Article address: http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12128
This article is about how the American government is trying to block out how severe global warming is affecting the world today. This article touches on the two categories of Political/societal issues and Environmental issues. In this article George Bush is seen to have asked scientists to omit parts of how much damage global warming is inflicting on us. It states that the government has documents containing hard evidence of an attempt by a senior administration official minimizing the potential danger of global warming, thus, misleading the public.
I think that the government should not be doing this. The article states that the effects of global warming are being hushed up so as to not shock the public. However, I feel that this is very wrong. Hiding the truth does nothing but harm. The government may feel that they are doing everyone a favour, but some, like me, may think otherwise.
By clearly stating the effects of global warming and by clearly stating out how much of danger we are in and also how we can prevent global from increasing at such an alarming rate we not only make people aware of the surroundings, but also show people how they can play a part to help conserve the environment. Many people have the attitude of “Its not my problem”. By showing people exactly how much danger we ware in, I belive that people will start steeping up and taking on active roles in saving the environment.
Not only that, if people are still worried, and start to panic the government can have talks to people telling them that even though global warming is a natural course and cannot be stopped, we can and must do our part no matter how big or small. Also, the government can issue pamphlets or brochures to educate the public. Citizens can then play their part by maybe starting campaigns. This will also increase the bonds between citizens.
So in conclusion, I feel that the government should not be so hard up to make the people feel that everything is all ‘smooth-sailing’. It is important for people to know that their actions have an impact on the society.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Sorry Dr Alfiani there was an error.i though you were referring to the group one under russell's blog. Here is mine.
Development is important to every society or country. However, development cannot happen without stability. A country which is always in constant warfare cannot develop.
However, democracy is not necessary for the development of countries or societies, even though most of the countries with the highest level of human development are democracies. Singapore and South Korea, both of which practices democracy, are amongst the world’s richest countries, but other democratic countries like India and China are both medium-developed countries. Japan, which along with India has one of Asia’s most stable democracies, is far more developed than India and even Authoritarian China is ahead of India in terms of development. Hence, it is logical that since democracy is not necessary for development, democracy is also not needed for creating stability in the society.
However, democracy enables people to choose those who govern them and also, their way of life. The people would satisfied about their way of lives and not create any trouble. In an undemocratic country such as Malaysia, where its dominant Umno party thrives on a strong Malay agenda, racial riots happen and disrupt the peace in Malaysia. From 1950 to 1990, riots and demonstrations in many countries have caused greater destabilization in dictatorships. Moreover, authoritarian states experienced more wars than democratic states, which are partly due to their high economic costs. An example would be the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, which were once regarded as models of development. These authoritarian states crumble because their rulers failed to manage the political and economic liberalization of the country. Hence, democracy, although it is not necessary for stability, it does ensure stability for the country.
The ideology behind democracy is freedom of the individual living in the country or liberalism. With freedom of choice, individuals in the society live equally and fairly, thus no violence or protests will occur. However, too much freedom could lead to conflict. Complete freedom of speech could lead to racist comments made by people about other races. Conflicts amongst races would then occur, and the stability of the society would be affected. Another factor that may come into consideration is that the leaders selected through the democratic process, who may just be charismatic but only adept at making false promises. This means that they take advantage of their term to do nothing but selfishly loot the society's wealth for themselves. This can also bring instability to a country.
To conclude, I have to say that democracy does not always create stability in a society. In the example of a democratic country such of that of Sri Lanka, there is still violence breaking out from the terrorist group Tamil Tigers and racial riots which happens everyday. Furthermore, democracy can logically be seen as having the majority rule the society. Should majority of the society be of less moral people, democracy would allow less morality in the society. Just because the majority want something to be enforced, it does not mean that it should be enforced any more than if the minority wanted it.
ahmad
Development is important to every society or country. However, development cannot happen without stability. A country which is always in constant warfare cannot develop.
However, democracy is not necessary for the development of countries or societies, even though most of the countries with the highest level of human development are democracies. Singapore and South Korea, both of which practices democracy, are amongst the world’s richest countries, but other democratic countries like India and China are both medium-developed countries. Japan, which along with India has one of Asia’s most stable democracies, is far more developed than India and even Authoritarian China is ahead of India in terms of development. Hence, it is logical that since democracy is not necessary for development, democracy is also not needed for creating stability in the society.
However, democracy enables people to choose those who govern them and also, their way of life. The people would satisfied about their way of lives and not create any trouble. In an undemocratic country such as Malaysia, where its dominant Umno party thrives on a strong Malay agenda, racial riots happen and disrupt the peace in Malaysia. From 1950 to 1990, riots and demonstrations in many countries have caused greater destabilization in dictatorships. Moreover, authoritarian states experienced more wars than democratic states, which are partly due to their high economic costs. An example would be the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, which were once regarded as models of development. These authoritarian states crumble because their rulers failed to manage the political and economic liberalization of the country. Hence, democracy, although it is not necessary for stability, it does ensure stability for the country.
