The GP Tutor

No promises but GOALS!

2011-05-31T12:32:00.002+08:00

Ok, I have to stop making promises to myself as I rarely keep up to them. I have fallen ridiculously short on most promises. So I will set realistic goals. Something I am sure I can achieve and WILL ACHIEVE. Short time frame, only a schedule to follow until 25th June when my internship ends.

1) Walk/ Jog: Sleep by 11 pm ( discipline myself in this regard, cos little sleep is no solution).

2) Wake up at 6. Exercise for a minimum of 30 mins-max of 45.

3) After returning home , bathe and do kriya before eating. and then go for a short walk.

4) Study for 1.5hrs everyday! Again must do, try to finish physics by 25th june, or as much of it as posisble....

I have to stick to each of these goals and see how it pans out. OK I WILL STICK TO THESE just until 25th june and plan from there. And I will update this every Sunday just to ensure I am on track..

Anyone home?

2011-05-20T19:40:00.001+08:00

"Have you ever been alone in a crowded room?"

-Jack's Mannequin, "Dark Blue"

Cree Indian Proverb

2009-05-18T11:06:00.004+08:00

Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been
poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that
money cannot be eaten.
-- Cree Indian Proverb

This proverb means that after we have destroyed what natural resources our land has, then we will realise that money isn't everything, and will not be able to provide us with nutrients for survival.

A hypothetical example would be if a country has exported all her natural resources like timber, oil, wool, water, everything, in return for money, then they ultimately have to buy all these goods back from other countries because money cannot be directly consumed; it is just a medium of transaction.

That is why most countries in the world today are so concerned with sustainable development, because there is no point in having a large growth in the present but forgoing future growth so satisfy present needs (of having money). An example would be Singapore which focuses on supply side increment to boost future growth, like NeWater and investment in capital goods (like machinery). For NeWater, we invest a lot of money into trying to develop a method of desalination or converting seawater into drinkable water.

Many countries are not focused enough on sustainable development and they will suffer in the future. An example is Brazil which is clearing their rainforests for their plantations to thrive. This will affect them adversely in the long run because they would not have much natural resources left for future use.

Ruisi, Yadi, Baorong, Serene 09S06J

Do not be fooled into believing that because a man is rich he is necessarily smart. There is ampe proof to the contrary

2009-05-18T08:39:00.002+08:00

In today’s world, wealth does not reflect one’s intelligence, but it is about taking opportunity. Teachers are smart, but most of them are not rich. In the modern economy, opportunities are everywhere, and success only comes to those who make the most of them. Opportunity comes in many forms, as inheritance from the family, a business opportunity or just winning the lottery. Richest men in the world are people who do business, not scientists or inventors. A study of Jay Zagorsky, a research scientist at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research, shows that there is no relationship between IQ and wealth. People with high IQ face as much financial problems as low IQ people do.

Besides, with the influence of the media, one does not have to be smart to get rich. The celebrities’ world today is full of people who do not have good education. In sports, players in the EPL or NBA are highly paid. What they do have no relation with intelligence. All it takes are fame, beauty and talents.

In conclusion, there are rich people who are smart, but not all of them. Having low IQ is being handicapped and high IQ means advantage, but it does not tell anything about one's wealth. With globalization, it takes more than just intelligence to achieve success.

-Arjun, Toan, Trung, Lionel (6J)

“One must be poor to know the luxury of giving.”

2009-05-17T23:22:00.001+08:00

As Bill Gates claimed in one of his speeches at Harvard University, we can’t get people excited and involved in the movement to lift the unfortunate out of poverty unless they can see or feel the impact. In a well-developed country like Singapore, images of underprivileged children starving to death and dwelling in poor housing conditions are non-existent except through the media. Hence, logically, many may feel that citizens of such societies, due to their lack of exposure to scenarios of extreme poverty, might lack the ability to empathise and understand the first-hand experience of those victims.

Undeniably, being poor makes it easier for us to understand and empathize what it is like to be poor, and hence appreciating the luxury of giving. However, it must be noted that that is not a requirement. Rather, the understanding of the luxury of giving can be imparted through proper education systems and inculcation of good values such as sharing and giving. For example, the education system of Singapore emphasises on community involvement programmes, which includes helping the poorer people in Singapore through voluntary services and financial/provision aids. By going through such structured educational programmes, students will be able to learn and appreciate from young, the luxury of giving to the financially unprivileged. Therefore, it is not necessary that only people who have been poor can understand the luxury of giving.

Done by:
andrea, claire, joel, kersh, weiliang 09S06J

Don't be fooled into believing that because a man is rich he is necessarily smart. There is ample proof to the contrary. - Julius Rosenwald

2009-05-17T22:37:00.002+08:00

The above quote rightly affirms what we often see in society nowadays. Due to the fast pace of globalization and the lack of a level playing field in market economies, we often hear about how "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer". Part of the reason why the ever-growing upper-class is sustainable over a few generations is because the reins of family-owned companies are passed within the family, thus keeping the wealth within the family. As such, children who are brought up in these affluent households may be exposed to only the "good" in life, which may lead them to being apathetic of the plight of commoners in society.

With reference to the article "The End Of Poverty" written by Jeffrey Sachs, only 5 countries have met the goal of making sufficient contributions (7% of the country's GDP) to cut the world's extreme poverty in half by 2015 as based on the UN Millenium Project. It is already the year 2009, and the progress thus far towards the ultimate goal is rather dismal. This could be attributed to the apathy from developed countries, as even "Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers". Perhaps corrupt rulers could be blamed for the current situation in developing countries such as India where women in poor states are given the jobs of carrying away the contents of latrines and the men are simply non-existent. But the fact that these countries lack even decent leadership shows the extent of help that should be rendered to them. After all, corrupt leaders are merely focused on personal wealth and success. Helping developing countries "onto the ladder of development, [giving] them at least a foothold on the bottom rung, from which they can then proceed to climb on their own" doesn't necessarily mean removing such leaders. Barriers of trade could be removed and taxes on imports could be lowered. Such actions that impact the commoners directly (and that from international pressure) could give them the voice and confidence to overthrow corrupt officials.

A man who is rich may not be empathetic towards the poor as he has not experienced what the poor are suffering from - diseases, malnutrition, lack of education, etc. It does not make him dumb for being unable to have a first-hand experience of such living conditions, but it makes him ignorant of the less fortunate should he fail to try to understand what they are going through. Jeffrey Sachs also holds the belief that contributing towards eradicating poverty has a monkey see-monkey do effect, as "the broad public will accept such measures [to achieve the 8 goals of the UN Millenium Project], especially if they see that the rich within their own societies are asked to meet their fair share of the burden". Julius Rosenwald is proof that the contrary to the above quote, that the rich can be smart, exists as well as he founded Rosenwald & Weil Clothiers and used his wealth to establish the Rosenwald Fund for "the well-being of mankind". It was initially targeted at African American education, but later expanded to cover the finances of public schools, colleges and universities, museums, Jewish charities and black institutions, donating over 70 million dollars.

- Melissa, Bryan, Chenxuan, Yongsheng, Shiyang! :D (09S06J)

2009-05-17T21:39:00.002+08:00

"If you want to know what the Lord God thinks of money, just look at those to whom he gives it." - Dorothy Parker. Discuss.

In the case of Paris Hilton, it is a classic case of rich girl gone bad. Her exploits around Beverly Hills made possible because of her prestigious and affluent background have been in the limelight, topping them all with her recent one day jail term. Evidently, money here could be seen as a catalyst for many or if not all the worries and badness of the world, as goes the cliched phrase of the "root of all evil". God apparently has chosen to bestow money on bad and contemptable characters, illustrating his perhaps distaste or even the little good that he thinks of it. Thus, exacerbating the effect of money as an agent of evil.

Bernard Madoff is other example of placing money in the wrong hands. Making his company one of the top ones on Wall Street, Madoff was believed to be an extremely wise businessman. However, he abused his marketing ability to create the largest ponzi-scam ever in history, whereby almost $65 billion went into his own pockets. Now the money is nowhere to be found. Several charity foundations were forced to close as a result, and victims who were left penniless could have used the money to invest in other business that could have ensured them comfortable lives. Through this example, we cannot not admit that the money is given wrongly to a less suitable person.

While Parker may feel that money was given inappropriately and undeservingly to certain individuals, there are exceptions whereby money was given to kind souls. Bill Gates is known to be one such person. As the founder of a software company Microsoft, he evolved into a philanthropist as well, establishing a non-profit organization named Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This goes to show the good that people can do with money, and that God sees money as a tool of opportunity instead. By giving money to the people like Bill Gates, who was born into an upper middle class family, wealth distribution around the world can be enhanced and there is hope in resolving poverty problems.

All in all, we believe that money is merely a tool that is utilised by almost each and every human globally. How this "tool" is being used and for what purposes determines its value and worth in society. We cannot say that without a doubt, God has given money to either deserving or undeserving individuals, and thus thinks of the value of money in a certain manner. God has given almost everyone money. What people do with this money is what matters most. We are all given a choice. It depends on what we do with it.

Done by: Serena, Michelle, Xiao Xiao & Chelsia (09S06J)

Blog Response on Globalization

2009-04-21T03:14:00.002+08:00

What are your views? Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict laden world?
Globalization is a process of global economical, political and cultural integration. Yet as one may logically deduce its motive to be one that is altruistic, – to create a more homogenized and thereby peaceful world – what is apparent in the modern paradigm is one that is far from its original intention. On its way to creating a more peaceful world, globalization has instead engendered more conflicts than ever, an irony in itself.
The concept of globalization is not just confined to the economic or political realm, but it has also pervaded the sphere of cultures. True enough, globalization has opened doors for the exchange of cultures and traditions between nations. But what this brings with it is also the repercussion of culture and identity dilution. All thanks to globalization, nations around the world have been increasingly homogenized and their traditional rituals and practices have also been gradually eroded, or else tainted by the influences of other cultures. While homogeneity amongst people may serve to promote equality or at least equity, it may also breed conflicts sparked off by people who are hungry for a sense of identity. To these people, the paramount need to break out of the homogeneity could give rise to conflicts in order to show their dissatisfaction for the wearing away of their local cultures.

What are your views? Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique cultures and traditions, or would we end up being mini-Americas?
If we pay close attention to the world’s most active markets, they are mostly economies that are globalized and in some way or another, westernized and Americanized. Being part of the global economy requires us to advance towards the next stage of development, and that implies in part that we have to adopt the ways and cultures of America. However, it must be understood that nations in the global economy may be mistaken to end up being ‘mini-Americas’ for the simple reason that America is the modern epitome of a nation in its most mature stage of development. Hence, in trying to align themselves closer to the Americans’ ways of life in hope that economic success comes their way too, nations aspiring to have a bigger share of the global market tend to mimic Americans in all their endeavours, and in the process, trade off their own cultures and traditions. Having said this, it is not impossible to retain the unique cultures and traditions a country has. Albeit the corroding effects of globalization on local cultures and traditions, something can be done by the locals in a bid to retain the cultures in the country, and this hinges on the extent of the willingness of people to carry out such course of actions and inadvertently, it also pivots on the level of acceptance on the part of the rest of the nation. Governments should take the lead in the preservation of unique local cultures and traditions. Already, many schemes have been piloted for this purpose. For instance, in Singapore, the National Heritage Board has been set up to help champion the development of heritage and cultures in the local context, and in recent years, annual national heritage week has been celebrated by an increasing numbe people. The abovementioned shows us that while we cannot entirely shun away from being influenced by America’s cultures if we want to be part of the global economy, we still have some deciding power over the preservation of local cultures and traditions.

Is Globalization Imperialism repackaged?
Because of the increased interconnectedness of the world due to globalization, with the transfer of manpower and knowledge, comes the exchange of cultures as well. However, the appeal of certain cultures, especially that of American popular culture, stands out more than that of others. Thus, globalization could be argued to be a new form of cultural imperialism, particular by the West.
This is because in many countries, such as in the third world, the effects of globalization can be best seen from the Westernization of the locals. For example in the case of Bangalore, the newfound financial and domestic independence that young women experience has been influenced by Wilsonian idealism on self-determination. Furthermore, consumerism in such countries has soared, and demand for American brands and modes of entertainment has soared. Thus, with American culture seeping into such countries at such rapid rates, it seems as if it is a new form of imperialism.
However, the extent of these influences is determined by the people in that country – how Westernized Asia has become depends on how much its people subscribe to these foreign ideas. Thus, it cannot be said that globalization is a new form of imperialism, as the adoption of new culture are not being forced onto people; rather, people in increasingly cosmopolitan cities have decided to embrace these cultures for themselves. Thus, even though there is a form of cultural supremacy, it is one that has been created by the choice of the people being captivated by it.

Globalisation - Response

2009-04-21T00:45:00.001+08:00

1) Is globalization imperialism repackaged?

Imperialism is defined as extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, usually dominating its economic, cultural and political workings. On the other hand, globalisation reflects the increasing interconnectedness, integration and interdependency of the world today brought about by improvements in technology and telecommunication services.

Globalisation can be said to be imperialism repackaged

- Similar economic motives and hence outcomes for both processes: Imperialism resulted from the need for developed countries due to increased demand of cheap raw materials as well as to gain more markets and increase their consumer base as a form of maintaining their booming economy. Globalisation, similarly, is a process where countries seek to maintain their economic competitiveness by outsourcing their factories to lower-cost locations by utilising cheaper factors of production (i.e. labour) in those countries.
- In both processes, the winners (i.e. countries that benefit the most at the expense of others) are usually the developed countries that are economic juggernauts and have a strong political clout over other developing countries that may benefit unequally (e.g. due to profit repatriation in manufacturing industries) due to globalisation/ imperialism.
- Dilution of cultures may occur as a result of both the influx of foreign ideas from the colonial masters due to imperialism as well as increasing consumer convergence due to globalisation (i.e. more countries are consuming goods from all around the world)

Globalisation is not imperialism repackaged

- Imperialism means that a country loses its identity/ nationality totally as it is under the rule of another nation. However, globalisation retains the identity of each country, just that there is increasing interdependency between various countries.
- An advantage of globalisation involves the transfer of technology and skills to the developing world as workers learn to manufacture goods, but this is not seen in imperialism.

2) Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?

More peaceful

- Part of globalization deals with the creation of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and trade blocs (e.g. European Union) that allow more economic cooperation between countries
- Creation of international aid agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) has alleviated poverty in some of the poorest countries e.g. the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative by the IMF and offered assistance during emergency crises e.g. Debt Crisis in 1982

More conflict-laden

- Protectionistic measures by developed countries results in increased income inequality between the “haves” and the “have-nots”: measures such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in Europe and huge subsidies given to cotton farmers in America have led to the developing countries being unable to match the low prices of those in developed countries and are thus unable to sell off their exports and earn income
- Despite the creation of agencies such as the IMF and WB, aid given usually comes with strings/ conditionalities attached such that developing countries are unable to repay their loans in the future and become worse off. Moreover, these bodies are designed such that the powerful Western nations are favoured (e.g. countries like US are allowed a veto, enabling to block decisions that go against their own economic interests.)

3) Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture/ traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americans?

Culture Retained

- Globalization will definitely impact countries, but their culture can be retained if there is government intervention. By continuing to celebrate different religious festivals such as Deepavali or Hari Raya, it will help to retain a country’s unique culture/traditions.

Culture not Retained

- Globalization will affect local culture due to language barriers. English is widely accepted as the universal language. As such, this will give rise to the erosion of certain languages such as dialects. As countries become more and more globalised, dialects will slowly be forgotten and eventually be gone for good.

Done by: Christian Chow, Eugene Ang, Samantha Tang, Justin Liu, Vionna Luah
09S07A

Response - Globalization

2009-04-20T13:14:00.001+08:00

Is globalization imperialism repackaged?

At heart, imperialism refers to the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. Globalization on the other hand, is the process of transformation of local or regional phenomena into global ones, by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and function together.

The statement is true to the extent that Western Leaders, particularly the USA, have been the forerunner and leader in the global economic order, extending their power and influence all over the world. With globalization, we witness an integration of national economies into the international economy through mediums such as trade, foreign investment, capital flows and technology. For instance, through the creation of the Bretton Woods system (backed by USA) in 1944, consisting of the IMF, World Bank and GATT, 2nd, 3rd world economies are now exposed to western capitalist style of governance, one widely advocated and used by these Western Leaders. This is an illustration of how imperialism, under the hood of globalization, has allowed for the USA to establish economic control and influence over these benefitting nations.

Nonetheless, it is an overgeneralization to commit to the statement, as national sovereignty is still very much relevant in today’s context. Countries affected by globalization still have control over state affairs and policies, unlike that of Western Imperialism in the past. For instance, in the 1980s, socialist Burma and Vietnam had closed their doors to international trade through adoption of a ‘closed economy’. Furthermore, it is obvious that the global economy and international relations today are upheld by interdependency between nations, in order to benefit mutually. Thus, it is safe to conclude that globalization is not imperialism repackaged, but a showcase of Western influence over global issues.

Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?

According to the Dell Theory, it is believed that no two countries in a major global supply chain will ever fight a war against each other. In other words, one of the reasons why countries will refrain from attacking each other is because they stand to gain economic benefits through cooperation. With globalization, increased interaction between countries would lead to increased cooperation, not just in the field of economics, but also in other areas such as political alliances. Increased dependence on other countries helps to build a more peaceful world.

However, the Dell Theory is an over-generalized and over-simplified depiction of the world; it does not apply to every single country. Certain countries (albeit very few) have limited interaction with the rest of the world despite globalization, such as North Korea, and for these countries, they have little to gain from other countries and remain a potential source of global violence and conflict. Some third world countries still remain enclosed and share little interaction with the rest of the world due to inherent constraints like social disorder and technological limitations, and globalization would fail to address the problems of these countries and the world would remain conflict-laden.

Although globalization has created several problems for the world and further propagated them, it is ironic (but thankful) that globalization has also allowed us to more efficiently keep track of such problems and clamp down on them with no national or geographical limitations. Therefore, we must acknowledge that globalization remains a double-edged sword with both good and bad implications, but more importantly, it is up to the global community, rather than the trend of globalization itself, to create a more peaceful world.

Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americas?

Undeniably, there may be some erosion of our culture and traditions as other cultures increasingly influence our practices and way of living. It is apparent that Singapore is changing at a rapid rate, becoming more westernized. This is part of integrating into the global economy, which is largely dominated by America. However, although that may be the case, I think that it is still possible to preserve our unique culture and traditions as globalization is taking place. This would have to depend on the efforts of the state and the people of the country. For instance, the state can help to preserve the heritage of the country by promoting traditional festivals. In Singapore, the government puts in great efforts to retain and enhance places with a sense of history and identity. These conserved buildings can be seen in Chinatown, Kampong Glam, Little India and Boat Quay, which were the early ethnic settlements.

However, as the saying goes, it takes two hands to clap. Efforts of the government have to go hand in hand with that of the people in order to successfully retain our culture and tradition. People of the new generation especially, do not see the importance of retaining our own cultures and traditions. This can be seen during Chinese New Year which has become just another opportunity to travel for many. If our own people do not see the significance of it, then it would be difficult to achieve both aims.

Chin Yik Sin
Goh Ying Ying
Zhang Zhefei
09S07A

Blog response on globalization

2009-04-20T02:27:00.000+08:00

Is globalization imperialism repackaged?

There is now greater dominant direct control by western nations (where most of the MNCs are based in) over other less economically developed countries (eg. China, India) by utilizing their manpower there. This makes these economies increasingly dependent and beholden to these economies, since most of their employment is dependent on these MEDCs.

Beyond that, media advertising and a growing culture of "brand conciousness" can be seen as a way for established Western brands to gain a foothold in other markets. Soft power, in terms of music and entertainment can also be a way in which new imperialism is being spread, with Hollywood dominating box offices everywhere.

However, the emergence and globalization of the local brand of Bollywood and its growing popularity and success worldwide can be a direct counter to Hollywood and thus, it can be seen that there is a limit to actually the west becoming more imperialistic through globalization, since there are still channels for such local industries to emerge and have a foothold on the world market. Brand consciousness can work both ways, since decidedly Asian ones etc are also making their way to the West.

Thus, it's not so much imperialism, more a cultural mishmash, with the cosmopolitan equilibrium is shifting closer to other countries now that they have access to the same tools as Western countries. There is a global shift from "western-led" globalization, to one which is truly globalized, and a reducing trend of "western imperialism" and proliferation of the world market with china leading the pack.

Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?

The Dell theory suggests that, “No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain.”

However, the thing is: “Not everyone is an employee of Dell”, so there are people who fall through the cracks.

Globalization makes it easier for them to form covert operations with each other, as can be seen from drug trafficking being on the rise, like how Nigerian drug traffickers can easily come to Singapore to hire drug mules. These drugs in turn fuel violence in other parts of the world, like Columbia.

Increasingly global terrorist networks due to globalisation also make it difficult for government to contain their activities. They are now more connected, and it has become easier to communicate and hold potentially dangerous global terrorist threats, like through spreading terrorist notions on the web, like the Mujahedeen's poison's handbook.

Although at the same time, globalization makes police efforts more concerted and they are able to track these terror suspects together. As they are now more reliant on global communications, it also makes them easier to track. Like how there are international efforts to police the Gulf of Aden, given the pirate crisis.

Overall, we feel that if we compare against previous events, globalisation has created a more peaceful world, with less major large-scale wars. There is now increasing goodwill between governments these days, with closer ties and summits to solve global problems. While random spates of violence stemming from certain margins in society may seem to be on the rise, we are also now more aware and sympathetic to the needs and problems with the marginalized today due to easier access to world news these days, and there are signs of measures to rectify and address these grievances, which will improve conditions and help prevent such acts from happening in the future. World leaders can like pressure leaders of these countries to actually address these issues.

Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americas?

