Symbolism of the Three Caskets

  In the Merchant of Venice, Portia's father asked the suitors who wanted Portia's hand in marriage to choose a casket from three caskets: gold, silver, and lead, and the one who chooses correctly will marry Portia. However, I believe that the three caskets have a deeper layer of symbolism.

  I think that the casket test represents Belmont, where the casket test is held. Belmont is a cosmopolitan society, more accepting of foreigners, and the casket test is based solely on the wisdom of the suitors, with a little luck thrown in, and not on their nationality, race, language, religion, et cetera. 

  Also, the casket test seem to be representative of Bassanio, a Christian and a risk-taker. The gold and silver caskets are inscribed with "Who chooseth me shall gain what many men desire" and “Who chooseth me shall get as much as he deserves" respectively. Those inscriptions are also Christian values, such as that desire is something undesirable and that humans does not deserve the blessings from God. In Shakespeare's times, the idea of not judging something by its appearance is also common, hence the humble lead casket. The lead casket is inscribed with "Who chooseth me must give and hazard all." In my opinion, this carry the meaning that the suitor must be willing to risk all that he has for love, and hope for Portia even though he may not deserve her. Bassanio is the perfect example of that, as in his heart, he knows that he does not deserves Portia, but he's still willing to risk all he has (admittedly, not much) on one hand of cards.  

  Lastly, the three caskets also seem to represent the three main types of people present in the play - greedy, materialistic people, such as Shylock; cautious, confident people, such as Portia; and risk-takers and gamblers, such as Bassanio. 

Ministerial Pay

  Recently, there had been a lot of public debate and a wide range of opinions on the topic of Ministerial Pay, which many Singaporeans feel is too high. Therefore, I shall attempt to express my opinion on the topic of Ministerial Pay.

  In my opinion, I think that the current high ministerial salaries are necessary, as although the top talent in the private sector may not be attracted to public office that has high salaries, they will definitely not be attracted to public office with much lower salaries.

  In the current economic situation, and especially in the materialistic Singaporean context, money is a very significant factor that affects the job that top talents choose. In Asian societies, people are typically very materialistic, and the top talents with usually have a wide selection of different paths and occupations to choose from, and one of the most important, or even the most important, factor would be money. In many other countries, both developed and developing, the salaries of the politicians and civil servants are much lower compared to those in their private sector, which is one of the reasons that in those countries, much less people are attracted to public service and politics.

  Therefore, government salaries must be competitive with the salaries of the private sector. The current ministerial pay is derived from a formula that pegged the salaries of ministers and civil servants  at two-thirds the average principal earned income of the top four earners in six professions: accounting, banking, engineering, law, local manufacturing firms and multinational corporations. Government jobs are mainly about governing, which is a form of management. The six professions’ top earners all have excellent management skills, especially banking, manufacturing and multinational corporations. To serve the people of Singapore better, the government has a necessity to attract the best talents from the private sector, and then to keep them.

  Although some people in the private sector may not want to join a government with salaries that are comparable to the ones of the private sector, they will definitely not want to join one with salaries that are far beyond those in the private sector. The ministers of Singapore’s pay had already been cut to two-thirds of the private sector’s high flyers’ salaries, as a sacrifice of entering public service. It had been cut even further in the economic crisis of 2008-2009, and even further in 2010. Personally, I feel that that amount would be suitable for government ministers of a country with one of the most efficient and corruption-free governments in the world, as a reward for the work they had done for Singapore. Currently, Singapore is the second-richest country in Asia after Japan, and after all, the ministers’ salaries tie in directly with the work they’ve done; if they do a bad job, Singapore’s economy suffers, the pay of everyone in the private sector falls, and so their salaries fall too if they do a bad job, and rise if they do a good one. And in order to obtain ministers that perform well and do good jobs, government salaries must be competitive. After all, it’s a simple logic; you’ve got to pay to get them and you've got to pay to keep them, and you’ve got to pay them well to prevent them from resorting to taking bribes, like poorly-paid ministers in developing countries and even some developed countries do. To use the words of Defense Minister Teo Chee Hean, "We don't want pay to be the reason for people to join us, but we also don't want pay to be the reason for them not to join us, or to leave after joining us."

  In view of the recent economic crisis, the salaries of the ministers had already been cut twice. Furthermore, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had formed a committee to review ministerial salaries, headed by National Kidney Foundation (NKF) chairman Gerard Ee. To use the words of PM Lee, salaries must reflect the values and ethos of public service. And there is no doubt that being a top minister is inferior to being a top lawyer or top engineer, so the pay shouldn’t be inferior either.