The ideology behind democracy is freedom of the individual living in the country or liberalism. With freedom of choice, individuals in the society live equally and fairly, thus no violence or protests will occur. However, too much freedom could lead to conflict. Complete freedom of speech could lead to racist comments made by people about other races. Conflicts amongst races would then occur, and the stability of the society would be affected. Another factor that may come into consideration is that the leaders selected through the democratic process, who may just be charismatic but only adept at making false promises. This means that they take advantage of their term to do nothing but selfishly loot the society's wealth for themselves. This can also bring instability to a country.
To conclude, I have to say that democracy does not always create stability in a society. In the example of a democratic country such of that of Sri Lanka, there is still violence breaking out from the terrorist group Tamil Tigers and racial riots which happens everyday. Furthermore, democracy can logically be seen as having the majority rule the society. Should majority of the society be of less moral people, democracy would allow less morality in the society. Just because the majority want something to be enforced, it does not mean that it should be enforced any more than if the minority wanted it.
ahmad
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
mas selamaaat
okay finally I can get my post up.
Sorry Dr Alfiani because my computer is infected with spyware.
What do Malaysians say when Mas Selamat Kastari sneaks into Malaysia? They say "selamat datang" which means "selamat arrives" but it actually means "welcome". Or why not we call Mas Selamat Mas Scofield (Michael Scofield from Prison Break) and make a story called Toilet BReak. Funny? That's what alot of people seem to think. Mas Selamat has been the talk of the town but exactly what do we talk about him shows how we feel about the situation.
An article in The New Paper on 2 March 2008 has multiple edited pictures of his mugshot. In those pictures, he was given a moustache and a goatee, with a nearly-balded head and dyed hair. Another spots him wearinga scarf around his neck, covering half his face. Another has him wearing a cap sideways. The New Paper claims that these edited pictures can help the public spot Singapore's most wanted man( even the President doesn't get that much attention) but how can these specific pictures help. Yes it reminds us that this man can put ona disguise, but who does not know that he will put on a disguise? I guess we all expect him to be in a disguise(clown costume perhaps?) I thought that the New Paper just wanted to poke fun into the situation and make an indirect humour to the public.
Even the public does not take it seriously. And since even the media does not take it seriously. People take advantage of the situation to get their one-minute-of-fame by making prank calls and hoax threats. And these pranksters are of a mature age. Pretty irresponsible characters I must say. And even to us; Do we really bother to scan the public for Mas Selamat. We hear the repetative announcements that goes like " If you see any..." and we feel that it is just another thing we hear every morning or that the announcements are a torture device playing something over and over again.
I think, we should all take the matter as it is and take it seriously.After all, knowing MAs Selamat's links and motives, we can be sur ethat this man is a regional danger to us all. When do we take action? When our lives are threatened? If we want to capture this man, the whole region, if not nation, must do its part. So i say we stop complaining and joking and just put in a little effort to be aware of this short, not good-looking but dangerous and tricky man.
Ahmad
Sorry Dr Alfiani because my computer is infected with spyware.
What do Malaysians say when Mas Selamat Kastari sneaks into Malaysia? They say "selamat datang" which means "selamat arrives" but it actually means "welcome". Or why not we call Mas Selamat Mas Scofield (Michael Scofield from Prison Break) and make a story called Toilet BReak. Funny? That's what alot of people seem to think. Mas Selamat has been the talk of the town but exactly what do we talk about him shows how we feel about the situation.
An article in The New Paper on 2 March 2008 has multiple edited pictures of his mugshot. In those pictures, he was given a moustache and a goatee, with a nearly-balded head and dyed hair. Another spots him wearinga scarf around his neck, covering half his face. Another has him wearing a cap sideways. The New Paper claims that these edited pictures can help the public spot Singapore's most wanted man( even the President doesn't get that much attention) but how can these specific pictures help. Yes it reminds us that this man can put ona disguise, but who does not know that he will put on a disguise? I guess we all expect him to be in a disguise(clown costume perhaps?) I thought that the New Paper just wanted to poke fun into the situation and make an indirect humour to the public.
Even the public does not take it seriously. And since even the media does not take it seriously. People take advantage of the situation to get their one-minute-of-fame by making prank calls and hoax threats. And these pranksters are of a mature age. Pretty irresponsible characters I must say. And even to us; Do we really bother to scan the public for Mas Selamat. We hear the repetative announcements that goes like " If you see any..." and we feel that it is just another thing we hear every morning or that the announcements are a torture device playing something over and over again.
I think, we should all take the matter as it is and take it seriously.After all, knowing MAs Selamat's links and motives, we can be sur ethat this man is a regional danger to us all. When do we take action? When our lives are threatened? If we want to capture this man, the whole region, if not nation, must do its part. So i say we stop complaining and joking and just put in a little effort to be aware of this short, not good-looking but dangerous and tricky man.
Ahmad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)