We can be unique, as can be seen from Singapore’s efforts to preserve heritage, like Chinatown, and promote the arts scene, as they recognize the need to be unique to stand out in this globalized world. It can also help in strengthening our psychological defence, to give citizens a sense of belonging to the country. This is especially important in our globalized world, where many local talents often look to go abroad.

When we say “mini America”, we're already talking about a cross cultural thing. But since America really doesn't have much other than the cultures of its own immigrants, more a “melting pot” of cultures.

However, beyond that, we feel that what is most important is what the citizens of that country choose to embrace, like how there's this village in Italy that kicked out their Macdonalds. Thus, we can't turn into a mini America unless we let ourselves to.

Governments can help prevent the impressionable youths of today from becoming "mini-americans" by promoting our own culture, while not being xenophobic about it.

Response by: Abigail Kang, Xue Qian, Shi Hua, Nicholas, Edith of 09S07A

Will globalisation benefit or disadvantage the poor in the world?

2009-04-19T23:18:00.000+08:00

During the past decades, we have heard steady proclamations from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank stating that their main aim to push for globalization is to help the poor and alleviate their suffering. However, in recent years, critics of globalization have claimed that globalization does not benefit the poor but on the contrary, disadvantage them. Now, whose claims are correct? And more importantly, does globalization help the poor and if so, to what extent?

Before I begin with my response to the above question, I would like to define the word - globalization. Globalisation can be defined in many different ways but I would like to define globalization as the process of transformation of local or regional phenomena into global ones, a process by which people of the world are unified into a single society and function together. Hence, according to this definition, globalization is not limited to the economic aspect but can refer to any aspect like the social aspect whereby cultures are exchanged. In my response, I would talk about the benefits of globalization to the poor and then, the disadvantages followed by a conclusion which weighs the benefits and disadvantages on the whole.

The benefits of globalization for the poor are many.

Firstly, globalization enables developing countries to engage with the rest of the world and in so doing, increase their economic growth, solving the poverty problem in their country. In the past, developing countries were not able to tap on the world economy due to trade barriers etc. and as such, they were left out on the shelves, not sharing the same economic growth that the developed countries had. However, with globalization, the IMF and the World Bank encouraged developing countries to undergo market reforms and structural changes through large loans. Most developing countries started to take steps to open up their markets by eliminating tariffs and deregulating their economies etc. and eventually, multi-national corporations (MNCs) from developed countries were able to invest in these developing nations, creating jobs for the poor. For example, rapid growth in India and China has caused world poverty to decline. Between 1987 and 1998, the share of the world's population that is poor fell from about 25 percent to 21 percent; the absolute number fell from an estimated 1.2 billion to 1.1 billion.

Secondly, through increased economic growth, living standards and life expectancy for the poor are inevitably improved. With more wealth, developing nations are able to provide better health care services and sanitation for its people. The poor will not be plagued with diseases which arise from dirty water and improper health care and as such, people fall ill less often, increasing life expectancy. In fact, with more money, the government of developing countries can also provide education for the poor. Illiteracy rates will thus decrease. This is seen in Morocco, a developing country, whose illiteracy rate fell to 39 percent just recently, in 2009. All in all, living standards and life expectancy of developing nations increase through economic gains from globalization. According to the World Bank, with globalization, more than 85 percent of the world’s population can expect to live for at least sixty years and this is actually twice as long as the average life expectancy 100 years ago.

However, apart from the benefits of globalization, we must also note the many disadvantages that globalization has created for the poor.

Firstly, globalization increases the inequality between the rich and the poor. As mentioned in my first point, globalization enables developing countries to increase their economic growth. This may seem like a rosy picture for world poverty but in actual fact, this is not the case. Many developing nations do benefit from globalization but then again, many of such nations do lag behind. In the past two decades, China and India have grown faster than the already rich nations. However, countries like Africa still have the highest poverty rates, in fact, the rural areas of China which do not tap on global markets also suffer greatly from such high poverty. Now, why do some developing nations benefit while others do not? The answer lies with the theory of globalization in itself. Those countries which have successfully used the ideal policies which the IMF and the World Bank (the IMF and World Bank push for globalization) have proposed will stand to benefit more while those who fail to, will be on the losing end. As such, when we look at globalization, it’s actually not the case that globalization has caused some of the developing nations to benefit a lot but rather it has caused many to be left out altogether.

Another reason for the inequality between the rich and the poor is the fact that there’s always something at stake whenever developed countries help the developing nations. Hence, there’s some kind of condition put in place which benefits the developed country and to some extent, enables them to exploit the poorer nations. For example, after giving financial aid to Tanzania, the IMF demanded the sale of its water system to foreign owners and an 80 percent increase in the price of its cooking oil and all these did not alleviate but rather worsened the poverty problem in Tanzania.

Secondly, globalization facilitates the spread of new diseases in developing nations. As mentioned in my second point, globalization increases living standards and hence, decreases the development of diseases. However, from another perspective, globalization does enable the spread of diseases from developed nations to developing ones. Due to increased trade and travel, diseases like HIV/AIDS, SARS and bird flu etc. are facilitated across borders. One good example will be that of Africa. In Africa alone, the AIDS crisis has reduced the life expectancy of its people to less than 33 years. In fact, the in surge of MNCs onto developing nations’ soil also causes diseases, which are common in developed countries, to develop in developing nations. For example, with globalization, fast food restaurants like McDonald’s and cigarette-producing firms are likely to tap on the cheap labor in developing countries. When these MNCs arrive, the locals will tend to be influenced by them and thus, start to consume fast food and smoke cigarettes. Eventually, diseases, like obesity and lung cancer, will plague the poor and this will become a serious problem, causing a huge financial burden to the developing nation.

Thirdly, the indigenous and national cultures and languages of developing nations are usually eroded by modernized globalised cultures. With globalization, the locals of developing nations have more contact with the people of developed countries and hence, they get influenced, changing their once simplistic mindset and start seeing things in a different light. In fact, they start to acquire new languages like English etc. and modernized cultures like fast food too. With knowledge of greener pastures out there, locals also start to migrate to developed nations to enjoy a better quality of life. Hence, when such locals return to their homeland, they speak with a different accent, behave differently and become a totally different person, losing their traditional cultures and lifestyle. In fact, they too relate their experiences to the younger generation and encourage them to go abroad. As such, this becomes a vicious cycle and the traditional way of life is lost in the process. In the social aspect, globalization thus becomes a disadvantage for the poorer nations.

In conclusion, globalization brings many benefits and disadvantages to the poor in the world. However, the disadvantages tend to outweigh the benefits on the whole and hence, globalization is definitely not the solution to solve world poverty. Governments of developed nations should actually collaborate to formulate a new policy or strategy which would enable the progress of more developing nations, leaving fewer of such nations behind. However, we must also note that every strategy has its benefits and costs and hence, there are bound to be countries at the losing end.

Brian Sim, Jamie Chow, Yong Sheng, Toan, Bao Rong

Blog Response

2009-04-19T22:57:00.004+08:00

Can we be part of the global economy & still retain our own unique tradition and cultures, or will we end up being mini-Americans?

The process of reshaping an economy and trying to fit it into the global market may lead to injecting new elements into the existing social culture,to include more cosmopolitic elements in the culture, especially in the entertainment industry -pop culture- in an economy. The entertainment industry is important because it represents one prominent aspect of human experience of the modern people today.

One of the most important multinational companies that influences culture to a large extent in our society is the MTV. MTV is introducing the American pop music into the local entertainment via many different channels like Youtube on the internet and Facebook advertising. Products authorised or directly produced by MTV are being sold in famous CD shops such as HMV and CD-Rama. Clips of MTV music videos are sometimes seen in public gathering places like McDonald's and inside shopping malls like Junction 8. The MTV not only introduces music, but also the American culture and values that are inherently displayed in most of its music products, and these culture elements- such as pursuit for the American Dream, liberal display of sexuality and individuality of teenagers - are no longer American but also becoming part of our local culture. More and more teenagers are seen wearing shirts featuring American pop singers like Eminem , and many are seen wearing the shirts with the lyric excerpts printed on it. This fashion signalled to us that the content of these musical products are being more and more accepted by local youth, and this to some exent made them mini-Americans because their culture is basically copied from the American pop culture, which is sold them by MNCs like MTV- thanks to globalisation.

Some may argue that local youth is becoming more and more media literate and is able to view these contents critically rather than just to accept all the culture contents blindly. Now, having said that teens are media literate, it is also noteworthy that the underlying assumption for this media literacy to function well in the youth is to provide them with a benchmark to allow them to distinguish the right from the wrong. The fact that local music industry is not as developed as the one in the States, and that not much local musical products that are on display advocates for our uniquely Singaporean culture (except for those special editions on sale during National Day Celebrations) raises the concern that our local youth may be losing their own identity, precisely because there is not enough counterparts in our local industry to offset the overwhelming influence of the American pop culture.

In conclusion, we think that our Singaporean youths are losing their own identity and they are
becoming mini-Americans in this more globalised world.

Chelsia Goh.Tan Kia Ern Michelle. Liu Ruisi. Teng Kersheng.

Will globalization benefit or disadvantage the poor in the world?

2009-04-19T21:43:00.001+08:00

Globalization has opened up the international market so that the developed countries could experience faster economic growth. Companies in developed countries begin to outsource in the less developed countries, as there are abundance of cheap labour. Although this maybe seen as exploitation by some, but to the poor, working at factories is at least better than plowing the land and facing the many uncertainties associated. Hence, globalization has benefited the poor by providing them with better working conditions and a more stable source of income in this aspect.

However, another aspect of globalization, foreign aid, has not been so successful. One particular problem came from the functioning of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and its policies. IMF is founded with the purpose of ensuring global economic stability. However, the policies IMF had designed for many developing countries were not suitable to their context. Also, the IMF is often oblivious to external views other than its own. Developing countries seeking assistance need to fulfill certain ‘conditions’ and would have their funding cut if they did not follow protocol. This often leaves the developing countries with little choice. For example, the financial market liberalization pushed by the IMF had caused mass bank failures in Kenya between 1993-1994 and soaring interest rates ensued. The forced cutbacks in health expenditure in Thailand by the IMF had allowed AIDs to increase.

In conclusion, globalization has its benefits but too often these benefits are not distributed to those most in need of them.

By Yande, Yadi, Arnold, Melissa and Chenxuan

Response to the 3 quetions on GLOBALIZATION

2009-04-19T21:42:00.002+08:00

Will globalization benefit or disadvantage the poor?

BENEFIT:
- The World Bank gives out loans to the poorer countries to support their national development. Therefore, the poor countries gain the monetary incentive to build their nations - Branches set up by MNCs in poorer countries provide source of employment for the people there. - allows developing nations to grow economically through trade (china, india able to exploit lower costs (comparitive advantage))

DISADVANTAGE:
- Inequality occurs as most of the benefits (in terms of profits) of globalization goes to the MNCs
(in the infopack, there is an example pointing out that from one shirt which costs $40, the workers only earn 15 cents off it)
- Exploitation of their resources due to globalisation
e.g. MNCs wanted to go to Bolivia to extract lithium, but the extraction would lead to environmental problems like pollution for the locals living there.

Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our traditions and cultures? or will we end up being mini Americans?

- Worryingly, there is indeed dilution of indigenous culture in some countries while they try to develop. Americanization is taking place in many Asian countries (fast food culture etc). Some liberal ideas from the west contradict with the traditional conservative beliefs, causing a dilemma in those who are caught up between the two.

- Although globalization leads us to adopting the American culture, but we can still do something about it and preserve our unique culture
One such problem: erosion of language: increasingly, students in Singapore are losing their ability to speak Chinese because they live in an environment where English is the official and most common language. Some of them only study Chinese for the sake of passing the compulsory exams. However, this problem can be solved by policies and campaigns implemented.
Moreover, globalization can be beneficial if we retain our own culture and learn to appreciate/understand foreign ones.

Globalization leads to peaceful or conflict-filled world?

CONFLICT:
- Globalization makes the world interconnected, and leads to more busybodies.
e.g. America tries to stop Iraq from its nuclear plan.
- Globalization widens the gap between the rich and poor when the unbalanced distribution of wealth is worsened by, Social tension is created.
- If there is a lack of understanding and communication, people from different culture may find it difficult to tolerate each other.

PEACE:
- Increased interdependence of countries means that gains out of wars/conflicts are minimized since national assets are at stake and countries affect one another’s economic survival.

We are: Wei Liang, QiaoEr, Claire, and Xiao2 ((:

2009-04-19T02:25:00.002+08:00

Is globalization imperialism repackaged?

By definition, imperialism is a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. With globalization, we see local and regional trends spreading out to the rest of the world through a mix of economic, sociocultural, technological and political influences. This can be attributed to international economic activities such as trade and investments as well as the wide usage of technology. To say that globalization is imperialism repackaged is true to a certain extent in that many developing countries are adopting methods of developing their economies that have been tried and tested by the Western economic powerhouses. In this way, we see that Western countries have in a way, extended their power and influence. This can be attributed to the setting up of MNCs in the developing countries and the consultative role the 1st World takes up. Coupled with the intervention by the 3 pillars of the global economy today, namely the World Bank, IMF and WTO, we see that Western countries have imposed their capitalist ways on the 3rd World. Hence, it can be said that globalization is imperialism repackaged.

However, it is important to note that the 3rd World still possesses some form of sovereignty in that they still have their own powers and rights and are not under extensive control by the Western nations. These nations still are able to make their own economic decisions, such as monetary policy and what industries to focus on. As such, while they may be influenced by the 1st World, they are in no way, under their legislation. Furthermore, there is increased interdependency nowadays. Outsourcing to the 3rd World in order to benefit from the lower costs of production has seen the 1st World's dependency on the 3rd World. The 3rd World has also acted as a larger market base for the established Western firms, while the 3rd World has been dependent on the 1st World for technology, expertise and even money. In conclusion, globalization is not imperialism per se, but rather an international exchange of influences and interdependency. Although it has been a case of strong Western influence over recent years that seemingly made globalization seem like Western imperialism.

Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?

More peaceful:

o Globalization results in countries becoming more dependent on one another economically. As supported by the Dell Theory, countries that are dependent on one another will refrain from going to war as a war may jeopardize their economy. An example would be Taiwan and China. Despite their territorial disputes, they have not gone to war with each other as they are actually highly interdependent on each other.
o Globalization has helped improve the financial situations in countries all over the world, particularly third world countries. As such, people are able to afford more education such that with education, they can seek good jobs and their standard of living increases. This can help create a more peaceful world as can be seen from the statements of the sole surviving bomber of the Mumbai train attacks. He testified that he joined the Lashka-e-Taiba (the terrorist group responsible for the attacks) as he had hoped to improve his family’s living conditions etc. As he was poor and uneducated, the only way he could earn money was to join the terrorist group. Hence, it can be seen that as globalization can help increase educational opportunities to people in the lower-income group, violent acts/terrorism can be reduced when the people are able to seek good, well-paying jobs.

More conflict-laden:

o While globalization can bring about wealth when there is reduction of trade barriers etc, globalization does not bring about wealth to everybody. This is because the increase in wealth is usually concentrated in the hands of the rich. Hence, the rich gets richer such that there is a widening of income gap. When this happens, the people in the low-income group tend to get dissatisfied such that they will try to retaliate through means such as violence/terrorism to make the world sit up and listen to them.
o Globalization has brought up the establishment of many Free-Trade Agreements (FTA). However, this has not totally improved the ease of trading in the economy due to protectionism still practiced by various governments. Forms of protectionism include export subsidies and tariffs. An example of protectionism would be direct subsidies whereby governments help their firms to adapt to the global market such that there is actually protectionism taking place.

Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americas?

We can be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions, however, this is only possible if action taken by the country to preserve its tradition through conservation and promotion of the cultural scene in the country.

By being part of the global economy, where market forces of demand and supply takes place, we see countries producing the goods and services that have higher demand, mostly from developed countries like America. With this increased output of such goods and services, and increased economic trade established between the countries established as a result, there is an increased level of integration and interdependence of the various countries' economies. With this increased interdependence between countries comes increased mingling of various cultures due to the effect of globalisation, enabled by improvements in infrastructure and IT. The worry here is that countries would subsequently lose their culture and forget their traditions as we all head towards a more Westernised way of living, which is seen in many developing countries as an ideal form of lifestyle with a higher standard of living, which they then pursue.

This can be seen in many newly industralised countries (NIEs) such as India, where the new generation is perceived to have a very different mindset from the older generations, having less respect for their festivals and rituals, which have been said to be the "very basis and foundation" of their culture. Instead, we see a new generation of Indians who have more lofty ambitions and aims in life, and wish to achieve them, which makes them busier and therefore having less time for these rituals. In another way, they are also less interested in these rituals as they pursue more practical ambitions of being able to stand up for themselves economically and aim to not be reliant on the nuclear unit of the family, which used to serve as an important "safety net" for the younger generation in the economic sense. By drifting away from the family, this important influence of the older generations slowly dissipates and this leaves the younger generation totally exposed to the commercialism that is the very reason why they are turning into mini-Americas, forgetting their own unique cultures and traditions.

Yet, we must not forget that the direction that a country takes with respect to the movement of culture within a country is largely dependent on the stance that the government takes. This stance refers to how much cultural exchange the government would allow for its country among other countries, which can be controlled and regulated. The reason why America for example is a giant melting pot of different cultures is because of the liberal stance which its government has taken, which has led to the large immigrant influx from Europe, Africa and South America. This eventually resulted in the prospering of their respective cultures within the country, becoming what we know of America, which is essentially very much like what the world would be like if everyone took the same stance as their government did.

We must, however, take into account that many countries put in a lot of effort to preserve their respective cultures and rich traditions, be it through investing in the local cultural scene or promoting nation-wide festivals and commemorating them. One prime example would be seen in China, where their government takes steps to maintain their traditions, be it the Chinese New Year rituals, which are maintained by most if not all Chinese yearly without fail, even if they do not happen to be in China, or investing in traditional Chinese medicine even if Western medical science is becoming more readily accepted by the rest of the world due to the greater scientific acknowledgement. While people would feel that the old-fashioned traditions would slow down their pace of innovation and development because they are outdated and no longer applicable to the new age of information and technology, many people still retain strong emotional bonds for their unique traditions which they had become accustomed to, passed down from countless generations before. This effort to retain their culture goes a long way in preventing them from turning into the mini-Americas mentioned earlier.

Countries also have further incentive to retain their respective cultures and traditions because of the role of tourism, which is becoming a more important source of income for many countries, creating jobs and increasing economic growth at the same time. One important form of tourism is heritage/cultural tourism, where one experiences the culture of the country primarily through its arts scene. By maintaining their unique culture through the investment into museums and supporting the tradition of indigenous cultural communities such as its festivals and rituals, the country would be able to attract more tourists to its country, which would be beneficial to its economy. An example can be seen in Italy, where opera remains an important source of entertainment in the country, and it is the site of the history of Roman culture, seen through the preservation of famous historical sites such as The Colosseum etc. With an increased focus on the preservation of the country's culture through the government's efforts once again, it is unlikely that the country would become a mini-America, even if it becomes a part of the global economy.

In addition, with the phenomenon of "glocalisation" existent in the world today, which is by definition people being willing and able to "think globally and act locally," countries are able to tap into their own strengths and areas of speciality for use on the global scale. An example would be yoga, which originated in India, and is now a very popular form of physical exercise and mental discipline around the world. At the same time, this helps to not only retain its own unique culture and lifestyle, but even seeks to showcase it to the world and change the lifestyle of others, preventing the country and others from turning into mini-Americas.

In conclusion, we can be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique cultures and traditions to a large extent, but only if the government chooses to mitigate the changes brought about by globalisation and take control over the state of the culture and lifestyle of the people.

By Yuwen, Timothy, Ivan, Ruiting of 7A

Globalisation

2009-04-17T21:13:00.003+08:00

Will globalisation make the world a more peaceful or a more conflict filled place?

PEACEFUL
- Economic prosperity for many countries; prosperity promotes democracy and the people will not want to go to war because resources and a stable lifestyle will have to be sacrificed for it.
- Tariffs are reduced in most countries as they become more open to trade
- Countries try to find their comparative advantage (eg. China's labour) and challenge high cost producers in rich countries.
- If every country produces goods based on their comparative advantage, global output would increase and if there is free trade, this would enrich all countries.
- E.g. India's call centre industry may collapse if she went to war with Pakistan, the industry leaders pressured the authorities not to go to war.

- Interconnectivity/interdependence
- Each country's issue becomes part of the world's issue, so a weak link in a developing country may affect the 'supply chain' and the top of these chains (i.e. big, rich economies) would be more inclined to help in the benefit of self-interest.
- If a country wants to go to war with another, other nations can help by mediation (it would not be beneficial to them if they went to war because precious resources would be lost, plus there could be economic repercussions in the world which would directly affect them)

CONFLICT
- Some developing countries may feel that it is unfair that the bigger economies are getting the most out of globalisation. May harbour grudges.

- Some people groups may also be unhappy that only the rich in society are benefitting (no trickle-down effect) E.g. India has young women working and spending like American women, but a short drive out of the urban area can have slums where there is no proper sanitation and running water. The widening income inequality may also contribute to social unrest within a country itself.

- Free trade all over the world may result in say, Country A having a consistent balance of payments surplus (basically more money inflow than outflow) which is okay by itself, but since BoP is a zero-sum game, another Country B would have more outflow of money than inflow (something like losing money). B may not be happy about her citizens buying so many imports from A and this may strain relationships between A and B.

Singapore Replies To 'Big Brother' By S.R. Nathan

2009-03-11T16:00:00.001+08:00

The Washington Post

9 March 1996, Final Edition

Stephen Wrage, who condemned Singapore in "Big Brother's Home" [Outlook, Feb 11], claimed that when he applied to teach at the National University of Singapore, the authorities demanded that the Singapore ambassador in Washington -- myself -- interview him for political reliability. The university never asked me to interview Wrage, nor did I do so.

