How have I as a HCI student touched the lives of others?

The teachers have called us the top batch of student leaders; the future leaders of Singapore and the gentlemen of the younger generation. But what have we done as these people to touch the lives of people around us?

As students of Hwa Chong, we have to live up to our expectations. We encounter different people and people of different cultures too, but what have I done to make a difference? In my opinion, i have first and fore-mostly touched my friends. Although I am not a loud person with a commanding leadership tone, i show concern and care towards them and am always free to discuss things. My friends develop a trust in me, and I can help them by giving them support and assistance. Therefore, I think that I have touched my friends' lives.

Furthermore, I think i have touched my family's lives. I have learnt to respect them more, and to always speak to them without raising my voice. People look to Hwa Chong students as people who are leaders, no matter in what way. I believe i have helped my family in various way, being a strong older brother to my sister and also a obedient son to my parents.

Students in Hwa Chong are given many opportunities to interact with students outside of school, so through different exchange programs and seminars, i believe that Hwa Chong students can truly show everyone that HCI students can touch people's lives.

Rupert Murdoch Scandal

The recent Rupert Murdoch Scandal has caused a huge buzz in Britain, but some people may still be wondering, what is the whole scandal about? What is so new about phone-hacking? Who is Rupert Murdoch?

Rupert Murdoch's news empire was an all out search team to find the latest and hottest news, and bring it to the public. Celebrities and politicians's phones were constantly hacked in order to allow the public to enjoy entertainment. However, this has now backfired on the public themselves. Now even phones of dead soldiers and murder victims had been hacked, causing the British people to revolt against such things.

In the past, the civilians were only thought about the latest news and buzz the celebrities and politicians were doing, but ever since they found out the Rupert Murdoch's company had been secretly hacking civilian's phones, the public has been outraged with him and have lodged numerous protests. Why is it that only when their own privacy has been affected that the people start to retaliate? It is not true that politicians and celebrities have no right to privacy. The biggest problem with the public is that they only care for their well-being.

Rupert Murdoch is a very influential person. With his control of the media, almost everyone has to kowtow to him in order not to get into trouble one way or another. In the initial stage of the trial, he was confident that he would be safe throughout the trial. Only in the later stages did he realize his mistakes and the risk he was taking, and apologized to the public.

In conclusion, the scandal occured because of different people's faults: the public, rupert murdoch and maybe even politicians and celebrities. We should take this opportunity to learn from our mistakes and not be so self-scented.

Arranged Marriage vs True Love

Arranged marriages to many, have been a thing of the past, a tradition or culture that was carried out. However most people tend to think that these are all but a thing of the past, and that the modern world no longer carries out this practice. This is totally false. The truth is that arranged marriages are still very prevalent in some countries like India, Japan and China, the large majority being in India.

Arranged marriages are very different from true love, as arranged marriages are more of a exchange between two families for the family's benefit, and not for the two people getting married. These marriages are usually conducted without the two people even meeting together for the first time, while in true love marriages, a strong bond between the two people is formed before they get married. Some arranged marriages are also carried out because the parents do not believe that their child is not ready to make such a decision, and that the parents are the ones who know best. These parents think about the physical consequences, and not about the child's love, and thus arrange marriages to ensure that their son or daughter in-law is what they want them to be.

In my opinion, i would not want to go through an arranged marriage as i think that everyone has a right to choose who they want to spend their lives with for the rest of their lives. Although it is true that parents have much more experience than the younger generation, ultimately it is the youth that are gonna spend their lives with their partner, and if the children do not have a chance to be with the one they really love could cause a lot of conflict. Love is feeling shared by two intimate people, and it is impossible to force someone to love another. Parents may think they know best, but in some cases, children have to be given a choice to choose who is most suitable for them, whether or not it will work out in the end. The younger generations should follow what their heart tells them and not be afraid to speak out for their love. Therefore, i think that i would rather make my own choice on marriage than allow my parents to help me to choose.

Parents should believe in their children, and trust that they make the right decision, and not keep making the decision for them. Therefore, i believe true love should triumph over arranged marriages.

Shylock: Villain or Victim?

There has been much debate about whether Shylock i trying to be portrayed as a victim or as a villain. In the play, he is described as ruthless and bloodthirsty, but also as a victim of prejudice behavior and suppression.

As a villain, he is depicted as a money-hungry fool who does not care for his own daughter, but instead the money that she stole. Shylock's cruelty towards Antonio in blatantly shown in that he constantly wants the pound of Antonio's flesh, nothing else. Despite the judge's(Portia) offers to pardon Antonio, Shylock constantly persisted, and ended up losing everything. He was asked three times to give up wanting Antonio's flesh, but three times he refused. This showed his intent to kill Antonio to the most severe extent, and described Shylock as a cold, greedy and revengeful person.

However, Shylock was also a victim in the play. Throughout the course of the entire play, Shylock was constantly mocked and called a "cut-throat dog" and "misbeliever", and was looked down upon by the Christians like Antonio. Antonio strongly opposed Shylock's means of earning a living by lending money with interest, and despised him for it too. However, Antonio did not see that Shylock's only way of earning himself a living was through money-lending because Venice at the time was strongly prejudice against the Jews. Almost everyone in the play, from Antonio to the Duke, mocked him and spit on his religion, despising his beliefs over Christianity. To make matters worse, his own daughter eloped with one of those that hated him. How much more suffering could Shylock take? During the trial, Shylock was overcome by revenge for what the entire Christian community had done to him, and in the end lost everything he had. The judge(Portia) made it even so that all his possesions were to go to those he had been trying to persecute, the people who he had hated to the core. His religion was converted to that of the people he had hated his whole life, causing Shylock to become one of them.