  Therefore, I think that the current ministerial pay is the correct one, and will encourage the high flyers in the private sector like me to join government service and so better serve the people of Singapore. You pay the best, you get the best, and I think that a virtually corruption-free and extremely efficient government is worth fifty cents more from each taxpayer each year. 

Truth of Mississippi Burning

Q1. For minor crimes, most states have a “statute of limitations” that prohibits bringing charges when a certain period of time has elapsed since the crime. When it comes to serious crimes, is it right for the justice system to pursue criminal charges several decades after the crime is said to have occurred?
A1.  I feel that it is right for the justice system to pursue criminal charges several decades after the crime is said to have occurred, as justice have to be carried out, and as they say, better late than never. The purpose of convicting a criminal in court is to punish him for his mistake and prevent him from making that mistake again, and if criminals that aren't caught will be safe decades after the crime is committed, that would conflict with the purpose of convicting criminals. Also, it would be deeply unfair to the victims, as they would still have to live with the physical and psychological wound of the crime.
Q2. Reporting for The Times on the conviction of Edgar Ray Killen in 2005, Shaila Dewan wrote, “While some in Neshoba County [Mississippi] said it was too late and too painful to revisit the episode, others thought that in doing so, the county might find redemption.”
What do you think: was the state’s image “rehabilitated”?
A2. Yes, I feel that the state's image was "rehabilitated", as although in the past, the criminals were not charged and/or acquitted because of the supremacy of the whites over the blacks and the prejudice of the public and the jury at that time, those criminals were now caught and acquitted, and will be punished by the law. Others will now be safer from this kind of crimes, showing that justice will eventually prevail in the face of racism.
Q3. How much do you know about the civil rights era in general?
 In general, the civil rights era is an era of massive changes and milestones in the American society, primarily due to the Civil Rights Movement, a movement consisting of both blacks and whites, calling for every American, regardless of race, to have equal human rights and protection before the law, as opposed to the extremely racist society before, which treated blacks as being inferior to whites. Although the movement is successful in many areas, in some other areas it is not very successful, and as a result, racism still exist in America today in much of the same way as neo-Nazism in Germany.

General Elections 2011

  Singapore General Elections, 2011 - Analysis

  Singapore’s 16^th Parliamentary Elections were held on 7^th May 2011. The Constitution of Singapore states that the maximum term of Parliament is five years, after which it must be dissolved by the President and the General Elections must be held by the elections department within three months. The 2011 General Elections had been described as a ‘watershed election’ by many, and marks the most furious political fight in the history of Singapore, with 82 out of 87 seats being contested, and the presence of three-sided fights. Below, I would like to analyze two of the ‘hot’ areas, Marine Parade Group Representation Constituency (GRC), and Potong Pasir Single-Member Constituency (SMC).

  Marine Parade GRC: Goh Chok Tong, Tin Pei Ling, and Nicole Seah

  Marine Parade GRC is probably one of the hottest contested GRCs in this year’s General Elections. As most parties had realized the weight of the young voters, they had begun to introduce more young politicians to contest in the General Elections. In the case of Marine Parade GRC, both the People’s Action Party (PAP) and the National Solidarity Party (NSP) had sent in their youngest candidates; Tin Pei Ling, 27, and Nicole Seah, 24.

  Without question, Nicole Seah is by far more suitable to become a Member of Parliament (MP) than Tin Pei Ling, both in reality and in public opinion.

  Tin Pei Ling, PAP’s candidate, had been criticized as being immature and lackluster. She was especially unpopular among young voters, who made use of social media to criticize her experience, her image and her maturity. She had also faced ridicule in the public media, due to her statement of supporting all present PAP policies, leading the comments about her being indecisive and weak.

  Tin Pei Ling had also faced an online backlash of her ‘acting cute’ with a Kate Spade bag, an image which had become both infamous and popular in a negative sense among Singaporean netizens. She had also been accused of exploiting her husband Ng How Yue’s position as the Principal Private Secretary of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to enter politics.

  On the other hand, Nicole Seah is an extremely popular figure among all aged groups, surpassing Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew as the most popular politician in Singapore. She could connect with both younger students by her extensive use of social media such as Facebook, her home visits reached out to older lower-income residents, and empathized with them over their predicament, even moved to the point of crying in one of the videos, thus displaying that she cared for the welfare of the residents. Her well-organized speeches also managed to convince a large chunk of voters to switch to the NSP.

  Of course, the determining factor in Marine Parade GRC is PAP’s heavyweight, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. SM Goh is the ace card that allowed PAP its victory despite incompetent candidates like Tin Pei Ling. As the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Goh Chok Tong’s long experience and excellent track record, as well as his good reputation, image and respect commanded in the Marine Parade residents is what convinced 56.7% of them to vote for the PAP.