It is untrue that Wrage was only permitted to teach a class at the university after 10 weeks in the country. He gave his first tutorial on Aug. 5, 1994, four weeks after his arrival, during the first week of the semester.

Wrage said that his department chairman brought two agents from the Internal Security Department to a colleague's office, where they questioned his colleague and stripped his office of papers, records and computer files. This colleague was Dr. Christopher Lingle. The officers were not security agents but ordinary police officers from the local precinct, investigating the case that led to Lingle and the International Herald Tribune's being convicted of contempt of court. They went to interview Lingle in the presence of his department chairman, and Lingle himself handed over the documents.

The police never visited Wrage's home to demand that he empty water from a saucer under a potted plant. But public health inspectors do routinely visit homes to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes, which transmit dangerous diseas es like malaria and dengue.

Wrage reported that in elections ballots are serially numbered, implying that this is to trace how people vote. Numbering ballots was standard British practice, introduced by the British colonial government to prevent stuffing of ballot boxes. After counting, the ballot boxes are sealed in the presence of candidates and their agents and are stored in the vaults of the Supreme Court for six months until the ballots are publicly incinerated.

Wrage said that Singaporeans can have their leases terminated and their apartments seized on a pretext. The Housing and Development Board repossesses an apartment only when the lessee breaches lease terms clearly stipulated in the law, for example by subletting to illegal immigrants. Compensation is paid. In 1995, out of 600,000 public housing apartments, only 15 were re-acquired.

There are no monitors in public housing apartment blocks to report on young women who have illegitimate children. Having a child outside marriage is not grounds for the housing board to take back an apartment.

Contrary to Wrage's allegations, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) is a compulsory savings plan, not a tax. CPF savings are protected by law against all claims. The government did not touch a cent of Lingle's CPF, which he withdrew in full. Lingle's other savings in the Academic Staff Provident Fund were also protected, except for debts due to the government and the university. Lingle's debts to the university were paid under a court order obtained by the attorney general following garnishee proceedings.

Wrage said students must be certified politically reliable before they may attend a university. This requirement was introduced in 1964 to meet the then serious threat of communist infiltration and subversion. But it was suspended 18 years ago, in 1978, after the threat receded.

Wrage repeated the allegation by Lingle and the International Herald Tribune that the judiciary are "utterly compliant." The Tribune admitted that this allegation was unfounded and apologized to the

Singapore

judiciary. The 1995 World Competitiveness Report, by the World Economic Forum, placed Singapore ahead of Hong Kong, Sweden, Britain and the

United States

in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice.

Wrage said that foreign student debaters had to sit in silence and watch the locals debate because someone had failed to apply for a permit from the Internal Security Department. The Internal Security Department had nothing to do with this. Foreigners who debate in public need the proper visa, which the organizers of the event did not apply for. It would have been issued immediately if they had. Although the foreign debaters did not speak at some exhibition debates, they did participate in the competition. The

Philippines

team won.

Wrage criticized the government's response to Catherine Lim, who had attacked the prime minister and his policies. He said she was "repeatedly humiliated on the front page of the Straits Times by Mr. Lee himself." Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew never responded to Lim's articles. It was Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong who rebutted her arguments and asked her to put her views to the ultimate test, by standing for elections and convincing the people that she was right and the prime minister was wrong.

How could this have humiliated Catherine Lim? Is this not how democracy is supposed to work?

The writer is Singapore's ambassador to the

United States

Big Brother's Home: The Country Is a Model, All Right -- of Dressed-Up Dictatorship By Stephen Wrage

2009-03-11T15:45:00.002+08:00

The Straits Times, 14 February 1996

The Washington Post published two commentaries on Singapore on Sunday. The first, by Nathan Gardels, which we reproduced on this page yesterday, praised Singapore for its achievements and argued that America could learn a few things from it. In stark contrast, the second article, by Stephen Wrage, was a scathing attack on Singapore. We reproduce it below not because we agree with it - indeed we cannot disagree more with it - but so that our readers are aware of what is being said about the country by its critics.

The Washington Post

11 February 1996, Final Edition

When Alexis de Tocqueville wanted to look into new forms of governance, he travelled west to the new world and spent nine months studying America. With the same idea in mind, but supposing that these days to find the new world one travels East, I went to teach for a year in Singapore.

I especially wanted to look into what Singaporean officials tout as a new, unique blend of Confucianism and capitalism, an Asian style of governance that corrects what they call the West’s excessive emphasis on the rights of the individual.

Singapore’s Government, the argument goes, focuses on the needs of the community and so spares its country the ills of the West while it promotes prosperity and general happiness. This new form of governance they call “authoritarian democracy”.

Since that country is a good deal smaller than the United States (three million people in a little over twice the area of Washington), I got to see it very thoroughly over the course of a year. At the outset, the country didn’t seem strange. Singapore is a modern, Westernised, consumerist society. The cultural overlap between Singapore and Tyson’s corner must be at least 80 per cent.

Nor was the famous skyline hard to get used to: “Like Rosslyn on steroids,” a DC friend remarked. The longer I stayed, however, the more peculiar Singapore became.

There was a grim air about the university. On the chairman’s desk, propped up on a little easel and aimed to catch your eye as you sat in the visitor’s chair, was a small sign that read, “An ounce of loyalty is worth more than a pound of cleverness”.

Though I came from a military academy and was not likely to be a radical, the Singaporean authorities demanded that I be interviewed for political reliability by their ambassador in Washington. I was directed to furnish copies of everything I had published and was required to have a phone interview with the acting chair of the department before I finally was pronounced acceptable. Even so, I was in the country for almost 10 weeks before I was permitted to teach a class.

It took months to piece together what I was seeing in Singapore. Why did the chairman of my department bring two agents from the Internal Security Department to the office of one of my colleagues and watch while they questioned him for 90 minutes and stripped his office of papers, records and computer files?

Why did the newspapers brag of the Government’s ability “to take a firm hand with irresponsible journalists”? Why was I visited after 10 pm by two policemen who demanded that I empty the water out of the saucer underneath a potted plant on my balcony (a threat to public health, they explained) and which of my neighbours had called them to turn me in?

It took the entire year to appreciate fully the achievement of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the man who ruled Singapore as Prime Minister from 1959 to 1990 and is still its dominant political figure in his role as elder statesman. Slowly his astonishing array of social controls became clear and the character of ‘authoritarian democracy’ became obvious. I found that no organisation on the island has been left unpenetrated by his People’s Action Party. His control of that compact and technologically sophisticated country is more total than any other national leader has ever achieved. Mr Lee has created the most perfectly realised autocracy anywhere, the world’s state-of-the-art dictatorship.

The press, the police and the military as well as the electoral, legal, housing, education, trade union and employment systems are all entirely under his control, so dissent, even at the polls (where voting is compulsory and ballots are serially numbered) is quixotic. Total government control of a very successful economy permits the regime to scatter largesse, so compliance is richly rewarded.

Mr Lee has woven a web of rewards and punishments around every aspect of life in Singapore. Nine out of 10 Singaporeans live in housing on 99-year lease from the Government. Their leases can be terminated on a pretext. In other words, their apartment, which typically represents most of their savings, can be seized.

On the other hand, if they behave well they get to live cheaply in safe, subsidised, spartan housing in a society where other real estate has been bid to well above Washington levels. If they do not behave, the consequences are dire. If, for example, a young woman engages in what the Government sees as morally inappropriate behaviour, such as having a child outside of marriage, she may be reported by the monitors in every housing block and expelled.

Singaporeans’ pensions are held hostage: Between 30 and 40 per cent of most people’s income is taxed away into a “Central Provident Fund” and held by the Government. Those who behave get a sterling reward: Their compulsory contribution is matched one-for-one by the Government. On the other hand, they live in fear that their retirement will be expropriated. My colleague Christopher Lingle, the American academic referred to above who angered the authorities by publishing a piece in the International Herald Tribune mocking Singaporean propaganda, lost about $20,000, all his savings in Singapore, in this way.

The education system is similarly rigged to provide huge incentives for compliance and lifelong punishments for deviance. Students must be certified politically reliable by the high schools or junior colleges before they may attend a university. Males undergo two or more years of compulsory military training before college; some among them are recruited by the Internal Security Department and directed to report on their instructors and their classmates. Refusing such recruitment, I was told, is not an option.

In sum, civil society has been dismantled; the judiciary is utterly compliant and the legal profession has been reduced to a largely technical function. Complaints may be submitted to the official “Government Feedback Unit”.

Legal protections of such basic rights as habeas corpus have been abridged and trial by jury has been abolished. Paradoxically, Singaporeans were much freer under the British than they are today under Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Their civil liberties had much fuller legal protection when they were colonials.

When one district in the city had the temerity to elect to parliament a candidate from the tiny, feeble opposition party, the Government launched a barrage of allegations, investigations and legal proceedings against him that lasted eight years, imprisoned him and left him ruined. When the victim took his case to the Queen’s Privy Council in Britain, they found he had been “fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which he was not guilty.” One year later, Parliament abolished appeals to the Privy Council for disciplinary matters.

Mr Lee also warned the dissenters that “the Government will not be blackmailed by the people... To make sure the excesses (votes against his party) are not carried too far... it is necessary to put some safeguards in the way in which people use their votes to bargain, to coerce, to push, to jostle and get what they want without running the risk of losing the services of the Government.”

Nonetheless, Mr Lee’s party intervenes to keep that opposition party alive, alternately mocking, intimidating and infiltrating it, then appointing a handful of its candidates to the Parliament, in order to sustain the fiction that genuine politics are possible in Singapore.

The striving for control takes laughable turns. Last year high school debating teams were imported from several countries to demonstrate Singapore’s openness, but someone failed to apply in time for the permit that must be granted by the Internal Security Department for any formal gathering. No exception could be made: the foreign students had to sit silent and watch the locals debate each other.

At other times, the control grows ugly. The leading creative writer of Singapore, Catherine Lim, was attacked and repeatedly humiliated on the front page of The Straits Times by Mr Lee himself after she made a cautious plea to the People’s Action Party to soften its style or risk creating an “affective divide” between itself and the people.

Mr Lee used the occasion to establish a new limit on political expression, describing how he would confront those who questioned him. “I would isolate the leaders, the trouble-makers, get them exposed, cut them down to size, ridicule them, so that everybody understands that it’s not such a clever thing to do. Governing does not mean just being pleasant. If you want a pleasant result, just as with children, you cannot just be pleasant and nice.”

Such language was printed with approval in all the papers of Singapore. Editorialists professed to find his statements “reassuring”.

But Mr Lee went further in his intimidation of Ms Lim: “Have a one-on-one. I’ll meet you. You will not write an article - and that’s it. One-to-one on TV. You make your point and I’ll refute you... Or if you like, take a sharp knife, metaphorically, and I’ll take a sharp knife of similar size; let’s meet. Once this is understood, it’s amazing how reasonable the argument can become...”

In this, as in all arguments in Singapore, Mr Lee has the last word. Outside Singapore, however, it is still possible to point out that under his rule “authoritarian democracy” has come to mean totalitarian control. What he touts as Singapore’s political innovation is in fact merely a sophisticated refinement of this century’s political invention: the totalitarian state.

The writer teaches in the foreign policy programme at the Johns Hopkins University’s Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. In the 1994-95 academic year, he was a visiting Fulbright fellow in the political science department at the National University of Singapore.

City of the Future: What America Can Learn From Post-Liberal Singapore By Nathan Gardels

2009-03-11T11:31:00.000+08:00

The Washington Post

11 February 1996, Final Edition

Fashionable though it may be to vilify Singapore as just one more historically outmoded dictatorship, a case can be made that it ought to be extolled as a model for the future when the center of gravity of human civilization shifts to Asia. Probably no place on the planet is as prepared to enter the 21st century as this orderly high-tech, middle-class, multiculturally tolerant -- but post-liberal -- city-state.

By the middle of the next century, Singapore's far-sighted (and highly paid) governing class will be remembered as one of the first to recognize that the small size of a city-state, once thought to be a disadvantage, is the most efficient scale for any stable polity in a perpetually shifting global economy.

As Singapore's young and impressive minister of information and the arts, George Yeo, says, "The information revolution will not dissolve the world into an amorphous mass of weakened political entities, but transform it into more efficient units of power -- crossroads cities like the big city-states in Europe or in China before the age of empire."

Singapore's governing class will also be remembered as among the first to see that nurturing the "cultural infrastructure" is every bit as important to the survival of a community as its physical infrastructure: that cultural self-determination for their small swatch of destiny is a post-modern virtue, that, indeed, it is the right of a community not to surrender supinely to whatever the entertainers, newsroom editors, executives and marketing wizards of the great Western media empires think is best for them.

Thus Singapore's leaders have not only built an air-tropolis and container port that are among the most advanced in the world, they are also hard at work wiring their society into cyberspace as a matter of policy. (Singapore has its own home page on the Worldwide Web and a program to ensure that all high school graduates have the skills to navigate the Net). At the same time, however, they are making a point of standing up to an "anything goes" world of information flows.

Lee Kuan Yew, still the eminence behind power in Singapore, made the point passionately during a long conversation last fall at Istana, the former British governor's residence in Singapore: "Good governance, even today, requires a balance between competing claims by upholding fundamental truths: that there is right and wrong, good and evil . . . . If everyone gets pornography on a satellite dish the size of a saucer, then governments around the world will have to do something about it, or we will destroy our young and with them human civilization."

This explicit willingness to meddle in the media has rankled the West no end and tarnished Singapore's reputation. New York Times columnist William Safire has made a regular practice of trashing the tyranny he sees in Singapore. Microsoft's Bill Gates told me after a visit to Singapore that "they want to have their cake and eat it too" -- they want cyberspace and control -- but "no place is an island anymore."

But there is another perspective. Is it really so heretical to suggest in the wake of the O.J. media circus, Calvin Klein's proto-porn teen ads, hyperviolent films, gangsta rap and the descent of the mainstream press into tabloidism that the Singapore authorities are not behind the times, but ahead of them?

Is it so outrageous to believe that those societies that ac monitor what their children are exposed to and how it affects them, that have no qualms about drawing the line between what is appropriate and inappropriate, are going to hang together better in the social squalls ahead than those that don't?

Perhaps it is time to consider the possibility that the Western attitude that has all but cast away the notion of appropriate social authority might be outmoded. After all, the key problem of Western civilization now is not the absence of tolerance, it is how to cope with so much freedom. Anyone who watches Jerry Springer, Ricki Lake or Sally Jessy Raphael has to know in their gut that the issue of our time is no longer which limits to erase, but where to draw the boundaries. Smelling political opportunity, even Bill Clinton and Bob Dole are onto this issue.

It is this context that makes Singapore's leaders post-liberal rather than merely reactionary authoritarians. Their stance arises not so much out of fear of what liberalism might mean to their hold on power but from the demonstrated failures of the permissive society carried to extremes. In America they have seen what for most of the postwar era was touted as the future, and it doesn't work.

I asked Lee if he agreed with Zbigniew Brzezinski's worry that "America's own cultural self-corruption -- its permissive cornucopia -- may undercut American's capacity, not just to sustain its position in the world as a political leader, but even as a systemic model for others."

"That has already happened," Lee responded. "The ideas of individual supremacy and the right to free expression, when carried to excess, have not worked. They have made it difficult to keep American society cohesive. Asia can see it is not working. Those who want a wholesome society where young girls and old ladies can walk in the streets at night, where the young are not preyed upon by drug peddlers, will not follow the American model." In other words, extremism in the name of liberty is a vice.

As always in our conversations, however, Lee was careful to praise America's innovative edge -- the genius of innovation and the ability to recover manufacturing productivity in the face of Japanese auto competition. But isn't that innovation and capacity for initiative linked to the very unfettered freedom he so condemns, I asked?

Not so, says the senior minister in a revealing insight that echoes those who have argued that America went wrong with the extremism of the "rights revolution" of the '60s and '70s. Lee similarly argues that when the lifestyle experiments of the cultural avant-garde are democratized, society subverts itself.

"The top 3 to 5 percent of a society can handle this free-for-all, this clash of ideas," he says. "If you do this with the whole mass . . . you'll have a mess. In this vein, I say, let them have the Internet. How many Singaporeans will be exposed to all these ideas, including some crazy ones, which we hope they won't absorb? Five percent? Okay. That is intellectual stimulation that can provide an edge for society as a whole. But to have, day to day, images of violence and raw sex on the picture tube, the whole society exposed to it, it will ruin a whole community."

Neither Lee nor Yeo, however, has any illusions that censorship can be effective. Rather, as Yeo put it, "censorship is a symbolic act, an affirmation to young and old alike of the values held by a community."

But ought this kind of power be in the hands of the state?

"What is the power of the state in local Singapore, a city-state with less than three million people?" asks Yeo in response. It is not, after all, a Leviathan like the old Soviet empire or even the French state or the American federal state. "We are really what in America is a local community. What we do is not so different from the people of Omaha or some other community saying, "We don't want the Playboy channel to play here because it is offensive and contrary to what we believe in."

Fair enough, but in the name of a wholesome and trusting society the Singapore government never hesitates to drag the Economist, the International Herald Tribune (which is co-owned by The Washington Post) -- or even the local Business Times to court for libel or for publishing leaked information. Isn't there a chilling effect, I asked, that will prevent the press from playing its critical check-and-balance role on corruption, nepotism or the manipulation of government information?

"If this were the case in Singapore," Yeo answers not wholly convincingly, "we would be destroying ourselves . . . . We are a nation of arbitrageurs. We can't afford to be a nanosecond behind Tokyo, London or New York. For us to try to limit information to a banker, a trader or a journalist would sound the death knell for Singapore. It would be contrary to our entire economic strategy."

Whatever one's doubts, this balancing act of good governance that guards the integrity of the cultural infrastructure in an efficient city-state of manageable administrative scale has been highly successful.

Anyone arriving in Singapore from the poverty and chaos of Calcutta or even Bangkok will readily acknowledge that it is a social model that works. Though it can be seen as one huge, immaculate shopping mall that is comparatively boring on the evening entertainment front, it is undeniably a very decent place. Indeed, the indices of social decency in this island nation of just under 3 million people are a reverse mirror image of the indices of American social decay.

Drugs are nonexistent as a result of one of the toughest policies in the world. On your immigration card you cannot miss the bold warning in red ink that drug smuggling carries a mandatory penalty of death. The boulevards, landscaped with palms and orchids, are spotless. Graffiti, penalized by caning as we know from the Michael Fay case, is nonexistent. Famously, women can safely walk the street alone, late and in the dark.

The standard of living in Singapore is as high as in many European countries, and more egalitarian. Fifteen years ago, the average income of the top 20 percent was 14.4 times that of the bottom 20 percent; by 1994, it was only 10.5 times as great. In that same period, the average income of the top 20 percent fell 3 percent while the average income of the middle 60 percent rose more than 4 percent. Savings rates are as high as they get in any society.

Chinese (who dominate ethnically) and Malays, Hindus and Muslims live and work together side by side as harmoniously as anywhere else. English is the dominant language to reach the outside world. Mandarin the inside. English is the language of the important newspapers; Mandarin the language of the most popular television channel. There are also Hindi and Malay TV stations.

Any businessman will tell you that Singapore is one of the few places in Asia where you can trust the rule of law not to be wholly corrupted. In a region where the notoriously blurry line between connections (guanxi) and corruption pervades all commerce, Singapore stands out. Late last year Fortune magazine named Singapore the best place in the world to do business.

At a time when so many societies are decaying or growing out of control, Singapore is going to make it. It is a place where I would feel comfortable raising my children but, admittedly, would hesitate to live as an adult. That I, like so many others, sometimes arrive at just the opposite conclusion about the United States assures that the Singapore model will continue to resonate as a critique of permissive societies run amok well into the next century.

Nathan Gardels is editor of New Perspectives Quarterly and the Global Viewpoint service of the Los Angeles Times Syndicate. His forthcoming book of essays and interviews is entitled "At Century's End: Great Minds Reflect on Our Times."

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

2009-02-20T18:25:00.001+08:00

Summary

The Communist Manifesto reflects an attempt to explain the goals of Communism, as well as the theory underlying this movement. It argues that class struggles, or the exploitation of one class by another, are the motivating force behind all historical developments. Class relationships are defined by an era's means of production. However, eventually these relationships cease to be compatible with the developing forces of production. At this point, a revolution occurs and a new class emerges as the ruling one. This process represents the "march of history" as driven by larger economic forces.

Modern Industrial society in specific is characterized by class conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. However, the productive forces of capitalism are quickly ceasing to be compatible with this exploitative relationship. Thus, the proletariat will lead a revolution. However, this revolution will be of a different character than all previous ones: previous revolutions simply reallocated property in favor of the new ruling class. However, by the nature of their class, the members of the proletariat have no way of appropriating property. Therefore, when they obtain control they will have to destroy all ownership of private property, and classes themselves will disappear.

The Manifesto argues that this development is inevitable, and that capitalism is inherently unstable. The Communists intend to promote this revolution, and will promote the parties and associations that are moving history towards its natural conclusion. They argue that the elimination of social classes cannot come about through reforms or changes in government. Rather, a revolution will be required.

The Communist Manifesto has four sections. In the first section, it discusses the Communists' theory of history and the relationship between proletarians and bourgeoisie. The second section explains the relationship between the Communists and the proletarians. The third section addresses the flaws in other, previous socialist literature. The final section discusses the relationship between the Communists and other parties.

Context

In 1847, a group of radical workers called the "Communist League" met in London. They commissioned Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who had recently become members, to write a manifesto on their behalf, soon known as the Communist Manifesto. Marx was the principle author, with Engels editing and assisting. The Communist Manifesto was originally published in London in 1848. Of all the documents of modern socialism, it is the most widely read and the most influential. It is the systematic statement of the philosophy that has come to be known as Marxism.