In conclusion, Shylock despite being villainous in some ways, was portrayed as a victim of prejudism.

Great moments are born from great opportunity.

And that's what you have here tonight, boys.

That's what you've earned here, tonight.

One game.

If we played 'em ten times, they might win nine. But not this game. Not tonight. Tonight, we skate with 'em.

Tonight, we stay with 'em, and we shut them down because we can!

Tonight, we are the greatest hockey team in the world.

You were born to be hockey players -- every one of ya.

And you were meant to be here tonight.

This is your time.

Their time -- is done. It's over.

I'm sick and tired of hearin' about what a great hockey team the Soviets have.

This is your time!!

Screw 'em!

Now go out there and take it!

“It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph.”

Where there is good, there is also evil. As such, there is always conflict between the two factions, but there have been many arguments as to which side has triumphed over the other. Good is typically associated with life, charity, continuity and happiness, while evil on the other hand is just the opposite of that. Some say that good will always triumph over evil, but is that always the case? Even now, many people are trying to find out what it means to be good and to be evil.

As said by Edmund Burke, “It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph.” Evil will definitely win the battle if there is no one to stop it. Mankind is born with an evil nature, with a tendency towards greed, money and violence. But we are also kind and good in our nature. As such, good acts as a counterbalance against evil. But if either good or evil were to disappear, the balance would be disproportionate. Good and evil are exact opposites of each other; therefore if a good man does nothing to fight against evil, evil would run rampant. Take for example a robber. He steals a lump of cash, and the police do nothing to catch him. Seeing how there is nothing stopping him from stealing even more, he continues to rob people of their money, receiving no punishment whatsoever. Thus, evil would triumph if good did not do anything to stop it.

Furthermore, a good man is someone who upholds justice and repels evil. However, if a good man stands by and watches evil take place, he would no longer be considered “good”, and “good” would become invalid. A man is not good just because he has done something that is justifiably right, but is good by continuing to carry out those deeds. Therefore if a good man lets evil slip past him, evil will triumph over good.

On the other hand, there are some cases in which good resists against evil, but evil still triumphs. Evil is present everywhere in our lives, whether in school or in work. Despite good’s attempts at stopping evil, evil can still overpower good. There are many events that display such an event, like how the Japanese forces took Singapore by storm, despite Britain’s attempts at “resisting evil”. The overpowering evil does not even need to be shown to such an extent; even in work, bosses who abuse their power triumph over the “good” workers, with the workers unable to retaliate.

In conclusion, evil can triumph over good if good does not lift a finger to stop evil. Ultimately, evil and good act as a balance for each other, so as long as they balance off each other, they can coexist. However, evil can, and will triumph against good if nothing is done to stop it.

Is War a necessary Evil?

War sweeps up countries and tears down civilizations, bringing health and economical catastrophe, leaving in its wake a trail of bloodshed and destruction. However, despite all this, a war is started to prevent a worse outcome. Sometimes it is to protect that which is precious to us. Sometimes it is started because there is no other alternative. In the end, war is still a necessity that helps to keep the world in order.

Not all wars can be prevented. War is necessary to resolve conflicts that cannot be stopped any other way. Some people say that through peace talks and negotiations, we can stop war from occurring and ultimately stop war. However this is not true, if you take for example the situation in Iraq. Iraq’s making of nuclear weapons are a threat to society. If Iraq were open to negotiations, it would have been possible to end the matter through peace talks and the like. However, since that was not the case, it was inevitable for war to occur. War was a last resort for peace, and despite efforts to try and come to an agreement, peace talks did not work. It is in our nature to want to solve things in the quickest possible way, with violence. As a result, war is completely necessary in this case.

Furthermore, war is not always to destroy and to eliminate. Sometimes, war is started in order to prevent a worse outcome from occurring. The Libyan war is one such example of war being for a more important cause; a cause of freedom of the Middle East. Gaddafi only wanted power over his country and the people, and did not care of their welfare, only pursuing his own agenda. In this case, negotiations were no longer able to be carried out because of the government’s greed for control, and war was the only option to free the people of Libya from the oppression. Peace talks were considered in order to try and save more people instead of going straight for war. However, if action was not taken, many more people would have suffered under the oppression of the Libyan government. Although a war takes away many people’s lives, and causes many others to suffer, a war is a justified one, allowing people to enjoy a better future. It is in these cases that war is for a greater good.

On the other hand, war is filled with death, injuries and the loss of many loved ones. Not just that, the country’s economy would suffer tremendously when war occurs in that country. Is the future of the country worth the death of so many people? Despite ending a war even, the infrastructure of the country would be down, and many funds and resources that would have been used for development would have been wasted on war supplies. Wars are destructive, disruptive and most of all, costly. If this is the price that we have to pay for a war to ensue, what is the point of a war then?

In conclusion, war is necessary as a last resort despite its destructive consequences. War is necessary in the case when there is no other choice but to wage war on another country for a greater cause.