Can Justice and Mercy Co-exist?

The dictionary meaning of Justice is: the quality of being fair and just. While the meaning of mercy is leniency and compassion shown towards someone. This two meanings are contradictory are with each other thus I do not believe that they cannot co-exist.

The simple reason behind this is that the main reason we have the law is to mete out the required punishment when the offender has committed an offence. Whats is the point of having a justice systems if there is mercy to save them from their punishment. Justice is like a scale to measure thow severe the crime was, with the Judge being the deciding factor on what punishment should be meted out. Before a sentence is passed, the judge would have considered the mental state, the need for self–defence and the circumstances leading to the crime. 

However, mercy is shown to people as a second lease of life for the crime they have committed. It may be because he or she has repented. If this was carried out, there would be no purpose for the justice system. However, if we were to pardon some offenders, we would have to do that to all offenders who have committed the crime and is under the same circumstances. If that is the case all a serious offender needs was to apologise and they would not need to face up to their  punishment.


An example is the Micheal Fay who was punished by the Singapore judicial system to caning even though the US government pleaded with the Singapore government to have mercy on him. This is a standard way that this kind of case or handled by the Singapore government as they believe firmly that one should be punished for the crime that they commit.


Therefore, I firmly believe that justice and mercy can never co exist as mercy is a direct counter to justice.

Intention of Creating Shylock (Term 3 week 5)

I feel that Shakespeare created Shylock with the intention to attract the Elizabethan's attention and evoke sympathy for the Jews. In the past, the Jews were considered as the inferior race by the Christians and were discriminated and insulted. In the book, Shylock who is a Jew was portrayed as a villain, like what the people back then viewed them to be in those days. However, the action done towards him clearly showed a different story in which he was discriminated and abused widely by the people in the court.

In Act 4 Scene 1, when Portia tried to convince him to show mercy towards Antonio, he refused to do so. He replies blatantly by saying: 

My deeds upon my head. I crave the law,
The penalty, and forfeit of my bond.

To the Elizabethans watching the film, this would capture their attention as it was exactly what they thought the Jews were like. Therefore, by creating Shylock, Shakespeare was injecting a sense of realism into the play so that it was applicable to that era. And only by doing so, the Elizabethans would then be attracted to the film. 

At the same time, he also tried to evoke a sense of pity for the Jews. In Act 1 Scene 3, he spoke of  how he was discriminated against by Antonio. He said:
Signor Antonio, many a time and oft
In the Rialto you have rated me
About my moneys and my usances.
Still have I borne it with a patient shrug,
For sufferance is the badge of all our tribe.
You can call me misbeliever, cutthroat dog,
And spet upon my Jewish gaberdine ----
And all for use of that which is mine own.
Well then, it now appears you need my help.
Go to then! You come to me and you say,
“Shylock, we would have moneys.” You say so! ---
You, that did void your rheum upon my beard
And foot me as you spurn a stranger cur
Over your threshold! Moneys is your suit.
What should I say to you? Should I not say,
“Hath a dog money? Is it possible 
A cur lend three thousand ducats?” Or
Shall I bend low and in a bondman’s key
With bated breath and whispering humbleness
Say this:
“Fair sir, you spet on me on Wednesday last;
You spurned me such a day; another time
You called me a ‘dog’ --- and for these courtesies 
I’ll lend you thus much moneys?’

In this speech by Shylock, he was obviously subjected to a lot of discrimination. His daughter betrayed him and ran away, with his valuables. In this story, there many moments where the readers really had to sympathised with Shylock even though he was a "villain". 

Therefore, I think that Shakespeare created Shylock to draw the Elizabethan’s attention and evoke sympathy for the Jews by portraying Shylock as someone who is some sort evil but also being discriminated at the same time.

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

I do not think that Shakespeare is biased in terms of his portrayal of Shylock who is as a greedy miser who is selfish. He is portrayed as a evil person with his pursuit of his "pound of flesh". However, Shakespeare evoke sympathy within the readers for Shylock who is being discriminated due to his race. Shylock looked down upon, verbally abused by Antonio in the trial.He is constantly being treated as an outcast. This explains his hatred towards Christianity. Shylock directs it to Antonio for it is Antonio who he has a personal grudge with. 


Apart from that, Antonio who is the "good guy" in The Merchant of Venice is depicted to be someone who is loyal to Bassanio, as he does not mind losing a pound of his own flesh to help Bassanio gain Portia's hand in marriage. While Antonio seemed to be a gentleman most of the story, however, that image of him, is destroyed when he verbally abused Shylock in court.

Therefore, I find that Shakespeare is not biased as he shows both sides of the main characters in The Merchant of Venice.

Term 3 Week 4 (Blogging Assignment)

In my opinion, Jim Rogers' main argument is that in order to survive in this competitive world,we must be able to have a good grasp of many languages. With the rise of wealth in the East, it is important that the children of the West must start immersing themselves in Asian culture, as well as picking up various Asian languages, especially Chinese as we all notice that China is slowly starting to gain dominance over the world. The world is no longer about America being the superpower, as more countries are rising, such as the Middle East, China & even India. 

