, there, there! A diamond gone/cost me two thousand ducats in Frankfort – the/curse/never fell upon our nation till now; I never felt it/till now: two thousand ducats in that – and other/precious, precious jewels. I would my daughter were/dead at my foot, and the jewels in her ear!Would she/were hearsed at my foot, and the ducats in her coffin!”

Shylock is inhumane and cruel too as shown in the trial scene where Shylock was all ready to remove a pound of flesh from Antonio (Act 4 Scene 1, 121-123), Bassanio: (To Shylock)Why dost thou whet thy knife/so earnestly?/Shylock: To cut the forfeiture from that bankrupt there.”

Shylock is murderous and vindictive too as he wants Antonio’s pound of flesh just because he wants to (Act 4 Scene 1, 43-62), “What if my house be troubled with a rat,/And I be pleased to give ten thousand ducats/To have it baned? What, are you answered yet?/Some men there are love not a gaping pig,/Some that are mad if they behold a cat,/And others when the bagpipe sings i’th’ nose/Cannot contain their urine; for affection,/Mistress of passion, sways it to the mood/Of what it likes or loathes……/So can I give no reason, nor I will not,/More than a lodged hate and a certain loathing/I bear Antonio, that I follow thus/A losing suit against him. Are you answered?”

However, Shakespeare portrayed Shylock as a human with feelings, not a flat character. Shylock is also the tragic victim of religious persecution. Shakespeare manages to go beyond the stereotype of the grasping Jew and create a credible human being with deep feelings and the power of thought. We may sympathise with Shylock to see how the persecution by the Christian society shaped Shylock’s character.

Leah’s ring, for example, is a strong symbol of Shylock’s humanity, his ability to love and grieve. Leah is Shylock’s late wife, and when he hears that Jessica has traded it for a monkey, he laments that, “I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys. (Act 3 Scene 1, 114-115)” The lost ring enables us to see Shylock in an unusually vulnerable position and to see him as a human being capable of feeling something more than hatred and revenge.

Hatred is a cyclical phenomenon. Prejudice breeds prejudice. Shylock’s entire plan to harm Antonio seems to result from the insults and abuses Antonio has inflicted upon him in the past. His reasoning is that he is simply applying what years of abuse have taught him (Act 3 Scene 1, 54-68), “I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew/eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions,/senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food,/hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same/diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and/cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian/is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us/do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And/if you wrong us shall we not revenge? If we are like/you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew/wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge./If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance/be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy/you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but/I will better the instruction.”

However, while we know his motivation, Shylock’s pledge to behave as badly as the Christians is no excuse his intended murder of Antonio. Shylock, being the symbol of selfishness, must be defeated in this comedy. Despite his admirable dignity, we must eventually condemn him. Shakespeare intended the audience to sympathize with Shylock at times and loathe him at others. Shakespeare's genius manipulation of our emotions is truly remarkable.

Shakespeare may have intended to make Shylock the anti-Semitic caricature of the grasping, merciless Jew, but, perhaps unconsciously and out of his conscience, he also managed to humanise Shylock. Shakespeare has created a character that is human and powerfully drawn, perhaps too powerfully…

Do you think Shakespeare is biased in terms of portrayal of the main characters in The Merchant of Venice?

I do not think that Shakespeare is biased in terms of his portrayal of the main characters. Shylock, the play's antagonist, is twisted and menacing in his single-minded pursuit of his pound of flesh. However, he is a product of racial persecution, being an alien in Christian society and a social outcast treated with scorn and prejudice. That can explain his cynicism, spitefulness and obsession with money as he feels insecure and resentful. Therefore, Shylock is not just portrayed as a ruthless, hard-hearted villian, but also a lonely, misunderstood victim.

Antonio, the merchant of the play's title, devotes himself to his friend which leads him into the ill-considered bond with Shylock. However, he is also vehemently prejudiced towards Shylock. Thus, Antonio is not just portrayed as a generous, faithful friend, but also a morbid racist. Bassanio, the protagonist of the play, is an extravagant spendthrift at the beginning of the play, but his choice of the right casket shows that he is thoughtful and sensitive. Thus, Bassanio is not just portrayed as a shallow socialite but also a generous gentleman.