Marx (1818-1883) was a German philosopher, economist and sociologist, as well as a political revolutionary. He met Engels (1820-1895) when he moved to Paris after 1843, and they worked together on several essays. Marx and Engels are best known for their revolutionary writings about Communism. One of Marx's primary intellectual influences was the work of G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel's theory presents history as a process in which the world becomes conscious of itself as spirit. Marx took this idea and furthered it, arguing that as man becomes conscious of himself as spirit, the material world causes him to feel increasingly alienated from himself. Escape from this alienation requires a revolution.

Marx and Engels were not simply content with theorizing about revolution in the abstract, however. They thought that theory was only useful insofar as it promotes social change, clarifying the proper means and ends of revolution; they were thus not only authors, but activists, and believed that by theorizing they were actively influencing history. The Communist Manifesto can be understood as one attempt to influence history by spreading information about the communist movement.

Marx's theory should be understood in the context of the hardships suffered by 19th-century workers in England, France and Germany. The Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries created a seemingly permanent underclass of workers, many of whom lived in poverty under terrible working conditions and with little political representation. The Communist Manifesto was written on the eve of the Revolution of 1848 in Germany. The failure of this worker and student-led revolution caused Marx to later revise some of the arguments and predictions that appear in the Communist Manifesto. However, the general structure of Marx's original arguments, as well as its revolutionary tone, remained unchanged.

Terms

Bourgeoisie - Composing the class of modern Capitalists, the bourgeoisie are the employers of wage laborers, and the owners of the means of production.

Means of production - The means of production include not only the physical instruments of production (tools, machines, etc.), but also the methods of working (skills, forms of cooperation, division of labor, etc.), and knowledge that can be applied to production (science, etc.).

Mode of production - The economic structure of society that defines people's mode of living. It consists of the means of production as well as the relations of production.

Proletariat - The class of modern wage-laborers. They do not have their own means of production, and therefore they must sell their own labor in order to survive.

Relations of production - The necessary relations between people as required for a certain form of material production. The relations of production refer to the distribution of the means of production, the forms of possession (collective and individual private property), and the distribution of the product.

Introduction and Section 1, Bourgeois and Proletarians (Part 1)

Summary

The Manifesto begins by announcing, "A spectre is haunting Europe--the spectre of Communism." All of the European powers have allied themselves against Communism, frequently demonizing its ideas. Therefore, the Communists have assembled in London and written this Manifesto in order to make public their views, aims and tendencies, and to dispel the maliciously implanted misconceptions.

The Manifesto begins by addressing the issue of class antagonism. Marx writes, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Throughout history we see the oppressor and oppressed in constant opposition to each other. This fight is sometimes hidden and sometimes open. However, each time the fight ends in either a revolutionary reconstruction of society or in the classes' common ruin.

In earlier ages, we saw society arranged into complicated class structures. For example, in medieval times there were feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices and serfs. Modern bourgeois society sprouted from the ruins of feudal society. This society has class antagonisms as well, but it is also unique: class antagonisms have become simplified, as society increasingly splits into two rival camps--Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

The Manifesto then shows how the modern bourgeoisie is the product of several revolutions in the mode of production and of exchange. The development of the bourgeoisie began in the earliest towns, and gained momentum with the Age of Exploration. Feudal guilds couldn't provide for increasing markets, and the manufacturing middle class took its place. However, markets kept growing and demand kept increasing, and manufacture couldn't keep up. This led to the Industrial Revolution. Manufacture was replaced by "Modern Industry," and the industrial middle class was replaced by "industrial millionaires," the modern bourgeois. With these developments, the bourgeoisie have become powerful, and have pushed medieval classes into the background. The development of the bourgeoisie as a class was accompanied by a series of political developments. With the development of Modern Industry and the world-market, the bourgeoisie has gained exclusive political sway. The State serves solely the bourgeoisie's interests.

Historically, the bourgeoisie has played a quite revolutionary role. Whenever it has gained power, it has put to an end all "feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations." It has eliminated the relationships that bound people to their superiors, and now all remaining relations between men are characterized by self-interest alone. Religious fervor, chivalry and sentimentalism have all been sacrificed. Personal worth is now measured by exchange value, and the only freedom is that of Free Trade. Thus, exploitation that used to be veiled by religious and political "illusions" is now direct, brutal and blatant. The bourgeoisie has changed all occupations into wage-laboring professions, even those that were previously honored, such as that of the doctor. Similarly, family relations have lost their veil of sentimentality and have been reduced to pure money relations.

In the past, industrial classes required the conservation of old modes of production in order to survive. The bourgeoisie are unique in that they cannot continue to exist without revolutionizing the instruments of production. This implies revolutionizing the relations of production, and with it, all of the relations in society. Thus, the unique uncertainties and disturbances of the modern age have forced Man to face his real condition in life, and his true relations with others.

Because the bourgeoisie needs a constantly expanding market, it settles and establishes connections all over the globe. Production and consumption have taken on a cosmopolitan character in every country. This is true both for materials and for intellectual production, as national sovereignty and isolationism becomes less and less possible to sustain. The bourgeoisie draws even the most barbaric nations into civilization and compels all nations to adopt its mode of production. It "creates a world after its own image." All become dependent on the bourgeoisie. It has also increased political centralization.

Thus, we see that the means of production and of exchange, which serve as the basis of the bourgeoisie, originated in feudal society. At a certain stage, however, the feudal relations ceased to be compatible with the developing productive forces. Thus the "fetters" of the feudal system had to be "burst asunder," and they were. Free competition replaced the old system, and the bourgeoisie rose to power.

Marx then says that a similar movement underway at the present moment. Modern bourgeois society is in the process of turning on itself. Modern productive forces are revolting against the modern conditions of production. Commercial crises, due, ironically, to over-production, are threatening the existence of bourgeois society. Productive forces are now fettered by bourgeois society, and these crises represent this tension. Yet in attempting to remedy these crises, the bourgeoisie simply cause new and more extensive crises to emerge, and diminish their ability to prevent future ones. Thus, the weapons by which the bourgeoisie overcame feudalism are now being turned on the bourgeoisie themselves.

Commentary

The Communist Manifesto opens with a statement of its purpose, to publicize the views, aims and tendencies of the Communists. As such it is a document intended to be read by the public, and it is meant to be easily grasped by a general audience. It is also meant to be a broad description of what Communism is, both as a theory and as a political movement.

In this first section, Marx already introduces several of the key ideas of his theory. One main idea is that all of history until now is the story of a series of class struggles. Underlying all of history, then, is this fundamental economic theme. The most important concept being discussed here is the concept that each society has a characteristic economic structure. This structure breeds different classes, which are in conflict as they oppress or are oppressed by each other. However, this situation is not permanent. As history "marches" on, eventually the means of production cease to be compatible with the class structure as-is. Instead, the structure begins to impede the development of productive forces. At this point, the existing structure must be destroyed. This explains the emergence of the bourgeoisie out of feudalism. It will also explain the eventual destruction of the bourgeoisie. Marx believes that all of history should be understood in this way--as the process in which classes realign themselves in compliance with changing means of production.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this theory of history is what it does not deem important. In Marx's theory, history is shaped by economic relations alone. Elements such as religion, culture, ideology, and even the individual human being, play a very little role. Rather, history moves according to impersonal forces, and its general direction is inevitable.

Marx believes that this type of history will not go on forever, however. The Manifesto will later argue that the modern class conflict is the final class conflict; the end of this conflict will mark the end of all class relations. This section begins to suggest why this might be, positing some of the ways in which the modern era is unique. First, class antagonisms have been simplified, as two opposing classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, emerge. Secondly, while exploitative relationships were previously hidden behind things like ideology, now the veil has been lifted and everything is seen in terms of self- interest. Thirdly, in order for the bourgeoisie to continue to exist, they must continually revolutionize the instruments of production. This leaves social relations in an unprecedentedly unstable state.

Section 1, Bourgeois and Proletarians (Part 2)

Summary

After examining the nature and history of the bourgeoisie, the Manifesto now turns to the proletariat. As the bourgeoisie developed, so did the proletariat, and it is the proletariat who will eventually destroy the bourgeoisie. The proletarians live only as long as they can find work, and they can find work only as long as their labor increases capital. They are a commodity, and are vulnerable to all the fluctuations of the market. Due to the development of machines and the division of labor, the proletarian's work has lost all "charm;" the proletarian is simply an appendage of a machine. Furthermore, as his work becomes more repulsive, his wage only decreases. Marx describes the worker as a soldier, and as a slave. Distinctions of age and sex are becoming less important as all people are simply instruments of labor. Furthermore, no sooner does the worker get his wages from his exploitative boss, then he is exploited by other bourgeoisie, such as his landlord.

The lower strata of the middle class, such as tradespeople, gradually sink into the proletariat. This is due to the fact that they lack sufficient capital, and the fact that technology has rendered their specialized skills no longer useful.

The Manifesto then describes the past history of the proletariat. As soon as this class was created it began to struggle with the bourgeoisie. This struggle originally involved the individual laborer, and later groups of workers, rebelling against the bourgeois that directly exploited them. These workers hoped to revive the medieval status of the worker. At this point, the workers were still disorganized, divided by geography and by competition with one another. Furthermore, when they did form unions, they were under the influence of the bourgeois, and actually served to further the objectives of the bourgeoisie.

However, with the modern development of industry, the proletariat increased in number, and became stronger and more concentrated. Furthermore, distinctions among laborers began to dissolve, as all shared equally low wages and equally unsure livelihoods. At this point, workers began to form trade unions and other associations, a process in which they are still engaged at the time of the Manifesto's writing. The proletariat is further helped in its unification by the increased means of communication made possible by modern industry, allowing for the struggles to take on national character. While the organization of the proletariat into a class is continually destroyed by competition among workers, each time it rises again stronger. Furthermore, as other classes try to use the proletarians to forward political their own ends, they give them tools to fight the bourgeoisie.

Marx explains that the only class today that is really revolutionary is the proletariat. All of the other classes that fight the bourgeoisie--such as the shopkeeper--are conservative, fighting to preserve their existence. Among the proletariat, however, the Old Society is already past preservation. "Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests."

Historically, the proletariat are also unique. In the past, when a class got the upper hand, it tried to subject all of society to its own mode of appropriation. However, the proletariat lack any property of their own to retain or expand. Rather, they must destroy all ways of securing private property at all. Another unique characteristic of the proletariat is that, while past movements were started by minorities, the proletariats are a vast majority, and are acting in the interest of that majority.

The proletarians' struggle is first and foremost a national struggle. Marx writes that he has traced the proletariat's development through a veiled civil war, up to the point of open revolution and the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Until now, every society has been based on class oppression. In order for a class to be able to be oppressed, however, its slavish existence must be sustainable, held steady: in contrast, laborers in modern industrial society are continually suffering a deterioration of their status; they become poorer and poorer. The bourgeoisie are thus unfit to rule, because they cannot guarantee "an existence to its slave within its slavery." Thus, with the development of Modern Industry, the bourgeoisie produces "its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

Commentary

Marx spends a significant portion of this section discussing the plight of the modern laborer. He argues that the worker is commodified, and seen as part of the machinery. He matters only in so far as he produces, and he does not have control over the fruits of his labor. The story of the laborer is a story of flagrant exploitation, and has had great resonance with many of Marx's readers.

Marx also presents ways in which the proletariat are a unique class. They are connected by improved communication, and by the miserable existence they share in common. They are also in the majority in society, and their numbers are increasing. The most significant trait of the proletariat, however, is that they have nothing to lose. By the nature of being proletarians, they have no power or privileges they must defend. Rather, to help themselves they must destroy the entire system. Because of this, when they have their revolution, they will destroy the entire system of class exploitation, including all private property. Thus, the stage of history that Marx is describing is the last stage. However, it is important to understand that this stage is only possible because of all the other stages that came before it. The proletariat had to be ready for revolution.

Section 2, Proletarians and Communists

Summary

The Manifesto then discusses the relationship of the Communists to the proletarians. The immediate aim of the Communists is the "formation of the proletariat into a class, [the] overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [and the] conquest of political power by the proletariat." The Communists' theory simply describes a historical movement underway at this very moment. This includes the abolition of private property.

Marx says that Communists have been "reproached" for desiring to abolish the "right" of acquiring private property through the fruits of one's labor. However, he points out, laborers do not acquire any property through their labor. Rather, the "property" or capital they produce serves to exploit them. This property, controlled by the bourgeoisie, represents a social--not a personal--power. Changing it into common property does not abolish property as a right, but merely changes its social character, by eliminating its class character. In a Communist society, then, labor will exist for the sake of the laborer, not for the sake of producing bourgeois-controlled property. This goal of communism challenges bourgeois freedom, and this is why the bourgeois condemn the Communist philosophy. Marx writes, "You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population." Despite what the bourgeois claim, Communism doesn't keep people from appropriating the products of labor. Rather, it keeps them from subjugating others in the process of this appropriation.

The Manifesto then addresses some objections to Communism. Many dissenters maintain that no one will work if private property is abolished. However, by this logic, bourgeois society should have been overcome with laziness long ago. In reality, it is presently the case that those who work don't acquire anything, and those who acquire things don't work. Other opponents hold that Communism will destroy all intellectual products. However, this reflects a bourgeois misunderstanding. The disappearance of "class culture" is not the same thing as the disappearance of all culture.

Marx moves to the arguments against the "infamous" Communist proposal of abolishing the family. He says the modern family is based on capital and private gain. Thus he writes, the Communists "plead guilty" to wanting to do away with present familial relations, in that they want to stop the exploitation of children by their parents. Similarly, they do not want to altogether abolish the education of children, but simply to free it from the control of the ruling class. Marx complains that the bourgeois "clap-trap" about family and education is particularly "disgusting" as Industry increasingly destroys the family ties of the proletarians; thus it renders family and education as means for the transformation of children into articles of commerce.

Communists are also criticized for their desire to abolish country and nationality. Marx replies that workingmen have no country; and we can't take from them what they don't have. National differences and antagonisms lose significance as industrialization increasingly standardizes life.

Marx then says that those charges against Communism based on religion, philosophy, or ideology "are not deserving of serious examination." Man's consciousness changes with the conditions of his material existence. "The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class." In response to the claim that there are certain universal ideas, such as that of Justice, that have transcended the vicissitudes of history, Marx replies that this universality is only an apparent one, reflecting an overriding history of exploitation and class antagonism. The Communist revolution is a radical rupture in traditional property relations. It should be no surprise that it accompanied by radical changes in traditional ideas.

We see then that the first step in the working class' revolution is to make the proletariat the ruling class. It will use its political power to seize all capital from the bourgeoisie and to centralize all instruments of production under the auspices of the State. Of course, in the beginning this will not be possible without "despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production." Probable steps in the revolution will include: the abolition of ownership of land; the institution of a heavy progressive or graduated income tax; the abolition of all inheritance rights; the confiscation of emigrants' and rebels' property, making all people liable to labor; State centralization of credit; State centralization of communication and transportation; State appropriation of factories, the gradual combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries, the elimination of the distinctions between town and country, and the establishment of free education for children.

When class distinctions have disappeared, public power will lose its political character. This is because political power is nothing more than "the organized power of one class for oppressing another." When the proletariat eliminate the old conditions for production, they will render class antagonism impossible, and thereby eliminate their own class supremacy. Bourgeois society will be replaced by an "association" in which "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

Commentary

One of Marx's most interesting claims in this section is that the ideas of religion and philosophy are actually rooted in people's material existence; particular ideas are only the results of certain relationships of production. The most enduring or prevailing ideas are simply those that serve the interests of the ruling class. Thus, the ruling class makes the rules that structure society, and supports those ideas that forward its own ends. For example, the bourgeoisie glorify property rights because they are the ones in society with property.

This is also the section where Marx gives a sense of what he thinks the revolution will be like. The workers become the rulers, and work to eliminate private property. It is important to consider in which instances the Manifesto is simply trying to describe a historical process, and in which instances it is also advocating particular methods and goals: Communism understands history to be an unchangeable force, but also as leading to a morally desirable outcome. The question thus arises, What is the Communist's role in the historical process? If the revolution is an inevitable force of history, we might even question why the Communist Manifesto is necessary.

Finally, this section is interesting because it exhibits Marx's techniques of responding to criticisms. Marx is harsh and often quite sarcastic about the critiques of Communism. Consider whether his approach is rhetorically effective. Would he be more convincing if he took a more serious tone about the critiques of Communism? Would the Manifesto retain its "revolutionary" character if he did change his tone?

Section 3, Socialist and Communist Literature

Summary

In this section, Marx presents and critiques three subsets of Socialist and Communist literature. The first subset is Reactionary Socialism. Reactionary Socialists include the Feudal Socialists, the Petty-Bourgeois Socialists, and the German, or "True" Socialists; all of these groups fight against the rise of the bourgeoisie and modern Industry, without realizing the historical process the bourgeoisie represent. Feudal Socialists were French and English aristocrats who wrote against modern bourgeois society. However, their chief complaint about the bourgeois was that it creates a revolutionary proletariat that will uproot the old order of society. Thus, they objected to the bourgeoisie because they were a threat to their way of life. The Petty- Bourgeois Socialists were a class that saw it would eventually lose its separate status and become part of the proletariat. Marx concedes that the Petty- Bourgeois publications successfully showed the contradictions of the conditions of modern production. However, their suggested alternatives to this contradictory system were either to restore the old means of production and exchange, or to push the modern means of production and exchange into the framework of old property relations. Thus, this socialism is "reactionary and Utopian" and can't accept the facts of history. Third there is German, or "True" Socialism. These German thinkers adopted some French socialist and Communist ideas, without realizing that Germany did not share the same social conditions as France. As contemplated by the German thinkers, the French ideas lost all practical significance and were "emasculated." These socialists supported the aristocracy and feudal institutions against the rising bourgeoisie, forgetting that the rise of the bourgeoisie is a necessary historical step. The "true" socialists support the interests of the petty- bourgeoisie, and thus support the status quo. They even reject class struggles. Marx claims that almost all of the so-called Communist and Socialist literature in Germany at this time are in fact of this character.

The second subset of Socialism is Conservative, or Bourgeois, Socialism. This subset reflects the desires of a segment of the bourgeois to redress social grievances, in order to guarantee the continued existence of bourgeois society. Followers of this idea include "economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, [and] hole-and-corner reformers of every kind." They want the advantages of the social conditions generated by Modern Industry, without the struggles and dangers that necessarily accompany them. "They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat." These bourgeoisie believe that the best society is the society in which they have power; they want the proletariat to keep its weak role, but to stop hating the dominant bourgeoisie. A second form of this kind of Socialism recognizes the fact that only changes in economic relations could help the proletariat. However, the upholders of this kind of socialism do not accept that such changes necessarily entail a destruction of the relations of production. Rather, they wish to make administrative reforms, which simply decrease the cost and amount of administrative work for the bourgeois government.

The third subset is Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. This subset originated with the first attempts of the proletariat to achieve their own ends. The attempts were reactionary, and the proletariat had not yet reached the maturity and economic conditions necessary for emancipation. These socialists therefore looked for new social laws to create the material conditions necessary to free the proletariat. Their writings are important because they attacked every principle of existing society, and are thus useful for enlightening the working class. However, they are of a Utopian character: although their vision did reflect authentic proletariat "yearnings" to reconstruct society, it was ultimately a "fantastic" vision, providing no basis for practical action. Thus the Critical-Utopian Socialists become less significant as the modern class struggle takes shape; lacking practical significance, their "fantastic" attacks lose theoretical justification. Thus, while the founders were in many ways revolutionaries, their followers are mere reactionaries. They oppose political action by the proletariat.

Commentary

This section is principally a review of other Socialist thinkers. Marx argues that each approach fails because it misses out on a key component of Communist theory. The Reactionaries fail to realize that the inevitability of the bourgeoisie's rise, and of their eventual fall at the hands of the proletariat. The Conservative Socialists, similarly, fail to see the inevitability of class antagonism, and of the destruction of the bourgeoisie. The Critical-Utopian Socialists fail to understand that social change must occur in revolutions, and not by pure dreaming or words.

For a modern reader, Marx's discussion of the second subgroup perhaps deserves the most consideration. The Conservative Socialism that Marx condemns is precisely the attitude embraced by countries like the United States toward the plight of workers. Welfare, Social Security and a minimum wage are all measures that Marx would dismiss as attempts to preserve the capitalist system by making the situation of the proletariat tolerable. It is worth considering, then, whether Marx's critique is convincing. Basically, Marx seems to argue that these "reforms" are actually done in the interests of the bourgeois, in order to placate the proletariat and make them accept their social role. Marx believes that this form of Socialism is misguided; he contends that the only way to really address the grievances of the proletariat is through a restructuring of economic and social relations. This is a revolutionary act; the suggested reforms of Conservative Socialists are merely palliative. How does Marx's critique hold up to states such as the U.S. or Western European nations--nations that have instituted such "Conservative Socialist" programs? Is Marx correct in stating that these reforms serve the interests of the ruling capitalists, and not the workers? Looking back from the present, and having thus seen "Conservative Socialism" in action, does historical evidence still support Marx's claims of the inevitability of a proletariat uprising? Does it support the desirability of such an uprising?

Section 4, Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties

Summary

The Manifesto concludes with a discussion about the role of the Communists as they work with other parties. The Communists fight for the immediate aims of workers, but always in the context of the entire Communist movement. Thus, they work with those political parties that will forward the ends of Communism, even if it involves working with the bourgeoisie. However, they never stop trying to instill in the working class a recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, and to help them gain the weapons to eventually overthrow the bourgeoisie.

