Singlish; the English language as it is spoken in Singapore; also called Singapore English. - Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English
Singlish has become a national language, regardless of whether the authorities approve of it. It has gained prevalence in society over English as an informal, spoken medium of communication. Yet, with Singapore's goal of becoming a global city-state, is the use of Singlish actually impeding progress?
I believe that the main reason as to how Singlish was able to spread throughout our country, and take root as the dominant spoken language is due in part to its status as a common tongue. Singlish arose during the colonial years, as English began to make its way into daily life, and our ancestors absorbed the language into their mother tongue. Thus Singlish came to be the language of life in the streets of Singapore, beginning in the colonial days. The main draw of Singlish was that anyone could use it, irregardless of race or religion. This is especially evident in National Service, when the conscripts, being of differing race, religion, as well as social class, wish to communicate with one another.
Although the government has voiced its view of Singlish as a substandard form of English that hinders Singaporeans, as it serves as an obstacle when attempting to communicate with the rest of the world. Indeed, foreign expatriates to Singapore will inevitably face problems communicating with locals at the beginning of their stay here, as Singlish, used in its basest form, can prove to be impossible to understand. However, personalities such as Neil Humphreys, a British humour columnist, who lived in Singapore for 10 years, have shown that Singlish is often accepted by expatriates, as yet another quirk of living in Singapore.
In my opinion, while Singlish is indeed an obstacle in our attempts at globalisation, it is still one of the many things that make Singapore, truely Singapore. It is the language that binds us together, a common tongue that transcends the boundaries that divide our people. It is part of our image as Singaporeans, and gives us a sense of identity. Like it or not, Singlish is here to stay.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Term 2 Blog Post
Democracy creates stability in a society.
As defined by Wikipedia, Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives. It is derived from the Greek term δημοκρατία [demokratia], which means "popular government", which was coined from δήμος (dēmos), which means "people" and κράτος (kratos), meaning "rule, strength(of)" in the middle of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some of the Greek city-states, of which the most notable was Athens.
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary states that stability is “the quality, state, or degree of being stable”, where stable is defined to be either “firmly established”, “not changing or fluctuating” or “permanent, enduring “. In the context of a society, only the first definition is appropriate, and thus, with an adequate understanding of both democracy and stability, I begin by stating that I agree with the statement that democracy creates stability in a society.
This is due to a key feature of a democracy is that the people are the ones who make the decisions, albeit indirectly, as they decide upon the composition of the government. This means that the government in place is the best that the country can offer, as the people are unlikely to pick a candidate who would rather oppose the will of the people, and are much more likely to have picked their best candidates, who are willing to represent their interests.
Furthermore, because of how to government is picked, via a voting system, the government is more likely to improve upon the lives of the people, as they are the ones with the power, as this will give them more time spent in power. However, this system is not without its drawbacks, as it is highly perceptible to outside influences, such as bribes. As people are easily tempted by short term benefits, bribery is a serious threat to the credibility of voting as a legitimate system. It is extremely difficult to tackle this problem as the issue hinges on the moral strength of the people.
Another problem is when the people become unreasonable, and demand impossible things. The only way to solve this problem would be to set in place rules, that restrict the amount of control that the people can exercise over the inner workings of the government. However, if these rules are overly-implemented, the democratic system would give way to an autocratic government, thus defeating the purpose of setting up a democratic government in the first place.
Yet, it is true that the people will definitely look out for their best interests and, as such, are much more likely to see beyond the short term, and have the wisdom to acknowledge what is unattainable. Thus, a democratic government can, and probably will, create stability in a country where both criteria are met.
As defined by Wikipedia, Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives. It is derived from the Greek term δημοκρατία [demokratia], which means "popular government", which was coined from δήμος (dēmos), which means "people" and κράτος (kratos), meaning "rule, strength(of)" in the middle of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some of the Greek city-states, of which the most notable was Athens.
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary states that stability is “the quality, state, or degree of being stable”, where stable is defined to be either “firmly established”, “not changing or fluctuating” or “permanent, enduring “. In the context of a society, only the first definition is appropriate, and thus, with an adequate understanding of both democracy and stability, I begin by stating that I agree with the statement that democracy creates stability in a society.
This is due to a key feature of a democracy is that the people are the ones who make the decisions, albeit indirectly, as they decide upon the composition of the government. This means that the government in place is the best that the country can offer, as the people are unlikely to pick a candidate who would rather oppose the will of the people, and are much more likely to have picked their best candidates, who are willing to represent their interests.
Furthermore, because of how to government is picked, via a voting system, the government is more likely to improve upon the lives of the people, as they are the ones with the power, as this will give them more time spent in power. However, this system is not without its drawbacks, as it is highly perceptible to outside influences, such as bribes. As people are easily tempted by short term benefits, bribery is a serious threat to the credibility of voting as a legitimate system. It is extremely difficult to tackle this problem as the issue hinges on the moral strength of the people.
Another problem is when the people become unreasonable, and demand impossible things. The only way to solve this problem would be to set in place rules, that restrict the amount of control that the people can exercise over the inner workings of the government. However, if these rules are overly-implemented, the democratic system would give way to an autocratic government, thus defeating the purpose of setting up a democratic government in the first place.