Term 3 Week 4 Assignment

The main point Mr. Jim Roger is trying to make is that with rapid globalization, the future generation must develop a global perspective and stay connected to the rest of the world. And with the rise of China as a global superpower, it is now important for the next generation to learn Mandarin in order to reap the benefits of Asia’s economic growth. If not, they will not be comfortable with foreign people, foreign languages and foreign lands. Jim Rogers sees that America’s global competitiveness will continue to decline, and his solution is to immerse himself in the countries and cultures that are ascendant. In order to make sure that his daughters get the most conducive environment to study Mandarin, he moves from America to Singapore and the measures he taken will let Singaporeans ourselves feel ashamed. In the Rogers family’s household, there is no television. Instead, there are more than a dozen globes and maps, a nanny and a maid who speak only Mandarin to his daughters, and a new karaoke machine so that they can learn Chinese songs. Both of them now speak Mandarin as fluently as us. Mr. Jim Rogers thinks that this is the best skill he can give his children.

I agree with his argument. As Mr. Jim Rogers once said, “If you were smart in 1807 you moved to London, if you were smart in 1907 you moved to New York, and if you are smart in 2007 you move to Asia,” the fact that China is steadily replacing America as the world’s superpower is undeniable. Although Singapore has a natural advantage over the rest of the world due to our bilingual education system, many people feel that they should not spend so much effort on learning Mandarin. One may not necessarily need Mandarin to survive in the Chinese economy, but to really thrive and succeed, one has to speak the language fluently. This loss in interest in learning our mother tongue may strangely be attributed partly to the bilingual system itself.

This system, first adopted in 1966, aims to promote English as the link language among the ethnic groups and to facilitate Singapore’s integration into the world economy, at the same time to encourage the use of Mother Tongue to prevent us from losing our historical and cultural roots. However, English has been the primary mode of instruction, leading to greater proficiency in English at the expense of Mother Tongue. What we must know is that language is part of culture. By learning Mandarin, we are learning more about ourselves, but more importantly we are learning the traditions and values of our five-thousand-year-old Chinese culture. Mandarin can be translated into English, but our Chinese culture cannot be explained fully in English. Learning Mandarin has more than economical value, it has much cultural value too.

In conclusion, with the whole world actively learning Mandarin, we must go with the flow, especially so when Singapore has a geographical advantage as the converging point of Western and Chinese culture in the 21st century. To ride the waves of China’s economic success, it is inevitable that everyone at one point or another have to learn and master the Chinese language.

Term 3 Week 3 Assignment

Singapore’s education system has been traditionally viewed as rigid, competitive and demanding, which focuses heavily on meritocracy where the crème de la crème of the student population would be sieved out each year. Although the government’s investment in education has paid off and our education system is now ranked one of the best in the world, Singaporeans ourselves do not think so. This can be seen from a letter to the Education Minister Mr. Heng Swee Keat, written by a Secondary 4 student at Nan Chiau High School Janalle Lee.

One reason for the failure of Singapore’s education system she cited is that schools do not teach their students to ask ‘Why?’ The inquisitiveness and curiosity of students is often discouraged, even suppressed, by rote learning, memorisation and regurgitation of facts, just for the sake of doing well in examinations. Without the seeds of imagination and creativity, how can talent be grown? Although grades may be a criterion to the passage into the working world, if youths are go rigid that they do not know how to apply the knowledge they have learnt, it is as useful as learning nothing. It is a frightening thought that our leaders of tomorrow are immune to reform and cannot think out of the box to formulate new policies. The priority of schools is not to ensure that students get good grades, but rather to ensure that they enjoy the process of learning. The basic goal of education is to bring out the best in each individual, not moulding children into products on a factory line.

Pure academic excellence does not guarantee success. Our education system needs to move beyond its traditional pragmatism. Take Bill Gates for example. The wealthiest man in the world for more than a decade was formerly a college dropout. But he stuck close to his passion and founded the multimillion-dollar company we all now know as Microsoft. Failing an examination is not the end of the world if the child recognises and puts his talents into good use.

Another flaw Janalle pointed out is that schools are ineffective in developing a student’s character. Youths nowadays often care only about themselves and not the society. This is no wonder as for a child to have a healthy character, he needs a conducive environment that teaches him moral values. Although students are taught Civics and Moral Education, examination preparation is the first priority in schools. And with examinations come fierce competition. Students are taught from young to fend for themselves in a competitive environment. The result? A generation who excels in academics but remains apathetic to the less fortunate in society.

However, is an ideal education possible? An ideal education system is one where teachers teach out of their love for teaching and students learn out of their love for learning. In this education system, schools would focus more on the process of learning and less on the end result. The emphasis will not be on obtaining academic achievements but rather on developing the students’ abilities and life skills. Ultimately, education is to prepare for the future. Students from this ideal education system will seek careers that will not only contribute to society, but they will also enjoy. If the authorities can reform the education system swiftly and drastically enough, I believe an ideal education system is entirely possible.

Term 3 Week 2 Assignment

Water is essential to life. Without water, crops fail, organisms die and ecosystems crumble. Throughout history, many battles were fought over the control of water, even today. The threat of “water wars” remains a pressing problem in international relations. Within countries, there is heated debate over whether water should be treated as a human right or as a commodity. In my opinion, water should be treated as a human right.

Man is completely dependent on water for life. There is no substitute for water. As such, water has a special place in our world, especially in our culture. Water is a universal symbol of life, as countless civilisations have developed and flourished along waterways, be it the Nile, the Amazon, the Mekong or the Ganges. Thales, who is regarded as the first philosopher in Greek history, believed that water constitutes the principle of all things, and this rejection of mythological explanations became an important idea for the scientific revolution. As such, water is not like other commodities and must be regarded as a right.

Currently, about 1.1 billion people in the world do not have access to clean water. However, it may not be overpopulation that is causing this water crisis. Instead, as shown in the 2006 United Nations Human Development Report, “the scarcity at the heart of the global water crisis is rooted in power, poverty and inequality, not in physical availability”. And as quoted from Maude Barlow, “A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World”. It is more of a water management crisis than a water shortage crisis, and the main reason for this is the commoditisation of water. This increased control of water by multinational corporations has led to reduced access for the poor as prices of water have risen.

Some may argue that privatisation of water brings business efficiency and prevents wastage. For example, the Singapore Government uses the market mechanism to let the pricing of water show its true economic value, but also subsidises low-income households. This policy has worked well, but Singapore has a market where people can pay for the service. For universal access, treating water solely as a commodity may not be appropriate.

Beyond the pricing of water, the change of public mindset is key. As Prime Minister Lee said, “You almost have to make it a religion, so every drop of water counts.” We should actively conserve water and not take our access to clean water for granted. If we continue to treat water as merely a commodity, our future would be at stake. With money being the religion of the 21st century, who knows, in the future, clean air may also be priced…

Term 3 Week 1 Assignment

On June 19, speaking at a community sports festival at Singapore Polytechnic, Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports and veteran labour leader Ms Halimah Yacob called for the legislation of weekly days off for maids. And if a rest day a week is not possible, she suggested that maids should at least be compensated in cash. This has sparked heated debate amongst Singaporeans. In my opinion, the giving of weekly days off for foreign domestic workers should be made mandatory in Singapore.

Ms Yacob’s comment came after member states of the International Labour Organisation adopted a treaty that offers domestic workers a full-day rest each week. Singapore was among the 63 countries that abstained from voting on the Convention on Decent Work for Domestic Workers, saying that Singapore would sign the treaty when it was sure it could implement it here. In other countries like Hong Kong and Taiwan, maids have mandatory rest days. If employers do not change their mindset now, they may find it costlier to hire maids in the future as supply of maids to Singapore decreases.

Maids should be treated equally like other workers. All workers, including maids, have a right to legal protection to ensure that they are not abused and overworked. However, some Singaporeans have the mindset that maids are inferior, that they are paid to work and not to rest. If their work is not recognised and appreciated, what difference is it from servitude or slavery? They must be acknowledged as humans, not properties. Some may argue that Singaporeans work long hours and are stressed at work, but that does not give us the right to deprive the maid of a weekly day off – a right that we have – just because we want some rest for ourselves.

Some also argue that it is the maid’s duty to take care of the elderly parents and children. However, do our parents and children belong to the maid? Is it not our personal responsibility to take care of our loved ones for just a day when the maid is away? This over-reliance on maids is worrying. With Singaporeans facing an aging population, we cannot expect maids to solve this problem for us. It is our utmost responsibility to take care of the aged. Also, children should be taught responsibility and how to look after themselves. With maids taking care of their every need, children will be spoilt and grow up thinking that everything will be done for them. Children at school-going age should help with the housework for the day without the maid’s presence.

In conclusion, a happy worker is a good worker. Maids may become resentful and irritable without sufficient rest. Will you trust a tired maid to take care of your loved ones? However, the government can review the current policies placing financial liability on employers for wayward maids. Although this legislation may face public backlash, it is in the interests of both the maid and employer. It protects a vulnerable group who often suffers in silence in the unequal power relationship between maid and employer. This will go a long way in safeguarding the basic rights and dignity of maids.