Thus, "the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things." They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by forcibly overthrowing all existing social conditions. The Manifesto ends with this rallying cry: "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!"

Commentary

This final section reveals the political agenda of the Communists. Their final goal is always a proletariat revolution and the abolition of private property and class antagonism. Because they believe that history must go through a set of stages, however, this may mean sometimes supporting the bourgeoisie, in order to eventually make a workers' revolution possible. While the Communists have a strong theoretical foundation, integrating observations and predictions, they are also advocating those predictions, and attempting to accelerate their realization. Thus, they do not simply declare that workers shall one day unite. Rather, they call on workers to unite, promising them freedom and a better world. How separable are the political and theoretical messages of the Communists? Is the Communists' theory of history an essential part of its revolutionary message? Consider from a rhetorical perspective how the Communist cause might be helped or harmed by the claim that revolution is inevitable.

Political Economy of the Great Leap Forward

2009-02-13T18:40:00.001+08:00

Permanent Revolution and State Feudal Communes

By Satya J. Gabriel

A bird flies above
A wooden man-made figure
Of a bird flying.

The Great Leap Forward was an extraordinarily creative intervention in Chinese economic development. It is one of those "moments" in Chinese history that is testament to Mao Zedong's willingness to experiment, as well as his political savvy in seizing control of the apparatuses of government out of the hands of his intellectual and political adversaries within the Communist Party of China (CPC). Given that more conservative leaders, such as Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, described Mao's approach as "adventurism" and were, in general, not predisposed to experimentation (preferring, instead, to copy Stalinist industrialization, including the adoption of similar production technology and social arrangements as were found in the "western" capitalist economies --- what the leftists called "pulling the cart without watching the road") it is no mean feat that the Great Leap Forward could have been approved and adopted as policy. None of this is to be taken as indication of the Great Leap Forward's success, quite the contrary. The policy seems to have been an unmitigated disaster, generating a "crisis" in Chinese society that would ultimately be resolved in ways unfavourable to Mao's political, economic, and cultural vision of a future China. However, this doesn't change the fact that the policy was grounded in a logical theory of economic development (albeit not an orthodox version of Marxian theory --- Mao's theoretical arguments for the Great Leap Forward were, in fact, contrary to more conventional versions of Marxian theory, particularly the Stalinist interpretation of Marxian theory) and represented an unambiguous social invention --- an invention that was tested on a grand scale. Thus, when the invention proved faulty, the failure was similarly on a grand scale.

The failure of the Great Leap Forward was, no doubt, humiliating for Mao and the Left. But just as Mao had used the failure of the five-year plans as a weapon to beat the party conservatives into submission, the Right now used the Great Leap Forward to push back the Left and regain prominence within the Party. Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, and other more conservative members of the Party moved into positions of greater authority and influence and the Great Leap Forward --- which now appeared more like a Great Fall Downward --- was terminated.

Despite the failure of the Great Leap Forward and the later failure of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (henceforth referred to simply as the Cultural Revolution), the Maoist narrative of "permanent revolution," as embodied in the ideas of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, did not fail. It would be correct to say that the particular politics and economics of these two social movements has been largely discredited by mainstream social science and the current political orthodoxy in China, but not the ontological foundation for them: the Maoist narrative of the ongoing struggle within the social formation to destroy traditional (conservative) institutions, ways of thinking (consciousness), and social processes, such that a radically new set of institutions, ways of thinking, and social processes can be advanced remains a potent intellectual force in China.

Edited excerpt from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/sgabriel/economics/china-essays/4.html

URGENT: Help Mr Faizad win the Outstanding Youth in Education Award!

2009-02-11T09:59:00.003+08:00

Hello students of Mr Faizad,

I'm Mrs Eunice Toh -- Mr Faizad's GP colleague. I recently nominated him for the Outstanding Youth in Education (yes! he's still YOUNG!!) award given out by the Ministry of Education to capable young teachers and the nomination has been accepted.

The selection process requires me to submit a form that includes comments about Mr Faizad by his students.

Hence, this is an invitation to all of his students to give comments that will support this nomination.

Please try to give specific evidence in your comments rather than vague statements about how "awesome" Mr Faizad is...

Examples of areas you can comment on:
- how he motivates, encourages, inspires, challenges you
- how he helps you in character and moral development
- how he cultivates innovation and enterprise (like via this blog!)

Kindly send your SHORT comments to this blog OR if you want to be more discreet, my email add: low_wei_en_eunice@moe.edu.sg

Deadline: tomorrow, Thur 12 Feb 5pm latest.

So sorry about the tight deadline. I wasn't given much time to fill out the form.

Many thanks for your support.

Mrs E. Toh
GP tutor

Identify two ideas from the passage that challenge the status quo of your country. Do you think these ideas will work in your society?

2009-02-09T22:15:00.003+08:00

Two ideas from the passage that challenge the status quo of Singapore are that of Plato’s and Nietzsche.

The first idea is that of Plato’s. Plato proposes that the primary function of the state is to advocate and promote justice. He believes that the state should be just by allowing everyone to follow their own inclinations and talents. He does not encourage the striving for advancement and cut-throat competition in society. This is a stark contrast to Singapore’s meritocratic stance. Singapore advocates meritocracy, where people have to prove their abilities in order to advance in society. With meritocracy, competition is even more intense as people constantly compete to climb up the social ladder. Furthermore, Singapore is a pragmatic country where society favours certain talents that can help enhance Singapore’s economic status in the world. Jobs in the engineering and scientific research field, which can bring in higher revenue and income, may enjoy a slight advantage over a career in the theatre and the arts. As such, some people who have talent in the arts may force themselves to take up a career in the science field, going against their natural inclinations.

If Plato’s theory were adopted in Singapore, upward mobility would no longer be forced amongst people in society. Everyone can follow their inclinations and interests, and face much lesser competition. As a result, Plato’s theory may serve as an antidote to Singaporeans’ hectic and stressful modern lives. However, this is unlikely to work well in Singapore, a small and open economy with no natural resources. If meritocracy was not advocated, and people are allowed to pursue whatever dreams and interests they have, there may be an unequal distribution of talent in each sector. There may also be no incentive for people to work hard since there is no competition to the top. Singapore relies largely on its human resources to compete on the global arena and hence needs to develop talent that can aid in its social and economic development. Plato’s theory would hinder Singapore’s goal towards social and economic progress if the best talent are not developed, and people were simply allowed to pursue their own interests and inclinations.

The second idea is that of Nietzsche. German philosopher Nietzsche advocates and believes in. He feels that there should be equality of capabilities and that one group pursues advantages relative to another. This is in stark contrast to what the Singapore government is doing. The government believes and tries to provide equality of opportunities. In Singapore, individuals are usually not denied of an entry point but how that progress henceforth would depend on how they fare.

Thus Nietzsche’s idea will probably not work in Singapore’s context where meritocracy is much prized and valued as it allows individuals equality on opportunities. Also such a concept is very important in ensuring peace and stability in Singapore due to its multi-racial society. By practicing meritocracy, unhappiness between the different racial groups due to unequal opportunities and discrimination can be avoided. As such, if Nietzsche’s idea were to be implemented in Singapore, there will be much unhappiness between racial groups especially if the people in a certain racial group have better qualifications for education and job opportunities for example.

In addition, being small and lacking in resources, Singapore has to make the most of its few resources. One of these is its people. By ensuring equality of opportunities the Singapore government ensures that the best possible candidates are picked for various tasks and jobs. This in turn ensures that the government makes that most of its human resource. If Nietzsche’s idea were to be taken up, then Singapore’s human resources will not be maximised and this would hinder its development and growth.

Nevertheless, Nietzsche’s idea might work in Singapore as by ensuring equality of capabilities the overly competitive nature of Singaporeans might decrease. This is so as everyone in society is equal and thus there would be no need to compete with each other since everyone will be able to produce the same result. However this would be detrimental to Singapore as Singapore would then lose its competitive edge and fighting spirit to compete with other countries as competition within our society will probably help to increase the rate of development of our efficiency and capabilities.

Inez Foong, Rachel Chin 09S03K

2009-02-04T08:37:00.000+08:00

Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut (1961)

I'd like you to read this famous story and think about whether Nietzsche wasn't on to something when he criticized the naive idea of human equality.

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Some things about living still weren’t quite right, though. April, for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron’s fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.

It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn’t think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.

George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel’s cheeks, but she’d forgotten for the moment what they were about.

On the television screen were ballerinas.

A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.

“That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did,” said Hazel.

“Huh?” said George.

“That dance – it was nice,” said Hazel.

“Yup,” said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren’t really very good – no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn’t be handicapped. But he didn’t get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.

George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.

Hazel saw him wince. Having no mental handicap herself she had to ask George what the latest sound had been.

“Sounded like somebody hitting a milk bottle with a ball peen hammer,” said George.

“I’d think it would be real interesting, hearing all the different sounds,” said Hazel, a little envious. “All the things they think up.”

“Um,” said George.

“Only, if I was Handicapper General, you know what I would do?” said Hazel. Hazel, as a matter of fact, bore a strong resemblance to the Handicapper General, a woman named Diana Moon Glampers. “If I was Diana Moon Glampers,” said Hazel, “I’d have chimes on Sunday – just chimes. Kind of in honor of religion.”

“I could think, if it was just chimes,” said George.

“Well – maybe make ‘em real loud,” said Hazel. “I think I’d make a good Handicapper General.”

“Good as anybody else,” said George.

“Who knows better’n I do what normal is?” said Hazel.

“Right,” said George. He began to think glimmeringly about his abnormal son who was now in jail, about Harrison, but a twenty-one-gun salute in his head stopped that.

“Boy!” said Hazel, “that was a doozy, wasn’t it?”

It was such a doozy that George was white and trembling and tears stood on the rims of his red eyes. Two of the eight ballerinas had collapsed to the studio floor, were holding their temples.

“All of a sudden you look so tired,” said Hazel. “Why don’t you stretch out on the sofa, so’s you can rest your handicap bag on the pillows, honeybunch.” She was referring to the forty-seven pounds of birdshot in canvas bag, which was padlocked around George’s neck. “Go on and rest the bag for a little while,” she said. “I don’t care if you’re not equal to me for a while.”

George weighed the bag with his hands. “I don’t mind it,” he said. “I don’t notice it any more. It’s just a part of me.

“You been so tired lately – kind of wore out,” said Hazel. “If there was just some way we could make a little hole in the bottom of the bag, and just take out a few of them lead balls. Just a few.”

“Two years in prison and two thousand dollars fine for every ball I took out,” said George. “I don’t call that a bargain.”

“If you could just take a few out when you came home from work,” said Hazel. “I mean – you don’t compete with anybody around here. You just set around.”

“If I tried to get away with it,” said George, “then other people’d get away with it and pretty soon we’d be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn’t like that, would you?”

“I’d hate it,” said Hazel.

“There you are,” said George. “The minute people start cheating on laws, what do you think happens to society?”

If Hazel hadn’t been able to come up with an answer to this question, George couldn’t have supplied one. A siren was going off in his head.

“Reckon it’d fall all apart,” said Hazel.

“What would?” said George blankly.

“Society,” said Hazel uncertainly. “Wasn’t that what you just said?”

“Who knows?” said George.

The television program was suddenly interrupted for a news bulletin. It wasn’t clear at first as to what the bulletin was about, since the announcer, like all announcers, had a serious speech impediment. For about half a minute, and in a state of high excitement, the announcer tried to say, “Ladies and gentlemen – ”

He finally gave up, handed the bulletin to a ballerina to read.

“That’s all right –” Hazel said of the announcer, “he tried. That’s the big thing. He tried to do the best he could with what God gave him. He should get a nice raise for trying so hard.”

“Ladies and gentlemen” said the ballerina, reading the bulletin. She must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous. And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all the dancers, for her handicap bags were as big as those worn by two-hundred-pound men.

And she had to apologize at once for her voice, which was a very unfair voice for a woman to use. Her voice was a warm, luminous, timeless melody. “Excuse me – ” she said, and she began again, making her voice absolutely uncompetitive.

“Harrison Bergeron, age fourteen,” she said in a grackle squawk, “has just escaped from jail, where he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. He is a genius and an athlete, is under–handicapped, and should be regarded as extremely dangerous.”

A police photograph of Harrison Bergeron was flashed on the screen – upside down, then sideways, upside down again, then right side up. The picture showed the full length of Harrison against a background calibrated in feet and inches. He was exactly seven feet tall.

The rest of Harrison’s appearance was Halloween and hardware. Nobody had ever worn heavier handicaps. He had outgrown hindrances faster than the H–G men could think them up. Instead of a little ear radio for a mental handicap, he wore a tremendous pair of earphones, and spectacles with thick wavy lenses. The spectacles were intended to make him not only half blind, but to give him whanging headaches besides.

Scrap metal was hung all over him. Ordinarily, there was a certain symmetry, a military neatness to the handicaps issued to strong people, but Harrison looked like a walking junkyard. In the race of life, Harrison carried three hundred pounds.

And to offset his good looks, the H–G men required that he wear at all times a red rubber ball for a nose, keep his eyebrows shaved off, and cover his even white teeth with black caps at snaggle–tooth random.

“If you see this boy,” said the ballerina, “do not – I repeat, do not – try to reason with him.”

There was the shriek of a door being torn from its hinges.

Screams and barking cries of consternation came from the television set. The photograph of Harrison Bergeron on the screen jumped again and again, as though dancing to the tune of an earthquake.

George Bergeron correctly identified the earthquake, and well he might have – for many was the time his own home had danced to the same crashing tune. “My God –” said George, “that must be Harrison!”

The realization was blasted from his mind instantly by the sound of an automobile collision in his head.

When George could open his eyes again, the photograph of Harrison was gone. A living, breathing Harrison filled the screen.

Clanking, clownish, and huge, Harrison stood in the center of the studio. The knob of the uprooted studio door was still in his hand. Ballerinas, technicians, musicians, and announcers cowered on their knees before him, expecting to die.

“I am the Emperor!” cried Harrison. “Do you hear? I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once!” He stamped his foot and the studio shook.

“Even as I stand here –” he bellowed, “crippled, hobbled, sickened – I am a greater ruler than any man who ever lived! Now watch me become what I can become!”

Harrison tore the straps of his handicap harness like wet tissue paper, tore straps guaranteed to support five thousand pounds.

Harrison’s scrap–iron handicaps crashed to the floor.

Harrison thrust his thumbs under the bar of the padlock that secured his head harness. The bar snapped like celery. Harrison smashed his headphones and spectacles against the wall.

He flung away his rubber–ball nose, revealed a man that would have awed Thor, the god of thunder.

“I shall now select my Empress!” he said, looking down on the cowering people. “Let the first woman who dares rise to her feet claim her mate and her throne!”

A moment passed, and then a ballerina arose, swaying like a willow.

Harrison plucked the mental handicap from her ear, snapped off her physical handicaps with marvelous delicacy. Last of all, he removed her mask.

She was blindingly beautiful.

“Now” said Harrison, taking her hand, “shall we show the people the meaning of the word dance? Music!” he commanded.

The musicians scrambled back into their chairs, and Harrison stripped them of their handicaps, too. “Play your best,” he told them, “and I’ll make you barons and dukes and earls.”

The music began. It was normal at first – cheap, silly, false. But Harrison snatched two musicians from their chairs, waved them like batons as he sang the music as he wanted it played. He slammed them back into their chairs.

The music began again and was much improved.

Harrison and his Empress merely listened to the music for a while – listened gravely, as though synchronizing their heartbeats with it.

They shifted their weights to their toes.

Harrison placed his big hands on the girl’s tiny waist, letting her sense the weightlessness that would soon be hers.

And then, in an explosion of joy and grace, into the air they sprang!

Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well.

They reeled, whirled, swiveled, flounced, capered, gamboled, and spun.

They leaped like deer on the moon.

The studio ceiling was thirty feet high, but each leap brought the dancers nearer to it. It became their obvious intention to kiss the ceiling.

They kissed it.

And then, neutralizing gravity with love and pure will, they remained suspended in air inches below the ceiling, and they kissed each other for a long, long time.

It was then that Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, came into the studio with a double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun. She fired twice, and the Emperor and the Empress were dead before they hit the floor.

Diana Moon Glampers loaded the gun again. She aimed it at the musicians and told them they had ten seconds to get their handicaps back on.

It was then that the Bergerons’ television tube burned out.

Hazel turned to comment about the blackout to George.

But George had gone out into the kitchen for a can of beer.

George came back in with the beer, paused while a handicap signal shook him up. And then he sat down again. “You been crying?” he said to Hazel.

“Yup,” she said,

“What about?” he said.

“I forget,” she said. “Something real sad on television.”

“What was it?” he said.

“It’s all kind of mixed up in my mind,” said Hazel.

“Forget sad things,” said George.

“I always do,” said Hazel.

“That’s my girl,” said George. He winced. There was the sound of a riveting gun in his head.

“Gee – I could tell that one was a doozy,” said Hazel.

“You can say that again,” said George.

“Gee –” said Hazel, “I could tell that one was a doozy.”

The Prince

2009-02-04T08:35:00.000+08:00

Niccolo Machiavelli

CHAPTER XVII

Concerning Cruelty And Clemency, And Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared

COMING now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed. Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only.

And of all princes, it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers. Hence Virgil, through the mouth of Dido, excuses the inhumanity of her reign owing to its being new, saying:

Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt
Moliri, et late fines custode tueri. ¹

Nevertheless he ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable.

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties.

Among the wonderful deeds of Hannibal this one is enumerated: that having led an enormous army, composed of many various races of men, to fight in foreign lands, no dissensions arose either among them or against the prince, whether in his bad or in his good fortune. This arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty, which, with his boundless valour, made him revered and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, but without that cruelty, his other virtues were not sufficient to produce this effect. And shortsighted writers admire his deeds from one point of view and from another condemn the principal cause of them. That it is true his other virtues would not have been sufficient for him may be proved by the case of Scipio, that most excellent man, not of his own times but within the memory of man, against whom, nevertheless, his army rebelled in Spain; this arose from nothing but his too great forbearance, which gave his soldiers more licence than is consistent with military discipline. For this he was upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of the Roman soldiery. The Locrians were laid waste by a legate of Scipio, yet they were not avenged by him, nor was the insolence of the legate punished, owing entirely to his easy nature. Insomuch that someone in the Senate, wishing to excuse him, said there were many men who knew much better how not to err than to correct the errors of others. This disposition, if he had been continued in the command, would have destroyed in time the fame and glory of Scipio; but, he being under the control of the Senate, this injurious characteristic not only concealed itself, but contributed to his glory.

Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.

Note

1. ...against my will, my fate,
A throne unsettled, and an infant state,
Bid me defend my realms with all my pow'rs,
And guard with these severities my shores.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thinking It Over:

What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?

Taking It Further:

1) Looking at the state of modern liberal Western democracies today, are his views still relevant or are they archaic?

2) Are Machiavelli’s views of politics relevant to the context of Singapore’s political scene?

An Extract from The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes

2009-02-04T08:33:00.000+08:00

Chapter XIII

OF THE NATURAL CONDITION OF MANKIND AS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY AND MISERY

Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.

And as to the faculties of the mind, setting aside the arts grounded upon words, and especially that skill of proceeding upon general and infallible rules, called science, which very few have and but in few things, as being not a native faculty born with us, nor attained, as prudence, while we look after some what else, I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. For prudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men in those things they equally apply themselves unto. That which may perhaps make such equality incredible is but a vain conceit of one’s own wisdom, which almost all men think they have in a greater degree than the vulgar; that is, than all men but themselves, and a few others, whom by fame, or for concurring with themselves, they approve. For such is the nature of men that how so ever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent or more learned, yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves; for they see their own wit at hand, and other men’s at a distance. But this proveth rather that men are in that point equal, than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of any thing than that every man is contented with his share.

From this equality of ability arise the equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. And from hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath no more to fear than another man’s single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another.

And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any man to secure himself so reasonable as anticipation; that is, by force, or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can so long till he see no other power great enough to endanger him: and this is no more than his own conservation requireth, and is generally allowed. Also, because there be some that, taking pleasure in contemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, which they pursue farther than their security requires, if others, that otherwise would be glad to be at ease within modest bounds, should not by invasion increase their power, they would not be able, long time, by standing only on their defence, to subsist. And by consequence, such augmentation of dominion over men being necessary to a man’s conservation, it ought to be allowed him.

Again, men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon himself, and upon all signs of contempt or undervaluing naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (which amongst them that have no common power to keep them in quiet is far enough to make them destroy each other), to extort a greater value from his contemners, by damage; and from others, by the example.

So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.

The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of the other men’s persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name.

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thinking It Over:

In Hobbes’ opinion, what are the 3 primary causes of quarrel between Man?

Taking It Further:

1) Do you agree with Hobbes that Man is in a constant state of war? Why?

2) How would such a mindset affect the way contemporary societies are organised? Is this broadly beneficial or harmful to mankind?

Online: http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/leviathan/

Sample essay outline using the skills of concession/refutation AND expressing a qualified opinion of your own

2008-09-11T14:41:00.002+08:00

Is a world dominated by science a dream or a nightmare for future generations? (Cam 1998)

Introduction:

Bleak, dystopian views of a world dominated by science have been around for quite some time. Literature and popular culture have successfully embedded in our collective psyche such nightmarish worlds as Orwell’s “1984”, Huxley’s “A Brave New World”, or more recently, the Wachowski brothers’ “The Matrix” – all of which are worlds in which science and technology have a powerful influence. However, one might argue that if we continue to use science in a way that is guided by sound morals and a desire for the greater good of humanity, then a world dominated by science need not necessarily be a nightmare for future generations. It may not be a perfect dream in which one has nothing to fear, but it certainly does not have to be a nightmare that strikes terror in our hearts.