In order to be prepared for the globalized world we are in, the children of the 21st Century must be immersed in an environment that allow them to get to know foreign people, foreign languages, and foreign lands. English is no longer the sole universal language in the world, America is also no longer the superpower it used to be with funds flowing out of the country as debt faster than the funds flowing in as revenue. The East in this case is benefiting from this as they are the creditors in many cases. If America continues to think that it is still the superpower, it will not be long before they are thrown off the top permanently.  In order to have an advantage in the future, people must start to learn about different cultures & languages so as to be able to interact effectively when the time comes. 


I agree with Jim Rogers' argument. The rise of the dominating East is very obvious for all of us. The growth in economy of Asian countries indicates that there would be more room for industrial development not in the West but in the East.This is the point in time in which the tables are turned towards the West. In order for the people in the West to be able to be effective in the new era with the people of the East, it is a great advantage to know another language as the communication barrier can be easily broken down. Language is a skill that takes years to learn and even longer to perfect, therefore, the earlier you start, the better.Apart from that, childhood is the best time to learn languages as one it most receptive when young, thus making the task much easier.Therefore, by exposing a child to foreign cultures & languages, it will effectively help them be prepared for the future economy.

While some may argue that it has not come to a point where English is gradually being eroded as the medium of universal communication, efforts to expose children to foreign cultures & language is a form of preparation for the future. We cannot forsee the economic growth of the East in comparison with the West. Even if Asian powers are not evident in the future, having an extra language in your communication arsenal is definitely an added advantage. It's better to be safe then sorry.

In the coming years, the more languages you have under your belt, the more versatile you would be in the new economy. In order to develop a good grasp for other foreign languages, children must be exposed to it for long periods of time to aid their survival in a global economy in the future.

Term 3 Week 3

1)

One of the flaws of Singapore system that Janelle Lee mentioned was that it was too rigid and inflexible. This is one point that has came across my mind many times while schooling.

Janelle Lee states in her letter to that the education system promotes a “memorize” don’t “ask” method. This method is widely used in many schools including Hwa chong. The method of teaching can be seen in lessons such as Science and Humanities. The teachers would ask us to just remember the information so that we would be able to regurgitate them on the test day and achieve our much wanted A1.I feel that Janelle has raised an important point in our education system. Our education system today is very much focused on the grades that would determine our future. The easiest way to attain those high grades is to simply memorise the information pack and be able to “deliver” the answers on the day of the exam.

 This should not be the case as we as students should strive to learn as much as we can. Instead of rigidly memorising everything, we should try to discover more by ourselves on the topic which would ultimately help us more as we would not only know the areas that are being tested but also the areas that are strongly relate with our topic.

2)

                I do not think that an ideal education system is possible. Reason being that in order to have an ideal education system, the system should be able to cater to all students.  However, in the education system itself, there would be many different types of students. Therefore it would most likely be impossible to cater to all the children’s needs, thus an ideal education system would not really be possible.

                Though an ideal education system is not possible, we could create an education system that would meet most of the students’ needs and thus helping a large portion of the students.

Term 3 Week 2

When we treat water a human right, we give a status which entitles it to ever single human. However, if we treat water as a commodity, we are treating water a product that can trade and sold among parties, thus making it more exclusive.

In my opinion, I think that we should treat water as a human right. I have 3 reasons to explain my decision.

The first reasllon is that a of us need water to survive. By treating water as a commodity means that we are starting a vicious cycle which only the rich gets the amount of water that they want. On the other hand, the poor only get the meagre amount of water that they can get their hands on.  This would result in a win-lose situation in the favour of the rich

Secondly, even though many people argue that the amount of water gotten depends on how wealthy the person. We should not unfairly treat less fortunate just because they were not born in the same environment as the rich. Therefore, when we treat water as a human right, all of us regardless of background, race or religion will get an equal amount of water.

Thirdly, if we were to treat water as a human right everyone no matter what would get their serving of water. This would relieve many of their water shortage problems for those people who are livening in less urbanized and developed countries. This action however would have a side effect which is that everyone would think that they would always their share of water which would result in them starting to waste water.

In conclusion, all of us should move towards a society that helps the poor or less fortunate with the resources that they cannot get their hands on. Only then, we would advance together to a more wholesome society where all of us benefit from.

Term 3 Week 1 (Blogging Assignment)

I think that this idea may seem good on paper, but it may not really be feasible and productive in real life. The job of a domestic helper is to help with house chores so as to lessen the burden that is on the house owners. However, if we were to give all domestic workers a day off wouldn't that defeat the purpose of hiring a domestic worker?

Even if it is for one day it would cause great inconvience for their employers. Instead, I think that that this idea should be discuss among the employer and domestic workers instead of creating a rule that gives all domestic workers one day off every week. This way, the employer would be able to coordinate in a way that the domestic workers can go off for their rest day when the employers themself are out at work. This way, they can work out a win-win situation in which both of them can achieve what they want.

Letting domestic workers out on breaks also means opening a flood gate for the domestic workers to be harmed out side. As the domestic workers are their employer's responsibility, it is no wonder why many employers do not support the idea of allowing their domestic workers out on weekly breaks.

I think that this initiative should be better planned out before putting into action.