  Without doubt, if Marine Parade GRC had been a one-on-one between Tin Pei Ling and Nicole Seah, Nicole Seah would emerge as the victor with a large margin of votes. However, it is SM Goh that salvaged the PAP team and led to its ultimate win. Even so, Tin Pei Ling had caused a plummet in potential voters for the PAP, with it winning by a mere 13.3% as opposed to the previous contest.

  In the end, what had the voters voted for is PAP, and not Tin Pei Ling. The majority of Marine Parade residents that had voted for the People’s Action Party did so because of the solutions and policies it proposed, its long-standing track record, its political ideology – not because of Goh Chok Tong, and certainly not because of Tin Pei Ling.

  Potong Pasir SMC: Lina Chiam and Sitoh Yih Pin

  This year, the People’s Action Party, fielding candidate Mr. Sitoh Yih Pin, had finally breached the opposition stronghold of Potong Pasir, after 27 years of its occupation by the opposition after its 17-year MP, Mr. Chiam See Tong, left to contest Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC and leaving his wife, Lina Chiam, to take his place as the Singapore People’s Party (SPP) candidate for Potong Pasir.

  Mr. Sitoh Yih Pin, contesting Potong Pasir SMC for the third time in a row, won this time by a 0.72% margin of 114 votes. It is the closest fight in this year’s General Election.

  In my opinion, Mrs. Lina Chiam obtained her 49.64% of votes largely because of her husband, Mr. Chiam See Tong, who had been the MP for Potong Pasir for 17 years, who commanded enormous respect and support from long-time residents of the area. However, this is also what led to her downfall at the hands of Mr. Sitoh.

  Potong Pasir consist of mainly older HDB blocks occupied by older residents that had lived in the area for a long time, and of which most of them are supporters of Mr. Chiam See Tong, the ex-MP of the SMC. However, in the past five years, many new residences had sprung up in Potong Pasir, leading to an influx of new residents that are unfamiliar with, not to mention loyal to, the Chiams. Therefore, most of them would be convinced by the strong campaign ran by Mr. Sitoh, as Mrs. Chiam had been criticized as being uncharismatic and ‘all talk, no action’.

  Also, the PAP had managed to capture the votes of a large percentage of Chiam supporters by promising estate upgrading, which Mr. Chiam had formerly failed to secure for the SMC. Potong Pasir is much less upgraded than neighboring constituencies, with much less new features, which led to many voters who were at heart loyal to Mr. Chiam voting for the PAP only because of the carrot offered by Mr. Sitoh – estate upgrading.

  Therefore, Mrs. Lina Chiam’s main selling point is loyalty, which generated many votes for her from supporters of Mr. Chiam See Tong, which, in addition to the sympathy votes that went her way, almost tipped the scale in her favor. On the other hand, Mr. Sitoh is confident and decisive in his campaign and speeches, which led to many new residents and young residents voting for him, and this, in addition to the votes generated by the incentive of estate upgrading, had led to Mr. Sitoh Yih Pin’s close win – Capability over Loyalty.

Conclusion

  In conclusion, I believe that although the PAP is still the ruling party in Singapore, it’s support had started to diminish; for the first time, an opposition party had won a GRC, and the winning margins for most PAP candidates are down by a significant amount. This shows that more Singaporeans are starting to be discontented with the performance of the PAP. Therefore, in my opinion, Singapore may have a new ruling party in thirty or forty years, riding the dissatisfaction of the people into Parliament House. As for the readiness of an opposition party to govern Singapore, it is impossible to predict now – only time would tell. 

To Kill A Mockingbird - Rosetta Stone

  In Chapter 8 of To Kill A Mockingbird, it stated that "Mr. Avery said it was written on the Rosetta Stone that when children disobeyed their parents, smoked cigarettes and made war on each other, the seasons would change".

  The Rosetta Stone is a black granite Ancient Egyptian stone bearing three inscriptions found at Rosetta, Egypt. It carries the a royal decree that established the "divine cult" of Egypt's new ruler, King Ptolemy V. It is is a late example of a class of donation stelae, which depicts the reigning monarch granting a tax exemption to the resident priesthood.

  In the context of To Kill A Mockingbird, Mr. Avery stated that it is because of the wrongdoing of children that led to the change of weather, and claimed that it was written on the Rosetta Stone. I think that the "divine cult"in the context of To Kill A Mockingbird would be the white population, and the "tax exemption" would be the social, political and economic Superior that white people have over black people in the South, as in the South, the "resident priesthood", the people holding power, are the whites.