Argmt 1 (topic sentence):

Some may argue that a world full of surveillance technology is reminiscent of a nightmarish world where Big Brother is always watching. Privacy would become a thing of the past and there would be no guarantee that the surveillance information gathered will not be abused.

Refutation/concession:

While it may be true that surveillance technology in the wrong hands may violate one’s right to privacy, one must remember that in most democratic countries today, there exist checks and balances on the powers of governments to prevent or at least minimize this sort of violation. The answer to Juvenal’s famous question “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (ie. Who guards the guards?) is a range of checks and balances like legislation, the media, and lobby groups.

Argmt 2 (topic sentence):

Others may say that a world where biotechnology plays a dominant role cannot be anything but a nightmare – one characterized by Frankenstein food, armies of clones or a highly stratified society where being born an Epsilon Minus condemns one to a life of drudgery.

Refutation/concession:

Biotechnology may indeed have its dangers, but so does just about any other tool wielded by mankind. We do not refuse to use fire just because fire can pose great danger if it goes out of control. In the same way, we should not refuse to use biotechnology just because there are risks associated with it. The fact is that biotechnology, if used with prudence and caution, could do a great deal of good for humanity. Laws have been put in place to ban the practice of human reproductive cloning; research is being done to find viable alternatives to the sacrifice of embryos upon the extraction of stem cells; etc.

Argmt 3:

Yet others may say that the spread of nuclear power technology around the world ensures that our world will meet a nightmarish, apocalyptic end in the near future. Already, intransigent states like North Korea and Iran, as well as terrorist cells the world over, are suspected of being in possession of nuclear weapons. It will only be a matter of time, they argue, before these are unleashed upon the world. The concept of “mutually assured destruction” is an insufficient deterrent to some of these groups as they may have no qualms about sacrificing their own lives besides those of others.

Refutation/concession:

The fear that groups in possession of nuclear weapons may use them to destroy others and themselves is indeed very real. That is why the international community continues to engage with North Korea and Iran today, to try to broker agreements for disarmament. There has been some success lately, with North Korea pledging to disable its nuclear facilities and declare its nuclear programmes in exchange for energy aid and political concessions. At the same time, there is greater global cooperation today in dealing with terrorist networks and there have been some successes in foiling terrorist attacks. Etc.

An update on our case study on HOTA taken from ChannelNewsAsia :

2008-08-28T16:15:00.000+08:00

Retail magnate convicted in kidney-for-sale case ceases control of CK Tang
By Desmond Wong, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 27 August 2008 2055 hrs

SINGAPORE: Tang Wee Sung, former executive chairman of CK Tang, has been convicted of two offences under the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA) and Oaths & Declaration Act.

As a result, he has ceased to be the executive chairman and director for the company and any other Tangs-affiliated firms.

CK Tang has stated that this will not affect the daily running of the retailer, as its operations are currently undertaken by CEO, Foo Tiang Sooi.

Mr Ernest Seow has been appointed as non-executive chairman with immediate effect.

Tang, who was charged in July, pleaded guilty to two of three charges on Wednesday.

The first charge is for agreeing to buy a kidney and the other, for lying to the Commissioner of Oaths. The third charge - of lying to the Mount Elizabeth Hospital's Transplant Ethics Committee - will be taken into consideration during sentencing next week.

Medical Ethics (Conventions and Codes)

2008-08-27T14:38:00.001+08:00

The Declaration of Geneva

(World Medical Association, 1948, 1968, 1983)

Recited at the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:

I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;

I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;

I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity;

The health of my patient will be my first consideration;

I will respect the secrets which are confided in me, even after the patient has died;

I will maintain by all means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of the medical profession;

My colleagues will be my brothers;

I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics, or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;

I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from its beginning even under threat and I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;

I make these promises solemnly, freely, and upon my honour.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Code of Medical Ethics

(World Medical Association, 1949, 1968, 1983)

Duties of Physicians in General:

A physician shall always maintain the highest standards of professional conduct.

A physician shall not permit motives of profit to influence the free and independent exercise of professional judgement on behalf of all patients.

A physician shall, in all types of medical practice, be dedicated to providing competent medical services in full technical and moral independence, with compassion and respect for human dignity.

A physician shall deal honestly with patients and colleagues, and strive to expose those physicians deficient in character or competence, or who engage in fraud or deception.

The following practices are deemed to be unethical conduct:

Self advertising by physicians, unless permitted by the laws of the country and the Code of Ethics of the National Medical Association.

Paying or receiving any fee or any other consideration solely to procure the referral of a patient or for prescribing or referring a patient to any source.

A physician shall respect the rights of patients, of colleagues, and of other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences.

A physician shall act only in the patient's interest when providing medical care which might have the effect of weakening the physical and medical condition of the patient.

A physician shall use great caution in divulging discoveries or new techniques or treatment through non-professional channels.

A physician shall certify only that which he has personally verified.

Duties of Physicians to the Sick

A physician shall always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life.

A physician shall owe his patients complete loyalty and all the resources of his science. Whenever an examination or treatment is beyond the physician's capacity he should summon another physician who has the necessary ability.

A physician shall preserve absolute confidentiality on all he knows about his patient even after the patient has died.

A physician shall give emergency care as a humanitarian duty unless he is assured that others are wiling and able to give such care.

Duties of Physicians to each other

A physician shall behave towards his colleagues as he would have them behave toward him.

A physician shall not entice patients from his colleagues.

A physician shall observe the principles of the "Declaration of Geneva" approved by the World Medical Association.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Declaration of Tokyo

Preamble: It is the privilege of the medical doctor to practice medicine in the service of humanity, to preserve and restore bodily and mental health without distinction as to persons, to comfort and to ease the suffering of his or her patients. The utmost respect for human life is to be maintained even under threat, and no use made of any medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity. For the purpose of this Declaration, torture is defined as the deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession, or for any other reason.

1. The doctor shall not countenance, condone, or participate in the practice of torture, or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading procedures, whatever the offense of which the victim of such procedures is suspected, accused or guilty, and whatever the victim's beliefs or motives, and in all situations, including armed conflict and civil strife.

2. The doctor shall not provide any premises, instruments, substances, or knowledge to facilitate the practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or to diminish the ability of the victim to resist such treatment.

3. The doctor shall not be present during any procedure during which torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is used or threatened.

4. A doctor must have complete clinical independence in deciding upon the care of a person for whom he or she is medically responsible. The doctor's fundamental role is to alleviate the distress of his or her fellow men, and no motive, whether personal, collective, or political shall prevent against this higher purpose.

5. Where a prisoner refuges nourishment and is considered by the doctor as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially. The decision as to the capacity of the prisoner to form such a judgment should be confirmed by at least one other independent doctor. The consequences of the refusal of nourishment shall be explained by the doctor to the prisoner.

6. The World Medical Association will support, and should encourage the international community, the national medical associations, and fellow doctors, to support the doctor and his or her family in the face of threats or reprisals resulting from a refusal to condone the use of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulations in Time of Armed Conflict

(World Medical Association, 1956, 1957, 1983)

These regulations or guidelines sets out the WMA's standards on the medical ethical position of the physician during a period of war or other armed conflict. The statement was approved by the 10th World Medical Assembly in Havana in 1956, was edited by the 11th Assembly meeting in Istanbul the following year, and was amended by the 35th World Medical Assembly in 1983. The amended text reads as follows:

Regulations in Time of Armed Conflict

Medical ethics in time of armed conflict are identical to medical ethics in time of peace, as established in the International Code of Medical Ethics of the World Medical Association. The primary obligation of the physician is his professional duty; in performing his professional duty, the physician's supreme guide is his conscience.

The primary task of the medical profession is to preserve health and save life. Hence it deemed unethical for physicians to

Give advice or perform prophylactic, diagnostic, or therapeutic procedures that are not justifiable in the patient's interest.

Weaken the physical or mental strength of a human being without therapeutic justification.

Employ scientific knowledge to imperil health or destroy life.

Human experimentation in time of armed conflict is governed by the same code as in time of peace; it is strictly forbidden on all persons deprived of their liberty, especially civilian and military prisoners and the population of occupied countries.

In emergencies, the physician must always give the required care impartially and without consideration of sex, race,nationality, religion, political affiliation or any other similar criterion. Such medical assistance must be continued for as long as necessary and practicable.

Medical confidentiality must be preserved by the physician in the practice of his profession.

A physician shall use great caution in divulging discoveries or new techniques or treatment through non-professional channels.

A physician shall certify only that which he has personally verified.

Duties of Physician to the Sick

A physician shall always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life.

A physician shall preserve absolute confidentiality on all he knows about his patient even after the patient has died.

A physician shall give emergency care as a humanitarian duty unless he is assured that others are willing and able to give such care.

Arguments in “A Defense of Abortion” done by Mr Jarrod Lee

2008-08-27T14:36:00.001+08:00

Against Abortion

P1: The development of a human being from the point of conception through birth into childhood is continuous.

C1: To draw a line anywhere in this development is to draw it arbitrarily.

Ø NB: At this point, Thomson advances a version of the argument which is not necessarily the only version available.

Thomson’s version

P2: An arbitrary choice is a choice for which in the nature of things, no good reason can be given

C2: We should not make arbitrary choices (P2)

C3: We should not draw a line anywhere in the development of a human being from the point of conception through birth into childhood (C1, C2)

C4: We had better say that a foetus is a human being, a person, from the point of conception. (C3)

Counterargument via Counterexample

P1: The development of an acorn into an oak tree is continuous

C1: To draw a line anywhere in this development is to draw it arbitrarily. (P1)

P2: The path of development of an acorn is similar to that of a foetus

P3: It does not follow from P2 that we had better say that an acorn is an oak tree

C2: It does not follow that we had better say that a foetus is a person from the point of conception (P2, P3)

Ø But has Thomson deliberately presented a weak version of the argument against abortion?

Stronger version of Argument against Abortion

P1: The development of a human being from the point of conception through birth into childhood is continuous.

C1: To draw a line anywhere in this development is to draw it arbitrarily.

P2: To define what constitutes a person is important and has important ramifications

P3: We should not decide anything that is important arbitrarily.

C2: We had better say that the foetus is a person from the point of conception. (P2, P3)

Ø Does the addition of P2 make the argument stronger now and harder to resist? Why?

In any case, Thomson, as we have seen, does not rely on such a method to try and argue for abortion.

Indeed, what she has done is to be charitable and accommodates the argument against abortion, i.e. that she allows the argument that a foetus is a person from the point of conception to pass through.

Still, she seems to be able to put forth a convincing case for abortion, although she has had to weaken her case such that it is morally permissible (as opposed to morally laudatory) only for certain types of abortion and not all types.

This is what usually happens when you accommodate your opponent’s argument. But it doesn’t matter if your argument is not as strong, extreme and absolute as you had initially thought it would be. What is more important is whether your argument, at the end of the day, is logical and true.

Thomson’s question

Does it follow from the premise that a foetus is a person from the point of conception that we should never allow abortion?

Possible Argument against Abortion

C2: We had better say that the foetus is a person from the point of conception. (P2, P3)

P4: Every person has a right to life

C3: The foetus has a right to life (P4)

P5: No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body

P6: A person’s right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body

C4: A person’s right to life outweighs a mother’s right to her body (P5, P6)

C5: A foetus may not be killed

P7: Abortion is to kill a foetus

C6: Abortion denies the right to life of a foetus (P7)

P8: We should not do anything that denies the right to life of any person

C7: We should not perform abortion (P8, C6)

Thomson then goes on to present a thought experiment to show that this argument is flawed.

Thought Experiment: World famous Violinist

P1: All persons have a right to life

P2: The right to life outweighs your right to your body

C1: You cannot be unplugged from the violinist

Counterargument

P1: You did not consent to having the violinist hooked up to you

P2: The violinist has no relation to you such that you have a duty towards him

P3: If you did not consent to him being hooked up to you and you have no duty towards him, then you have no obligation to stay hooked up to him

C1: You have no obligation to stay hooked up to him (P1, P2, P3)

P4: To bear a baby is like to be hooked up to the violinist

C2: You have no obligation to bear a baby (C1, C2)

Ø Note that Thomson does talk about rape victims – But as she pointed out, it sounds weird that your right to life should depend on whether you are the product of rape or not.

Extreme View Against Abortion (impermissible even to save mother’s life)

Scenario: Either the mother lives or the foetus lives (and not both)

P1: To abort is to directly kill the foetus

P2: To not do anything to save the mother is simply to let her die

P3: The foetus is innocent, has committed no crime and is not aiming at his mother’s death.

4 possible P4

P4a: Directly killing a person is always and absolutely impermissible

P4b: Directly killing an innocent person is murder and murder is always and absolutely impermissible

P4c: One’s duty to refrain from directly killing an innocent person is more stringent than one’s duty to keep a person from dying

P4d: If one’s only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one must prefer letting the person die

C1: We should not abort even in the case when the mother’s life is at stake.

Thomson: P4a – P4d are all false

P4b – Can’t be murder if the mother performs an abortion on herself to save her life

Focus now shifts to Third Party Intervention

Why? Because there’s not much a mother can safely do to abort herself.

Thus, according to Thomson, “the question asked is what a third party may do, and what the mother may do, if it is mentioned at all, is deduced, almost as an afterthought, from what it is concluded that third parties do.

Objection!

P1: To treat the mother in such a manner is to treat her as an afterthought

P2: To treat someone as an afterthought is not to treat her as an end in herself

P3: A person is an end in herself

C1: To treat someone as an afterthought is to deny them the status of a person (P2, P3)

C2: To treat the mother in such a manner is to deny her the status of a person (P1, C1)

Thought Experiment: Tiny house, Giant Child

Scenario: Either we save the mother by doing something to stop the child growing or we allow the child to continue growing and eventually crush the mother to death.

P1: It is understandable that a bystander cannot choose between the mother and the child

Q: Does it then follow that a mother can do nothing to save her own life?

Thomson: No! You can do something to save your own life! You don’t have to wait passively for the child to crush you to death.

Argument?

P1: Everyone has the right to self-defense, including a mother

P2: To attack the child and stop it from growing, even if it results in the death of the child, is to act in self-defense

C1: The mother has the right to attack the child and stop it from growing, even if it results in the death of the child.

But! As Thomson points out, there are limits to this argument: you do not have the right to do absolutely anything to save your life.

Claim: If someone threatens you with death unless you torture someone else to death, I think you have not the right, even to save your life, to do so.

P1: The right to self-defense does not include the right to do anything whatever to save your life

C1: There are certain things you cannot do in order to save your life (P1)

P2: To torture someone is an atrocious act, one worse than killing the person who is threatening you

P3: The things you cannot do in order to save your life are atrocious acts, ones worse than killing the person who is threatening you

C2 : The right to self-defense does not give you the right to torture someone in order to save your life (C1, P2, P3)

The question to ask here is WHY?

Thomson simply states it, assuming that it is an obvious argument that anyone would agree with. But is it really such an intuitively right argument?

What is involved in the Right to Self-Defense? Or rather, what kind of response is allowed in the Right to Self-D?

According to Law, a Proportionate response to the threat you face. So, a modified version of Thomson’s argument might go like this:

P1: The right to self-defense does not include the right to do anything whatever to save your life

P2: A sanctioned response is one that is proportionate to the threat you face.

C1: There are certain things you cannot do in order to save your life, i.e. that your response to the threat you face must be proportionate (P1)

P2: To torture someone is always and everywhere a disproportionate response

C2: The right to self-defense does not give you the right to torture someone in order to save your life (P2)

But what makes P2 true? Can P2 be disputed? Or is it simply trivially true?

Think USA and Abu Ghraib prison camps. The Fight against Terror. ISA?

New Twist in the Argument

Thomson: Is the Right to Life as unproblematic as we think it is?

Thought Experiment: Henry Fonda

Scenario: Only Henry Fonda’s touch can save you

P1: You have a right to life

P2: Only Henry Fonda’s touch can save you

P3: Henry Fonda is in a far-off country

C1: It would be nice if he can come to save you (P1, P2, P3)

P4: To be nice to someone is not the same as to be obliged to do something for someone.

C2: Henry Fonda has no duty to come to save you even though it would be nice of him to save you (C1, C4)

P5: If it is not a duty to do X in order to save your life, then it is not under your right to life

P6: Henry Fonda has no duty to come to save you (C2)

C3: For Henry Fonda to come to save you is not under your right to life.

(P5, P6)

P7: To use another person’s body continually for a long period of time is similar to Henry Fonda coming down to save you

C4: Having the right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body – even if one needs it for life itself. (C3, P7)

C5: You can unplug the violinist from you, resulting in his death, and it would not be an unjust act. (C4)

C6: The right to life does not consist in the right to be killed (C5)

Ø So what does the right to life consists of if not the right not to be killed?

Thomson: the right not to be killed unjustly

Argument of Unjust Killing

P1: If you do not kill him unjustly, then you are not violating his right to life

P2: You are not killing him unjustly

C1: You are not violating his right to life (P1, P2)

Ø Implications of this argument?

Thomson: “it is by no means enough to show that the foetus is a person and thus has a right to life – we need to be shown also that killing the foetus violates its right to life, i.e. that abortion is unjust killing.”

P1: The relationship between Henry Fonda and you is similar to the relationship between a mother and her baby where the mother did not choose to have the baby in the first place and her life is at stake.

P2: The foetus’ right to life does not consist in not being killed but in being killed unjustly

C1: The mother does not violate the foetus’ right to life by abortion. (P1, P2)

Voluntarily calling it into existence VS Involuntary Impregnation

P1: The foetus has the right to the mother’s body if it was voluntarily called into existence by the mother

P2: To abort the foetus in such a situation is to violate its right to the mother’s body

C1: Abortion in such a circumstance is to kill the foetus unjustly (P1, P2)

P3: The foetus has no right to the mother’s body if it was not voluntarily called into existence by the mother

P4: To abort the foetus in such a sitation is not to violate its right to the mother’s body

C2: Abortion in such circumstance is not to kill the foetus unjustly (P3, P4)

Minimally Decent Argument

P1: There are cases in which it would be morally indecent to detach a person from your body at the cost of his life

P2: One such case is when it is only slightly inconvenient for you to keep him alive

C1: In such cases, you would be indecent if you were to unplug the person from your body (P1, P2)

Ø Does it follow then that if it is decent for you to act in such a manner that the person has a right to your body?

Thought-Experiment: Box of Chocs

Scenario: One box of chocs, two brothers. Box given to elder. Elder just eats, refuses to give to younger who pleads.

P1: The elder has a right to the box of chocs

P2: The younger has no right to the box of chocs

C1: The elder is not obliged to share the box of chocs with the younger (P1, P2)

C2: It would be decent of the elder to share his box of chocs with the younger and not a duty (C1)

Argument with Henry Fonda Part Deux

P1: Henry Fonda is just next door

P2: A touch of his hand on my fevered brow would save me

C1: He is obliged to come and save me (P1, P2)

Objection!

Thomson: How can it be that I have a right to him saving me just because he is now nearer when I did not enjoy the right earlier because he was further away?

Conclusion: To be decent is not the same as to fulfill one’s duty

Thomson’s Argument: Good VS Minimally Decent Samaritan

P1: Nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive.

P2: To save another’s life when it is only a slight inconvenience on you is to be minimally decent

P3: To save another’s life when it is a large sacrifice on your part is to be a Good Samaritan

C1: Nobody is morally bound to be a Good Samaritan (P1, P2, P3)

C2: Abortion, in some cases, would be not be minimally decent (P2)

P4: We should at least be minimally decent

C3: Abortion, in some cases, should not be performed (C2, P4)

A Defense of Abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson

2008-08-27T14:34:00.000+08:00

{47} Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is, or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak tree, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are. Arguments of this form are sometimes called "slippery slope arguments"—the phrase is perhaps self-explanatory—and it is dismaying that opponents of abortion rely on them so heavily and uncritically.

I am inclined to agree, however, that the prospects for "drawing a line" in the development of the fetus look dim. I am inclined to think also that we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Indeed, it comes as a surprise when one first learns how early in its life it begins to acquire human characteristics. By the tenth week, for example, it already has a {48} face, arms, and legs, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable.² On the other hand, I think that the premise is false, that the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. But I shall not discuss any of this. For it seems to me to be of great interest to ask what happens if, for the sake of argument, we allow the premise. How, precisely, are we supposed to get from there to the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible? Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus is a person, and hardly any time explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortion. Perhaps they think the step too simple and obvious to require much comment. Or perhaps instead they are simply being economical in argument. Many of those who defend abortion rely on the premise that the fetus is not a person, but only a bit of tissue that will become a person at birth; and why pay out more arguments than you have to? Whatever the explanation, I suggest that the step they take is neither easy nor obvious, that it calls for closer examination than it is commonly given, and that when we do give it this closer examination we shall feel inclined to reject it.

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible. but now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers {49} has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

In this case, of course, you were kidnapped; you didn't volunteer for the operation that plugged the violinist into your kidneys. Can those who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape? Certainly. They can say that persons have a right to life only if they didn't come into existence because of rape; or they can say that all persons have a right to life, but that some have less of a right to life than others, in particular, that those who came into existence because of rape have less. But these statements have a rather unpleasant sound. Surely the question of whether you have a right to life at all, or how much of it you have, shouldn't turn on the question of whether or not you are the product of a rape. And in fact the people who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned do not make this distinction, and hence do not make an exception in case of rape. {50}

Nor do they make an exception for a case in which the mother has to spend the nine months of her pregnancy in bed. They would agree that would be a pity, and hard on the mother; but all the same, all persons have a right to life, the fetus is a person, and so on. I suspect, in fact, that they would not make an exception for a case in which, miraculously enough, the pregnancy went on for nine years, or even the rest of the mother's life.