Yet, it is true that the people will definitely look out for their best interests and, as such, are much more likely to see beyond the short term, and have the wisdom to acknowledge what is unattainable. Thus, a democratic government can, and probably will, create stability in a country where both criteria are met.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Social/Teen Issues
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SXX75345-0-2616&artno=0000271051&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&title=As%20Spotlight%20Dims%2C%20Shadows%20Remain&res=Y&ren=N&gov=N&lnk=N&ic=N
As Spotlight Dims, Shadows Remain
This article, which comes from the Chicago Tribune, is about the racial tension that lies beneath a facade of peace in the US, and how their judicial system is riddled with flaws that allow for discrimination, as the future of the convicted hinges on the decision of the judge, who is human, and is therefore subjected to biasness in the form of discrimination.
The proof that was offered was a comparison between sentences meted out to white and black people who committed similar crimes, or crimes of a similar nature. The first example given was that of a 14-year-old black girl who was sentenced to 7 years in juvenile prison for pushing a hall monitor at her high school, whereas a white girl, also 14, was sentenced to probation for the crime of arson. These two cases were handled by the same judge and it is rather evident that the judge is biased in the favour of the white girl, as it is my opinion that arson is alot more serious than pushing someone, as arson has the potential to kill somebody, while the chances of a death occurring due to a push is extremely miniscule. It is also evident that a push does not warrant 7 years in juvenile, as these are everyday occurrences that might happen to anyone, and even 1 year in prison is overkill in such cases in my opinion. Yet, the same judge was able to sentence an arsonist to a measly probation term, when it warrants a much more severe punishment. The contrast that is shown is so obvious that I wonder how such a judge even acquired his position.
Another comparison raised was between two cases of assault, one by a group of white men on a mentally retarded black man, and another, where a group black students attacked a white student. In both cases the victim suffers severe damage, but the white men were only given a "slap on the wrist from local juries that regarded them as "good old boys" who made a youthful mistake." On the other hand, the black students were charged with attempted murder.
These two case studies show us that while the US hopes to project the image that the racial tensions there are a thing of the past, they are still very much real. While steps have been taken to prevent such incidences from occurring, they do not solve the root cause of the problem, the hate that the two races have for each other. To this day, this hate that seems to be overflowing from many Americans continues to baffle me. All this hate seems to come from nowhere in particular, and the fight continues, with no apparent aim in mind.
Perhaps counselling would be the way forward for the people in these states, although it can be seen that in Linden, the assault on Billy Ray Johnson has abated the conflict somewhat, as is evidenced when one of the residents there mentions that "as tragic as it was, the Billy Ray Johnson case united this town". I want to believe in this line, and to have hope that in the future, no matter how far down the road, we will have ceased to have racial conflicts ever again.
Witt, H. (2007, December 30). As the spotlight dims, shadows remain. Chicago Tribune,
As Spotlight Dims, Shadows Remain
This article, which comes from the Chicago Tribune, is about the racial tension that lies beneath a facade of peace in the US, and how their judicial system is riddled with flaws that allow for discrimination, as the future of the convicted hinges on the decision of the judge, who is human, and is therefore subjected to biasness in the form of discrimination.
The proof that was offered was a comparison between sentences meted out to white and black people who committed similar crimes, or crimes of a similar nature. The first example given was that of a 14-year-old black girl who was sentenced to 7 years in juvenile prison for pushing a hall monitor at her high school, whereas a white girl, also 14, was sentenced to probation for the crime of arson. These two cases were handled by the same judge and it is rather evident that the judge is biased in the favour of the white girl, as it is my opinion that arson is alot more serious than pushing someone, as arson has the potential to kill somebody, while the chances of a death occurring due to a push is extremely miniscule. It is also evident that a push does not warrant 7 years in juvenile, as these are everyday occurrences that might happen to anyone, and even 1 year in prison is overkill in such cases in my opinion. Yet, the same judge was able to sentence an arsonist to a measly probation term, when it warrants a much more severe punishment. The contrast that is shown is so obvious that I wonder how such a judge even acquired his position.
Another comparison raised was between two cases of assault, one by a group of white men on a mentally retarded black man, and another, where a group black students attacked a white student. In both cases the victim suffers severe damage, but the white men were only given a "slap on the wrist from local juries that regarded them as "good old boys" who made a youthful mistake." On the other hand, the black students were charged with attempted murder.
These two case studies show us that while the US hopes to project the image that the racial tensions there are a thing of the past, they are still very much real. While steps have been taken to prevent such incidences from occurring, they do not solve the root cause of the problem, the hate that the two races have for each other. To this day, this hate that seems to be overflowing from many Americans continues to baffle me. All this hate seems to come from nowhere in particular, and the fight continues, with no apparent aim in mind.
Perhaps counselling would be the way forward for the people in these states, although it can be seen that in Linden, the assault on Billy Ray Johnson has abated the conflict somewhat, as is evidenced when one of the residents there mentions that "as tragic as it was, the Billy Ray Johnson case united this town". I want to believe in this line, and to have hope that in the future, no matter how far down the road, we will have ceased to have racial conflicts ever again.
Witt, H. (2007, December 30). As the spotlight dims, shadows remain. Chicago Tribune,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)