When Does Life Begin?

   ‘Life’ is defined as the ability to breathe, grow, reproduce, etc. However, before a fetus is born, it had none of these abilities, and depends on the mother to keep it breathing. Therefore, although biologically, the ‘life’ of a fetus begins at conception, a person does not have moral personhood until much later, after he is born.

  At conception, although biologically, the fetus was produced, but it is still unable to possess an individual consciousness and it’s unable to survive outside the womb. Therefore, at conception, a fetus is not yet a human, but only a potential human life. Renowned philosopher Professor Peter Singer defined argued that something can only be a person if it is self-aware and has temporal awareness. A fetus does not meet this definition until after it is born, so therefore, morally speaking, the life of a fetus begins at birth.

  Infanticide, the homicide of an infant, is illegal in most countries, although the charges vary from infanticide to homicide and manslaughter. However, currently, abortions are legal in most countries, even abortions that allow babies to be aborted at 30 weeks. This shows that the law recognizes the human status of an infant, but not a fetus.

  In religion, many religious academicians take the birth-view stance. This stance is supported by quotations from the respective holy books; the Jewish Talmud holds that a fetus's life is less valuable than a woman's; if the woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy, it requires an abortion. However, if the "greater part" of the fetus has emerged, then its life may not be taken even to save the mother's, "because you cannot choose between one human life and another", therefore implying that a fetus becomes a human life after it is born. Some Christian theologians hold that ensoulment occurs when an infant takes its first breath of air. They cite, among other passages, Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

  Also, although the body of the infant develops at birth, the brain of the infant does not develop and start functioning until much later, after the birth of the infant. Legally and biologically, the brain is the representative of a human; a human is considered dead only if his brain is dead. Therefore, as the fetus’s brain isn’t functioning until it is born, legally, the life of a human begins at birth.

  A favored argument of the opposition is that life begins at conception. However, there are major flaws in this argument. In human cloning, there is no conception at all. Then, could you say that a cloned human is not a human? Conception isn’t even a specific point in time; it is a period over which the sperm meets the ovum, and not a specific time. Also, the life-begins-at-conception argument also ignores parthenogenesis, when the gamete of a female is not fertilized by a male, yet produces viable and unique offspring that are not clones. Only DNA from the mother is inherited, but it is not identical to her. This had been done before; in 2004, Japanese researchers led by Tomohiro Kono succeeded after 457 attempts to merge the ova of two mice, the result of which developed normally into a mouse. Could you then say that it’s not a mouse?

  In 2003, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was enacted in the United States, which prohibits an abortion if "either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother." Meaning that, after most of the baby is born, the baby will be granted human status, and thus could not be aborted, as it would no longer be a fetus, but a human, thus abortion would not be an abortion, but infanticide.

  Therefore, I conclude that medically, philosophically and theologically, the life of a fetus begins only after it’s born, therefore, I believe that life begins at birth.

To Kill A Mockingbird - Lula

  In the novel To Kill A Mockingbird, Lula is the black woman at the First Purchase African M.E. Church, which Calpurnia brought Scout and Jem to in Chapter 7. Upon seeing the two children, Lula confronted Calpurnia for bringing them to the church, saying, "they've got their church, we have ours". This parallels the way most white people in Maycomb treat the black people.

  Lula is the only African American that protested of the presence of Scout and Jem at the church, while most of the congregation welcomed them and respected them because their father, Atticus Finch, is trying to prevent one of them, Thomas Robinson, from being convicted of rape, a capital offense. However, Lula objected to their presence and rudely demand that they be removed. This is possibly because she had been a victim of racism since her youth, and is bitter towards all white people for this. She felt unfair that she could not go to the white people's church, but white people could go to her church, and thus wanted the whites and the blacks to be segregated, and thus took her anger out on the two innocent children. I feel that this is cowardly behavior, as taking her anger out on the children will not achieve anything (and resulted in her being asked to leave the church), and if she really wanted to object, she should take it up with the white men that gambled in the church on weekdays.

  Lula's single appearance in the novel is memorable, as she is the only African American that is openly hostile towards white people, while all others are more docile and appeared resigned to their social status. I do not think that this is very likely, as it is more likely that a significant chunk of African Americans will protest such unfair treatment at the hands of the whites, and some of the more aggressive ones, like Lula, may even form anti-white terrorist groups.

  Therefore, Lula is a complicated figure in the novel that complicated the role of African Americans, in which she seemed to be the only person that dared to speak her honest (albeit twisted and wrong) views.