Some won't even make an exception for a case in which continuation of the pregnancy is likely to shorten the mother's life; they regard abortion as impermissible even to save the mother's life. Such cases are nowadays very rare, and many opponents of abortion do not accept this extreme view. All the same, it is a good place to begin: a number of points of interest come out in respect to it.

1. Let us call the view that abortion is impermissible even to save the mother's life "the extreme view." I want to suggest first that it does not issue from the argument I mentioned earlier without the addition of some fairly powerful premises. Suppose a woman has become pregnant, and now learns that she has a cardiac condition such that she will die if she carries the baby to term. What may be done for her? The fetus, being a person, has a right to life, but as the mother is a person too, so has she a right to life. Presumably they have an equal right to life. How is it supposed to come out that an abortion may not be performed? If mother and child have an equal right to life, shouldn't we perhaps flip a coin? Or should we add to the mother's right to life her right to decide what happens in and to her body, which everybody seems to be ready to grant—the sum of her rights now outweighing the fetus' right to life?

The most familiar argument here is the following. We are told that performing the abortion would be directly killing ³ the child, whereas doing nothing would not be killing the mother, but only letting her die. Moreover, in killing the child, one would be killing an innocent person, for the child has committed no crime, and is not aiming at his mother's death. And then there are a variety of ways in which this {51} might be continued. (1) But as directly killing an innocent person is always and absolutely impermissible, an abortion may not be performed. Or, (2) as directly killing an innocent person is murder, and murder is always and absolutely impermissible, an abortion may not be performed.⁴ Or (3) as one's duty to refrain from directly killing an innocent person is more stringent than one's duty to keep a person from dying, an abortion may not be performed. Or, (4) if one's only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one must prefer letting the person die, and thus an abortion may not be performed.⁵

Some people seem to have thought that these are not further premises which must be added if the conclusion is to be reached, but that they follow from the very fact that an innocent person has a right to life.⁶ But this seems to me to be a mistake, and perhaps the simplest way to show this is to bring out that while we must certainly grant that innocent persons have a right to life, the theses in (1) through (4) are all false. Take (2), for example. If directly killing an innocent person is murder, and thus impermissible, then the mother's directly killing the innocent person inside her is murder, and thus is {52} impermissible. But it cannot seriously be thought to be murder if the mother performs an abortion on herself to save her life. It cannot seriously be said that she must refrain, that she must sit passively by and wait for her death. Let us look again at the case of you and the violinist. There you are, in bed with the violinist, and the director of the hospital says to you, "It's all most distressing, and I deeply sympathize, but you see this is putting an additional strain on your kidneys, and you'll be dead within the month. But you have to stay where you are all the same. Because unplugging you would be directly killing an innocent violinist, and that's murder, and that's impermissible." If anything in the world is true, it is that you do not commit murder, you do not do what is impermissible, if you reach around to your back and unplug yourself from that violinist to save your life.

The main focus of attention in writings on abortion has been on what a third party may or may not do in answer to a request from a woman for an abortion. This is in a way understandable. Things being as they are, there isn't much a woman can safely do to abort herself. So the question asked is what a third party may do, and what the mother may do, if it is mentioned at all, is deduced, almost as an afterthought, from what it is concluded that third parties may do. But it seems to me that to treat the matter in this way is to refuse to grant to the mother that very status of person which is so firmly insisted on for the fetus. For we cannot simply read off what a person may do from what a third party may do. Suppose you find yourself trapped in a tiny house with a growing child. I mean a very tiny house, and a rapidly growing child—you are already up against the wall of the house and in a few minutes you'll be crushed to death. The child on the other hand won't be crushed to death; if nothing is done to stop him from growing he'll be hurt, but in the end he'll simply burst open the house and walk out a free man. Now I could well understand it if a bystander were to say, "There's nothing we can do for you. We cannot choose between your life and his, we cannot be the ones to decide who is to live, we cannot intervene." But it cannot be concluded that you too can do nothing, that you cannot attack it to save your life. However innocent the child may be, you do not have to wait passively while it crushes you to death. Perhaps a pregnant woman is vaguely felt to have the status of house, to which we don't allow the {53} right of self defense. But if the woman houses the child, it should be remembered that she is a person who houses it.

I should perhaps stop to say explicitly that I am not claiming that people have a right to do anything whatever to save their lives. I think, rather, that there are drastic limits to the right of self-defense. If someone threatens you with death unless you torture someone else to death, I think you have not the right, even to save your life, to do so. But the case under consideration here is very different. In our case there are only two people involved, one whose life is threatened, and one who threatens it. Both are innocent: the one who is threatened is not threatened because of any fault, the one who threatens does not threaten because of any fault. For this reason we may feel that we bystanders cannot intervene. But the person threatened can.

In sum, a woman surely can defend her life against the threat to it posed by the unborn child, even if doing so involves its death. And this shows not merely that the theses in (1) through (4) are false; it shows also that the extreme view of abortion is false, and so we need not canvass any other possible ways of arriving at it from the argument I mentioned at the outset.

2. The extreme view could of course be weakened to say that while abortion is permissible to save the mother's life, it may not be performed by a third party, but only by the mother herself. But this cannot be right either. For what we have to keep in mind is that the mother and the unborn child are not like two tenants in a small house which has, by an unfortunate mistake, been rented to both: the mother owns the house. The fact that she does adds to the offensiveness of deducing that the mother can do nothing from the supposition that third parties can do nothing. But it does more than this: it casts a bright light on the supposition that third parties can do nothing. Certainly it lets us see that a third party who cays "I cannot choose between you" is fooling himself if he things this is impartiality. If Jones has found and fastened on a certain coat, which he needs to keep him from freezing, but which Smith also needs to keep him from freezing, then it is not impartiality that says "I cannot choose between you" when Smith owns the coat. Women have said again and again "This body is my body!" and they have reason to feel angry, reason to feel that it has been like shouting into the wind. Smith, after all, is {54} hardly likely to bless us if we say to him, "Of course it's your coat, anybody would grant that it is. But no one may choose between you and Jones who is to have it."

We should really ask what it is that says "no one may choose" in the face of the fact that the body that houses the child is the mother's body. It may be simply a failure to appreciate this fact. But it may be something more interesting, namely the sense that one has a right to refuse to lay hands on people, even where it would be just and fair to do so, even where justice seems to require that somebody do so. Thus justice might call for somebody to get Smith's coat back from Jones, and yet you have a right to refuse to be the one to lay hands on Jones, a right to refuse to do physical violence to him. This, I think, must be granted. But then what should be said is not "no one may choose," but only "I cannot choose," and indeed not even this, but "I will not act," leaving it open that somebody else can or should, and in particular that anyone in a position of authority, with the job of securing people's rights, both can and should. So this is no difficulty. I have not been arguing that any given third party must accede to the mother's request that he perform an abortion to save her life, but only that he may.

I suppose that in some views of human life the mother's body is only on loan to her, the loan not being one which gives her any prior claim to it. One who held this view might well think it impartiality to say "I cannot choose." But I shall simply ignore this possibility. My own view is that if a human being has any just, prior claim to anything at all, he has a just, prior claim to his own body. And perhaps this needn't be argued for here anyway, since, as I mentioned, the arguments against abortion we are looking at do grant that the woman has a right to decide what happens in and to her body.

But although they do grant it, I have tired to show that they do not take seriously what is done in granting it. I suggest the same thing will reappear even more clearly when we turn away from cases in which the mother's life is at stake, and attend, as I propose we now do, to the vastly more common cases in which a woman wants an abortion for some less weighty reason than preserving her own life.

3. Where the mother's life is not at stake, the argument I mentioned at the outset seems to have a much stronger pull. "Everyone {55} has a right to life, so the unborn person has a right to life." And isn't the child's right to life weightier than anything other than the mother's own right to life, which she might put forward as ground for an abortion?

This argument treats the right to life as if it were unproblematic. It is not, as this seems to me to be precisely the source of the mistake.

For we should now, at long last, ask what it comes to, to have a right to life. In some views having a right to life includes having a right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life. But suppose that what in fact is the bare minimum a man needs for continued life is something he has no right at all to be given? If I am sick unto death, and the only thing that will save my life is the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on my fevered brow, then all the same, I have no right to be given the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on my fevered brow. It would be frightfully nice of him to fly in from the West Coast to provide it. It would be less nice, though no doubt well meant, if my friends flew out to the West Coast and carried Henry Fonda back with them. But I have no right at all against anybody that he should do this for me. Or again, to return to the story I told earlier, the fact that for continued life that violinist needs the continued use of your kidneys does not establish that he has a right to be given the continued use of your kidneys. He certainly has no right against you that you should give him continued use of your kidneys. For nobody has any right to use your kidneys unless you give him such a right; and nobody has the right against you that you shall give him this right—if you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due. Nor has he any right against anybody else that they should give him continued use of your kidneys. Certainly he had no right against the Society of Music Lovers that they should plug him into you in the first place. And if you now start to unplug yourself, having learned that you will otherwise have to spend nine years in bed with him, there is nobody in the world who must try to prevent you, in order to see that he is given something he has a right to be given.

Some people are rather stricter about the right to life. In their view, it does not include the right to be given anything, but amounts to, {56} and only to, the right not to be killed by anybody. But here a related difficulty arises. If everybody is to refrain from killing that violinist, then everybody must refrain from doing a great many different sorts of things. Everybody must refrain from slitting his throat, everybody must refrain from shooting him—and everybody must refrain from unplugging you from him. But does he have a right against everybody that they shall refrain from unplugging you from him? To refrain from doing this is to allow him to continue to use your kidneys. It could be argued that he has a right against us that we should allow him to continue to use your kidneys. That is, while he had no right against us that we should give him the use of your kidneys, it might be argued that he anyway has a right against us that we shall not now intervene and deprive him of the use of your kidneys. I shall come back to third-party interventions later. But certainly the violinist has no right against you that you shall allow him to continue to use your kidneys. As I said, if you do allow him to use them, it is a kindess on your part, and not something you owe him.

The difficulty I point to here is not peculiar to the right to life. It reappears in connection with all other natural rights; and it is something which an adequate account of rights must deal with. For present purposes it is enough just to draw attention to it. But I would stress that I am not arguing that people do not have a right to life—quite to the contrary, it seems to me that the primary control we must place on the acceptability of an account of rights is that it should turn out in that account to be a truth that all persons have a right to life. I am arguing only that having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person's body—even if one needs it for life itself. So the right to life will not serve the opponents of abortion in the very simple and clear way in which they seem to have thought it would.

4. There is another way to bring out the difficulty. In the most ordinary sort of case, to deprive someone of what he has a right to is to treat him unjustly. Suppose a boy and his small brother are jointly given a box of chocolates for Christmas. If the older boy takes the box and refuses to give his brother any of the chocolates, he is unjust to him, for the brother has been given a right to half of them. But {57} suppose that, having learned that otherwise it means nine years in bed with that violinist, you unplug yourself from him. You surely are not being unjust to him, for you gave him no right to use your kidneys, and no one else can have given him any such right. But we have to notice that in unplugging yourself, you are killing him; and violinists, like everybody else, have a right to life, and thus in the view we were considering just now, the right not to be killed. So here you do what he supposedly has a right you shall not do, but you do not act unjustly to him in doing it.

The emendation which may be made at this point is this: the right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly. This runs a risk of circularity, but never mind: it would enable us to square the fact that the violinist has a right to life with the fact that you do not act unjustly toward him in unplugging yourself, thereby killing him. For if you do not kill him unjustly, you do not violate his right to life, and so it is no wonder you do him no injustice.

But if this emendation is accepted, the gap in the argument against abortion stares us plainly in the face: it is by no means enough to show that the fetus is a person, and to remind us that all persons have a right to life—we need to be shown also that killing the fetus violates its right to life, i.e., that abortion is unjust killing. And is it?

I suppose we may take it as a datum that in a case of pregnancy due to rape the mother has not given the unborn person a right to the use of her body for food and shelter. Indeed, in what pregnancy could it be supposed that the mother has given the unborn person such a right? It is not as if there were unborn persons drifting about the world, to whom a woman who wants a child says "I invite you in."

But it might be argued that there are other ways one can have acquired a right to the use of another person's body than by having been invited to use it by that person. Suppose a woman voluntarily indulges in intercourse, knowing of the chance it will issue in pregnancy, and then she does become pregnant; is she not in part responsible for the presence, in fact the very existence, of the unborn person inside her? No doubt she did not invite it in. But doesn't her partial responsibility for its being there itself give it a right to the use of her {58} body?⁷ If so, then her aborting it would be more like the boy's taking away the chocolates, and less like your unplugging yourself from the violinist—doing so would be depriving it of what it does have a right to, and thus would be doing it an injustice.

And then, too, it might be asked whether or not she can kill it even to save her own life: if she voluntarily called it into existence, how can she now kill it, even in self-defense?

The first thing to be said about this is that it is something new. Opponents of abortion have been so concerned to make out the independence of the fetus, in order to establish that it has a right to life, just as its mother does, that they have tended to overlook the possible support they might gain from making out that the fetus is dependent on the mother, in order to establish that she has a special kind of responsibility for it, a responsibility that gives it rights against her which are not possessed by any independent person—such as an ailing violinist who is a stranger to her.

On the other hand, this argument would give the unborn person a right to its mother's body only if her pregnancy resulted from a voluntary act, undertaken in full knowledge of the chance a pregnancy might result from it. It would leave out entirely the unborn person whose existence is due to rape. Pending the availability of some further argument, then, we would be left with the conclusion that unborn persons whose existence is due to rape have no right to the use of their mothers' bodies, and thus that aborting them is not depriving them of anything they have a right to and hence is not unjust killing.

And we should also notice that it is not at all plain that this argument really does go even as far as it purports to. For there are cases and cases, and the details make a difference. If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would it be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house—for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars {59} burgle." It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As it happens, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not—despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do—for by the same token anyone can avoid pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

It seems to me that the argument we are looking at can establish at most that there are some cases in which the unborn person has a right to the use of its mother's body, and therefore some cases in which abortion is unjust killing. There is room for much discussion and argument as to precisely which, if any. But I think we should sidestep this issue and leave it open, for at any rate the argument certainly does not establish that all abortion is unjust killing.

5. There is room for yet another argument here, however. We surely must grant that there may be cases in which it would be morally indecent to detach a person from your body at the cost of his life. Suppose you learn that what the violinist needs is not nine years of your life, but only one hour: all you need do to save his life is to spend one hour in that bed with him. Suppose also that letting him use your kidneys for that one hour would not affect your health in the slightest. Admittedly you were kidnapped. Admittedly you did not give {60} anyone permission to plug him into you. Nevertheless it seems to me plain you ought to allow him to use your kidneys for that hour—it would be indecent to refuse.

Again, suppose pregnancy lasted only an hour, and constituted no threat to life or health. And suppose that a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape. Admittedly she did not voluntarily do anything to bring about the existence of a child. Admittedly she did nothing at all which would give the unborn person a right to the use of her body. All the same it might well be said, as in the newly emended violinist story, that she ought to allow it to remain for that hour—that it would be indecent in her to refuse.

Now some people are inclined to use the term "right" in such a way that it follows from the fact that you ought to allow a person to use your body for the hour he needs, that he has a right to use your body for the hour he needs, even though he has not been given that right by any person or act. They may say that it follows also that if you refuse, you act unjustly toward him. This use of the term is perhaps so common that it cannot be called wrong; nevertheless it seems to me to be an unfortunate loosening of what we would do better to keep a tight rein on. Suppose that box of chocolates I mentioned earlier had not been given to both boys jointly, but was given only to the older boy. There he sits, stolidly eating his way through the box, his small brother watching enviously. Here we are likely to say "You ought not to be so mean. You ought to give your brother some of those chocolates." My own view is that it just does not follow from the truth of this that the brother has any right to any of the chocolates. If the boy refuses to give his brother any, he is greedy, stingy, callous—but not unjust. I suppose that the people I have in mind will say it does follow that the brother has a right to some of the chocolates, and thus that the boy does act unjustly if he refuses to give his brother any. But the effect of saying this is to obscure what we should keep distinct, namely the difference between the boy's refusal in this case and the boy's refusal in the earlier case, in which the box was given to both boys jointly, and in which the small brother thus had what was from any point of view clear title to half.

A further objection to so using the term "right" that from the fact that A ought to do a thing for B, it follows that B has a right against A {61} that A do it for him, is that it is going to make the question of whether or not a man has a right to a thing turn on how easy it is to provide him with it; and this seems not merely unfortunate, but morally unacceptable. Take the case of Henry Fonda again. I said earlier that I had no right to the touch of his cool hand on my fevered brow, even though I needed it to save my life. I said it would be frightfully nice of him to fly in from the West Coast to provide me with it, but that I had no right against him that he should do so. But suppose he isn't on the West Coast. Suppose he has only to walk across the room, place a hand briefly on my brow—and lo, my life is saved. Then surely he ought to do it, it would be indecent to refuse. Is it to be said "Ah, well, it follows that in this case she has a right to the touch of his hand on her brow, and so it would be an injustice in him to refuse"? So that I have a right to it when it is easy for him to provide it, though no right when it's hard? It's rather a shocking idea that anyone's rights should fade away and disappear as it gets harder and harder to accord them to him.

So my own view is that even though you ought to let the violinist use your kidneys for the one hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so—we should say that if you refuse, you are, like the boy who owns all the chocolates and will give none away, self-centered and callous, indecent in fact, but not unjust. And similarly, that even supposing a case in which a woman pregnant due to rape ought to allow the unborn person to use her body for the hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so; we should conclude that she is self-centered, callous, indecent, but not unjust, if she refuses. The complaints are no less grave, they are just different. However, there is no need to insist on this point. If anyone does wish to deduce "he has a right" from "you ought," then all the same he must surely grant that there are cases in which it is not morally required of you that you allow that violinist to use your kidneys, and in which he does not have a right to use them, and in which you do not do him an injustice if you refuse. And so also for mother and unborn child. Except in such cases as the unborn person has a right to demand it—and we were leaving open the possibility that there may be such cases—nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties {62} and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive.

6. We have in fact to distinguish between two kinds of Samaritan: the Good Samaritan and what we might call the Minimally Decent Samaritan. The story of the Good Samaritan, you will remember, goes like this:

A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw him he had compassion on him.

And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

And on the morrow, when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, "Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee." (Luke 10:30-35)

The Good Samaritan went out of his way, at some cost to himself, to help one in need of it. We are not told what the options were, that is, whether or not the priest and the Levite could have helped by doing less than the Good Samaritan did, but assuming they could have, then the fact they did nothing at all shows they were not even Minimally Decent Samaritans, not because they were not Samaritans, but because they were not even minimally decent.

These things are a matter of degree, of course, but there is a difference, and it comes out perhaps most clearly in the story of Kitty Genovese, who, as you will remember, was murdered while thirty-eight people watched or listened, and did nothing at all to help her. A Good Samaritan would have rushed out to give direct assistance {63} against the murderer. Or perhaps we had better allow that it would have been a Splendid Samaritan who did this, on the ground that it would have involved a risk of death for himself. But the thirty-eight not only did not do this, they did not even trouble to pick up a phone to call the police. Minimally Decent Samaritanism would call for doing at least that, and their not having done it was monstrous.

After telling the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus said "Go, and do thou likewise." Perhaps he meant that we are morally required to act as the Good Samaritan did. Perhaps he was urging people to do more than is morally required of them. At all events it seems plain that it was not morally required of any of the thirty-eight that he rush out to give direct assistance at the risk of his own life, and that it is not morally required of anyone that he give long stretches of his life—nine years or nine months—to sustaining the life of a person who has no special right (we are leaving open the possibility of this) to demand it.

Indeed, with one rather striking class of exceptions, no one in any country in the world is legally required to do anywhere near as much as this for anyone else. The class of exceptions is obvious. My main concern here is not the sate of the law in respect to abortion, but it is worth drawing attention to the fact that in no state in this country is any man compelled by law to be even a Minimally Decent Samaritan to any person; there is no law under which charges could be brought against the thirty-eight who stood by while Kitty Genovese died. By contrast, in most states in this country women are compelled by law to be not merely Minimally Decent Samaritans, but Good Samaritans to unborn persons inside them. This doesn't by itself settle anything one way or the other, because it may well be argued that there should be laws in this country—as there are in many European countries—compelling at least Minimally Decent Samaritanism.⁸ But it does show that there is a gross injustice in the existing state of the law. And it shows also that the groups currently working against liberalization of abortion laws, in fact working toward having it declared unconstitu-{64}tional for a state to permit abortion, had better start working for the adoption of Good Samaritan laws generally, or earn the charge that they are acting in bad faith.

I should think, myself, that Minimally Decent Samaritan laws would be one thing, Good Samaritan laws quite another, and in fact highly improper. But we are not here concerned with the law. What we should ask is not whether anybody should be compelled by law to be a Good Samaritan, but whether we must accede to a situation in which somebody is being compelled—by nature, perhaps—to be a Good Samaritan. We have, in other words, to look now at third-party interventions. I have been arguing that no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them, and this even where the sacrifices do not include life itself; we are not morally required to be Good Samaritans or anyway Very Good Samaritans to one another. But what if a man cannot extricate himself from such a situation? What if he appeals to us to extricate him? It seems to me plain that there are cases in which we can, cases in which a Good Samaritan would extricate him. There you are, you were kidnapped, and nine years in bed with that violinist lie ahead of you. You have your own life to lead. You are sorry, but you simply cannot see giving up so much of your life to the sustaining of his. You cannot extricate yourself, and ask us to do so. I should have thought that—in light of his having no right to the use of your body—it was obvious that we do not have to accede to your being forced to give up so much. We can do what you ask. There is no injustice to the violinist in our doing so.

7. Following the lead of the opponents of abortion, I have throughout been speaking of the fetus merely as a person, and what I have been asking is whether or not the argument we began with, which proceeds only from the fetus being a person, really does establish its conclusion. I have argued that it does not.

But of course there are arguments and arguments, and it may be said that I have simply fastened on the wrong one. It may be said that what is important is not merely the fact that the fetus is a person, but that it is a person for whom the woman has a special kind of responsibility issuing from the fact that she is its mother. And it might be argued that all my analogies are therefore irrelevant—for you do {65} not have that special kind of responsibility for that violinist, Henry Fonda does not have that special kind of responsibility for me. And our attention might be drawn to the fact that men and women both are compelled by law to provide support for their children.

I have in effect dealt (briefly) with this argument in section 4 above; but a (still briefer) recapitulation now may be in order. Surely we do not have any such "special responsibility" for a person unless we have assumed it, explicitly or implicitly. If a set of parents do not try to prevent pregnancy, do not obtain an abortion, and then at the time of birth of the child do not put it out for adoption, but rather take it home with them, then they have assumed responsibility for it, they have given it rights, and they cannot now withdraw support from it at the cost of its life because they now find it difficult to go on providing for it. But if they have taken all reasonable precautions against having a child, they do not simply by virtue of their biological relationship to the child who comes into existence have a special responsibility for it. They may wish to assume responsibility for it, or they may not wish to. And I am suggesting that if assuming responsibility for it would require large sacrifices, then they may refuse. A Good Samaritan would not refuse—or anyway, a Splendid Samaritan, if the sacrifices that had to be made were enormous. But then so would a Good Samaritan assume responsibility for that violinist; so would Henry Fonda, if he is a Good Samaritan, fly in from the West Coast and assume responsibility for me.

8. My argument will be found unsatisfactory on two counts by many of those who want to regard abortion as morally permissible. First, while I do argue that abortion is not impermissible, I do not argue that it is always permissible. There may well be cases in which carrying the child to term requires only Minimally Decent Samaritanism of the mother, and this is a standard we must not fall below. I am inclined to think it a merit of my account precisely that it does not give a general yes or a general no. It allows for and supports our sense that, for example, a sick and desperately frightened fourteen-year-old schoolgirl, pregnant due to rape, may of course choose abortion, and that any law which rules this out is an insane law. And it also allows for and supports our sense that in other cases resort to abortion is even positively indecent. It would be indecent in the woman to request an {66} abortion, and indecent in a doctor to perform it, if she is in her seventh month, and wants the abortion just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad. The very fact that the arguments I have been drawing attention to treat all cases of abortion, or even all cases of abortion in which the mother's life is not at stake, as morally on a par ought to have made them suspect at the outset.

Secondly, while I am arguing for the permissibility of abortion in some cases, I am not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child. It is easy to confuse these two things in that up to a certain point in the life of the fetus it is not able to survive outside the mother's body; hence removing it from her body guarantees its death. But they are importantly different. I have argued that you are not morally required to spend nine months in bed, sustaining the life of that violinist; but to say this is by no means to say that if, when you unplug yourself, there is a miracle and he survives, you then have a right to turn round and slit his throat. You may detach yourself even if this costs him his life; you have no right to be guaranteed his death, by some other means, if unplugging yourself does not kill him. There are some people who will feel dissatisfied by this feature of my argument. A woman may be utterly devastated by the thought of a child, a bit of herself, put out for adoption and never seen or heard of again. She may therefore want not merely that the child be detached from her, but more, that it die. Some opponents of abortion are inclined to regard this as beneath contempt—thereby showing insensitivity to what is surely a powerful source of despair. All the same, I agree that the desire for the child's death is not one which anybody may gratify, should it turn out to be possible to detach the child alive.

At this place, however, it should be remembered that we have only been pretending throughout that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. A very early abortion is surely not the killing of a person, and so is not dealt with by anything I have said here.

End Notes

1. I am very much indebted to James Thomson for discussion, criticism, and many helpful suggestions.

2. Daniel Callahan, Abortion: Law, Choice, and Morality (New York, 1970), p. 373. This book gives a fascinating survey of the available information on abortion. The Jewish tradition is surveyed in David M. Feldman, Birth Control in Jewish Law (New York, 1968), Part 5, the Catholic tradition in John T. Noonan, Jr., "An Absolute Value in History," in The Morality of Abortion, ed. John T. Noonan, Jr. (Cambridge, Mass., 1970).

3. The term "direct" in the argument I refer to is a technical one. Roughly, what is meant by "direct killing" is either killing as an end in itself, or killing as a means to some end, for example, the end of saving someone else's life. See note 6, below, for an example of its use.

4. Cf. Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI on Christian Marriage, St. Paul Editions (Boston, n.d.), p. 32: "however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here." Noonan (The Morality of Abortion, p. 43) reads this as follows: "What cause can ever avail to excuse in any way the direct killing of the innocent? For it is a question of that."

5. The thesis in (4) is in an interesting way weaker than those in (1), (2), and (3): they rule out abortion even in cases in which both the mother and child will die if the abortion is not performed. By contrast, one who held the view expressed in (4) could consistently say that one needn't prefer letting two persons die to killing one.

6. Cf. the following passage from Pius XII, Address to the Italian Catholic Society of Midwives: "The baby in the maternal breast has the right to life immediately from God.—Hence there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral 'indication' which can establish or grant a valid juridical ground for a direct deliberate disposition of an innocent human life, that is a disposition which looks to its destruction either as an end or as a means to another end perhaps in itself not illicit.—The baby, still not born, is a man in the same degree and for the same reason as the mother" (quoted in Noonan, The Morality of Abortion, p. 45).

7. The need for a discussion of this argument was brought home to me by members of the Society for Ethical and Legal Philosophy, to whom this paper was originally presented.

8. For a discussion of the difficulties involved, and a survey of the European experience with such laws, see The Good Samaritan and the Law, ed. James M. Ratcliffe (New York, 1966).

From Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 47 (1971)

The Meaning of It All

2008-08-27T14:24:00.001+08:00

Excerpt from a Lecture Series: The Uncertainty of Science

By Richard P. Feynman

[Feynman is considered one of the 20^th century's most brilliant theoretical physicists and original thinkers. He became Professor of Theoretical Physics at Cornell University, where he worked with Hans Bethe. He all but rebuilt the theory of quantum electrodynamics and it was for this work that he shared the Nobel Prize in 1965. His simplified rules of calculation became standard tools of theoretical analysis in both quantum electrodynamics and high-energy physics. Freeman Dyson, of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, called him 'the most original mind of his generation', while in its obituary The New York Times described him as 'arguably the most brilliant, iconoclastic and influential of the postwar generation of theoretical physicists'.]

The Uncertainty of Science

In the first of these lectures I will talk about the nature of science and emphasize particularly the existence of doubt and uncertainty.

What is science? The word is usually used to mean one of three things, or a mixture of them. I do not think we need to be precise—it is not always a good idea to be too precise. Science means, sometimes, a special method of finding things out. Sometimes it means the body of knowledge arising from the things found out. It may also mean the new things you can do when you have found something out, or the actual doing of new things. This last field is usually called technology.

The most obvious characteristic of science is its application, the fact that as a consequence of science one has a power to do things. And the effect this power has had need hardly be mentioned. The whole industrial revolution would almost have been impossible without the development of science. The possibilities today of producing quantities of food adequate for such a large population, of controlling sickness—the very fact that there can be free men without the necessity of slavery for full production—are very likely the result of the development of scientific means of production.

Now this power to do things carries with it no instructions on how to use it, whether to use it for good or for evil. The product of this power is either good or evil, depending on how it is used. We like improved production, but we have problems with automation. We are happy with the development of medicine, and then we worry about the number of births and the fact that no one dies from the diseases we have eliminated. Or else, with the same knowledge of bacteria, we have hidden laboratories in which men are working as hard as they can to develop bacteria for which no one else will be able to find a cure.

We are happy with the development of air transportation and are impressed by the great airplanes, but we are aware also of the severe horrors of air war. We are pleased by the ability to communicate between nations, and then we worry about the fact that we can be snooped upon so easily. We are excited by the fact that space can now be entered; well, we will undoubtedly have a difficulty there, too. The most famous of all these imbalances is the development of nuclear energy and its obvious problems.

Is science of any value?

I think a power to do something is of value. Whether the result is a good thing or a bad thing depends on how it is used, but the power is a value.

Once in Hawaii I was taken to see a Buddhist temple. In the temple a man said, "I am going to tell you something that you will never forget." And then he said, "To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven. The same key opens the gates of hell."

And so it is with science. In a way it is a key to the gates of heaven, and the same key opens the gates of hell, and we do not have any instructions as to which is which gate. Shall we throw away the key and never have a way to enter the gates of heaven? Or shall we struggle with the problem of which is the best way to use the key? That is, of course, a very serious question, but I think that we cannot deny the value of the key to the gates of heaven.

All the major problems of the relations between society and science lie in this same area. When the scientist is told that he must be more responsible for his effects on society, it is the applications of science that are referred to. If you work to develop nuclear energy you must realize also that it can be used harmfully. Therefore, you would expect that, in a discussion of this kind by a scientist, this would be the most important topic. But I will not talk about it further. I think that to say these are scientific problems is an exaggeration. They are far more humanitarian problems. The fact that how to work the power is clear, but how to control it is not, is something not so scientific and is not something that the scientist knows so much about…

The third aspect of my subject is that of science as a method of finding things out. This method is based on the principle that observation is the judge of whether something is so or not. All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea. But "prove" used in this way really means "test," in the same way that a hundred-proof alcohol is a test of the alcohol, and for people today the idea really should be translated as, "The exception tests the rule." Or, put another way, "The exception proves that the rule is wrong." That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.

The principle that observation is the judge imposes a severe limitation to the kind of questions that can be answered. They are limited to questions that you can put this way: "if I do this, what will happen?"

There are ways to try it and see. Questions like, "should I do this?" and "what is the value of this?" are not of the same kind.

But if a thing is not scientific, if it cannot be subjected to the test of observation, this does not mean that it is dead, or wrong, or stupid. We are not trying to argue that science is somehow good and other things are somehow not good. Scientists take all those things that can be analyzed by observation, and thus the things called science are found out. But there are some things left out, for which the method does not work. This does not mean that those things are unimportant. They are, in fact, in many ways the most important. In any decision for action, when you have to make up your mind what to do, there is always a "should" involved, and this cannot be worked out from "if I do this, what will happen?" alone.

There are in science a number of technical consequences that follow from the principle of observation as judge. For example, the observation cannot be rough. You have to be very careful. There may have been a piece of dirt in the apparatus that made the color change; it was not what you thought. You have to check the observations very carefully, and then recheck them, to be sure that you understand what all the conditions are and that you did not misinterpret what you did.

Another important characteristic of science is its objectivity. It is necessary to look at the results of observation objectively, because you, the experimenter, might like one result better than another. You perform the experiment several times, and because of irregularities, like pieces of dirt falling in, the result varies from time to time. You do not have everything under control. You like the result to be a certain way, so the times it comes out that way, you say, "See, it comes out this particular way." The next time you do the experiment it comes out different. Maybe there was a piece of dirt in it the first time, but you ignore it.

Another very important technical point is that the more specific a rule is, the more interesting it is. The more definite the statement, the more interesting it is to test. If someone were to propose that the planets go around the sun because all planet matter has a kind of tendency for movement, a kind of motility, let us call it an "oomph," this theory could explain a number of other phenomena as well. So this is a good theory, is it not? No. It is nowhere near as good as a proposition that the planets move around the sun under the influence of a central force which varies exactly inversely as the square of the distance from the center. The second theory is better because it is so specific; it is so obviously unlikely to be the result of chance. It is so definite that the barest error in the movement can show that it is wrong; but the planets could wobble all over the place, and, according to the first theory, you could say, "Well, that is the funny behavior of the 'oomph.'"

So the more specific the rule, the more powerful it is, the more liable it is to exceptions, and the more interesting and valuable it is to check.

Most people find it surprising that in science there is no interest in the background of the author of an idea or in his motive in expounding it. You listen, and if it sounds like a thing worth trying, a thing that could be tried, is different, and is not obviously contrary to something observed before, it gets exciting and worthwhile. You do not have to worry about how long he has studied or why he wants you to listen to him. In that sense it makes no difference where the ideas come from. Their real origin is unknown; we call it the imagination of the human brain, the creative imagination—it is known; it is just one of those "oomphs."

It is surprising that people do not believe that there is imagination in science. It is a very interesting kind of imagination, unlike that of the artist. The great difficulty is in trying to imagine something that you have never seen, that is consistent in every detail with what has already been seen, and that is different from what has been thought of; furthermore, it must be definite and not a vague proposition. That is indeed difficult.

Incidentally, the fact that there are rules at all to be checked is a kind of miracle; that it is possible to find a rule, like the inverse square law of gravitation, is some sort of miracle. It is not understood at all, but it leads to the possibility of prediction—that means it tells you what you would expect to happen in an experiment you have not yet done.

It is interesting, and absolutely essential, that the various rules of science be mutually consistent. Since the observations are all the same observations, one rule cannot give one prediction and another rule another prediction. Thus, science is not a specialist business; it is completely universal. I talked about the atoms in physiology; I talked about the atoms in astronomy, electricity, chemistry. They are universal; they must be mutually consistent. You cannot just start off with a new thing that cannot be made of atoms.

I come now to an important point. The old laws may be wrong. How can an observation be incorrect? If it has been carefully checked, how can it be wrong? Why are physicists always having to change the laws? The answer is, first, that the laws are not the observations and, second, that experiments are always inaccurate. The laws are guessed laws, extrapolations, not something that the observations insist upon.

They are just good guesses that have gone through the sieve so far. And it turns out later that the sieve now has smaller holes than the sieves that were used before, and this time the law is caught. So the laws are guessed; they are extrapolations into the unknown. You do not know what is going to happen, so you take a guess.

For example, it was believed—it was discovered— that motion does not affect the weight of a thing—that if you spin a top and weigh it, and then weigh it when it has stopped, it weighs the same. That is the result of an observation. But you cannot weigh something to the infinitesimal number of decimal places, parts in a billion. But we now understand that a spinning top weighs more than a top which is not spinning by a few parts in less than a billion. If the top spins fast enough so that the speed of the edges approaches 186,000 miles a second, the weight increase is appreciable—but not until then. The first experiments were performed with tops that spun at speeds much lower than 186,000 miles a second. It seemed then that the mass of the top spinning and not spinning was exactly the same, and someone made a guess that the mass never changes.

How foolish! What a fool! It is only a guessed law, an extrapolation. Why did he do something so
unscientific? There was nothing unscientific about it; it was only uncertain. It would have been
unscientific not to guess. It has to be done because the extrapolations are the only things that have any real value. It is only the principle of what you think will happen in a case you have not tried that is worth knowing about. Knowledge is of no real value if all you can tell me is what happened yesterday. It is necessary to tell what will happen tomorrow if you do something—not only necessary, but fun. Only you must be willing to stick your neck out.

Every scientific law, every scientific principle, every statement of the results of an observation is some kind of a summary which leaves out details, because nothing can be stated precisely. The man simply forgot—he should have stated the law "The mass doesn't change much when the speed isn't too high."

The game is to make a specific rule and then see if it will go through the sieve. So the specific guess was that the mass never changes at all. Exciting possibility! It does no harm that it turned out not to be the case. It was only uncertain, and there is no harm in being uncertain. It is better to say something and not be sure than not to say anything at all.

It is necessary and true that all of the things we say in science, all of the conclusions, are uncertain, because they are only conclusions. They are guesses as to what is going to happen, and you cannot know what will happen, because you have not made the most complete experiments.

It is curious that the effect on the mass of a spinning top is so small you may say, "Oh, it doesn't make any difference." But to get a law that is right, or at least one that keeps going through the successive sieves, that goes on for many more observations, requires a tremendous intelligence and imagination and a complete revamping of our philosophy, our understanding of space and time. I am referring to the relativity theory. It turns out that the tiny effects that turn up always require the most revolutionary modifications of ideas.

Scientists, therefore, are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty. All scientific knowledge is uncertain.

This experience with doubt and uncertainty is important. I believe that it is of very great value, and one that extends beyond the sciences. I believe that to solve any problem that has never been solved before, you have to leave the door to the unknown ajar. You have to permit the possibility that you do not have it exactly right. Otherwise, if you have made up your mind already, you might not solve it.

When the scientist tells you he does not know the answer, he is an ignorant man. When he tells you he has a hunch about how it is going to work, he is uncertain about it. When he is pretty sure of how it is going to work, and he tells you, "This is the way it's going to work, I'll bet," he still is in some doubt. And it is of paramount importance, in order to make progress, that we recognize this ignorance and this doubt.

Because we have the doubt, we then propose looking in new directions for new ideas. The rate of the development of science is not the rate at which you make observations alone but, much more important, the rate at which you create new things to test.

If we were not able or did not desire to look in any new direction, if we did not have a doubt or recognize ignorance, we would not get any new ideas. There would be nothing worth checking, because we would know what is true. So what we call scientific knowledge today is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty. Some of them are most unsure; some of them are nearly sure; but none is absolutely certain. Scientists are used to this. We know that it is consistent to be able to live and not know. Some people say, "How can you live without knowing?" I do not know what they mean. I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know.

This freedom to doubt is an important matter in the sciences and, I believe, in other fields. It was born of a struggle. It was a struggle to be permitted to doubt, to be unsure. And I do not want us to forget the importance of the struggle and, by default, to let the thing fall away. I feel a responsibility as a scientist who knows the great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, and the progress made possible by such a philosophy, progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought. I feel a responsibility to proclaim the value of this freedom and to teach that doubt is not to be feared, but that it is to be welcomed as the possibility of a new potential for human beings. If you know that you are not sure, you have a chance to improve the situation. I want to demand this freedom for future generations.

Doubt is clearly a value in the sciences. Whether it is in other fields is an open question and an uncertain matter. I expect in the next lectures to discuss that very point and to try to demonstrate that it is important to doubt and that doubt is not a fearful thing, but a thing of very great value.

Exercise

Identify and evaluate the key arguments put forth by Feynman. To what extent do you agree with what he is saying?

Thou Shalt Not Kill, says he.

2008-08-26T22:37:00.001+08:00

In accordance with modern views on life in first world countries, every single human being comes screaming and kicking into this world with an unconditional right to live, and killing is in fact the breaching of this inherent entitlement. Killing is defined as the act of causing death and taking life - with this definition alone, we can see that killing violates this unspoken agreement between humans regarding the right to live. The law also supports this notion of the intrinsic value of human life. The act of murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being, and is thus illegal by definition, as it is against the will of the victim. To kill would be to violate the victim's right to live. Following logically, respecting others' rights as our own, killing would be wrong.

An exception to the general rule of, well, not killing, would be the dissolution of said agreement on the value of life. As a person has the right to live, he or she thus has the right to do the opposite and not live - it is his or her responsibility, after all. In this case, the individual acknowledges the value of his life and rejects it, choosing the dark opposite, and thus the value he holds on his life is gone. However, this right to "not live" only extends to himself and not beyond - other people may not reach out and take his life simply because he desires it, as the implications of taking another's life is the rejection of one's on right to live. In the said scenario, only the depressed and dejected individual wishing to end his own life may choose to take it - the choice belongs to no other. Regardless of his reasons, be they emotional or physical anguish, it is not the authority of any other to end his living, although such power is available to such an individual.

Jamie, Arjun, Serena, Kersh, 09S06J

(were we to have replied to a post somewhere?)

2008-08-25T21:53:00.000+08:00

DONE BY : FIONA;HUIJUN;MARTIN;BHUVAN

TASK 1

‘Thou shall not kill’. Why not?

Kill:
Euthanasia should be allowed as everyone should have the right to decide their own fate – whether to live or die. In the case where euthanasia is often seeked as a solution to problems, an individual may choose to undergo it as he or she finds it the most effective solution to rid themselves of their own physical pain and suffering and to reduce the emotional and financial burden on their family members and loved ones. This is also termed as voluntary euthanasia. For those who are not in the correct state of mind to makes these decisions themselves, this right can be entrusted to a loved one who can be trusted to make the decision to benefit the majority of the masses – patient and family members, also known as involuntary euthanasia. Often, individuals who consider undergoing euthanasia have reached a point in their illness where the negative impact on their friends and family exceeds that of themselves. Thus, after considering the welfare of the masses, euthanasia becomes the best way to eradicate all problems and alleviate the pain and suffering of one’s self and loved ones. Hence, thou shall kill.

Not kill:
On the other hand, it is unjustified to say that for those who are not in the correct state of mind to make the decision to undergo euthanasia themselves may have their “trusted” love one to decide for them. What is considered “trusted” enough? As mentioned earlier, he is not in the correct state of mind to decide for himself, so there is even less right for his loved one to decide for him. If this right should be entrusted to a loved one, then who exactly is entitled to this right? All these remain doubts. Indeed, it is hard to judge if the patient is undergoing such intense pain that he wants to end his life when he is unable to express himself, but it is even more difficult to ascertain if he has the willpower to fight till the end. Once a life is ended, it cannot be brought back. The patient may want to end his life as a decision made during a period of excruciating pain, but how can one be sure if the pain will not be relived? He may lack the will to live for that moment, but it may be short-lived. It is virtually impossible to judge exactly whether one will remain in that state forever, so for that small glimpse of hope to survive, we must not encourage one to end his life easily. Thus, thou shall not kill.

TASK 2

Question 1

Singapore does not support any kind of euthanasia.

As quoted from Singapore Medical Association’s Response to Straits times articles:
“The Singapore Medical Association does not believe that there has been any change in attitudes towards euthanasia within the medical community here. We do not support euthanasia.
On the contrary, more and more doctors within Singapore are learning about, and practising, better palliative care. We believe that when nothing more can be done to fight terminal disease, much can still be done in offering comfort to, and relieving the pain and suffering of, our patients.”
Dr Lee Pheng Soon President, