Term 3 Independent Post 5

            Global Warming. This is something we all know exists. Global Dimming, however, is not as “hot”. Global Warming is the result of enhanced greenhouse effect. There is an increase in gasses like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thus retaining too much heat on Earth. Global Dimming, however, is caused by the amount of pollutants in the air. With more pollutants in the air, water droplets can condense on even more particles to form rain. These droplets of rain are smaller than natural ones. Many small water droplets reflect more light from the sun than the natural big but few ones. The clouds act as a natural mirror, reflecting light from the sun back into space. Thus, the amount of sunlight received on the Earth’s surface is reduced, cooling the planet down. When you solve the problem of Global Warming but not Global Dimming, the Earth would become too cold. However, when you solve the problem of Global Dimming, the Earth becomes too hot due to Global Warming. To tackle the situation, you have to solve both at a time.

            The way to solve Global Warming is to reduce the amount of Carbon emission. Ever since industrialisation, carbon emissions had increased drastically and the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the air shot up tremendously. This, in turn, increased the global temperature by a few ^oC. The way to solve Global Dimming is to reduce the amount of pollutants in the air burning fuel more cleanly. However, what is the root cause of all these? Human nature.

            Humans, by nature, are greedy and selfish. We want the best for ourselves. We upgraded ourselves from being animals and cavemen to what we are now. We pampered ourselves with air-conditioning, entertainment and a comfortable home while depriving our friends of our ancestors, the animals, of their rightful homes like rainforests. We heat up the entire globe for all the inhabitants living in it just for our benefit, to get air-conditioning. We alter the natural order of things, for our benefit. However, we would pay the price. It is like a chain effect. Sooner or later, these acts of selfishness and greed would affect us. For example, due to Global Dimming, some countries are deprived of rain, which usually causes droughts. We are paying a price for the air-conditioning we enjoy, for the electricity we take for granted. Not just in the form of money. The generations to come would pay the price. It is a heavy price indeed. We are enjoying at the expense of others.

            Now, can we undo all these? Can we downgrade ourselves to become the cavemen we once were? No. The wants such as air-conditioning and electricity has become needs. Are we willing to downgrade to a world void of electricity and air-conditioning? Void of consoles, television and sources of entertainment? Are we ready to live without the lights we take for granted? Are we ready to enjoy life without all these things? It is difficult to let go of all these things. However, is there really a need to downgrade ourselves to become cavemen? No. We can do our best to conserve the environment. We can cut down on carbon emissions and not necessarily get rid of the idea as a whole. We can burn fuel more cleanly, to reduce the problem of Global Dimming.

            Not every problem can be solved by man. Men had encountered many problems, like lightning and fire, and have never learnt or understood it fully, let alone control it. Who says we can control the problem of Global Warming and Global Dimming? There is no guarantee that no accidents would occur. There is no guarantee that fire can never accidentally burn someone. If the need arises, are we ready to give everything up?

Term 3 Independent Post 4

                                       NDP 2011 Penny Low

                Penny Low is the MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC. She “rose to fame” when during the NDP National Anthem. Every Singaporean was singing the National Anthem, while she, she on the other hand, was Facebooking. An MP Facebooking during such an important event? This catches everyone by surprise, or at least it caught me by surprise.  She apologises publicly and posted her apology on Facebook. She explains:

“I was so caught up in the wonderful NDP 2011 and felt so proud of being a Singaporean, that i wanted to capture that moment of pride, at the very tail end of the anthem, to share on FB with my residents. If in my enthusiasm i offended anyone, please accept my apologies. NDP is a time to unite not divide. Majulah Singapura!”

            How we find a person depends greatly on what qualities we choose to look at. Most netizens find that Penny Low is disrespectful. However, she was the only one amongst the Cabinet members who actually wanted to share this moment with her residents. However, she still should have waited till the end of the anthem. She is in the wrong, but when we look things from different angles, we have different opinions.

            As for her apology, I don’t find it sincere. She posted this message online, and probably did not take time to type it. All the “I”s except for the one at the front of the first two sentences are not capitalized. I feel that the sentence “NDP is a time to unite not divide. Majulah Singapura!” is actually an indirect way of saying, “Don’t make a fuss. We shouldn’t do such a thing during NDP.” However, some people interpret it as Penny Low lecturing Singaporeans on being united. They feel that she was lecturing other Singaporeans even though she is in the wrong.

Term 3 Independent Post 3

                       A fair deal in Court

                A fair deal in court, can it be achieved? No. Why? We have to look into how the court operates.

                Usually, there is a jury, unlike special case, which decides if the prosecuted is guilty or not. This jury is made up of a group of people “randomly chosen”. Everyone is prejudiced; it’s just a matter of whether he or she shows it to the world. This prejudice can make a lot of difference in a court case. An example would be the court case in “To Kill a Mocking Bird”. This book is about discrimination. Tom Robinson is a black and was accused of raping a white woman. The town, in which the story resides in, Maycomb, is prejudiced against blacks. The people feel that all blacks are criminals. The jury, even without looking at the evidence, has a preconceived notion that Tom was a rapist and he is guilty. Later on, despite all evidence pointing otherwise, the jury still found that Tom was guilty. The judge, who decides the sentence, has no say in whether he is guilty or not, although he knew that Tom did not rape the woman. In the above example, the jury is prejudiced against Tom, and the outcome of the court case was inaccurate.

                In order for something to be “fair”, perspective is very important. Take the Osama assassination for example. Should he be given a fair court trial? Or should he have been assassinated immediately like what has been done? If you choose to assassinate him there and then, the world would be a safer place to be in. This would be a fair thing to do if you look from the perspective of the rest of the world. However, if you look at things from Al Qaeda’s perspective, it is unfair as Osama did not stand a chance, not even given the opportunity to go to court to stand for a trial. For something to be fair, it’s all about what perspective you look at the issue from. When something is fair from one point of view, it is unfair from the other. Things can almost never be fair in a court, as there is at least 2 very contrasting points of view. You can never have the best of both worlds. Nothing is perfect, just like a court case.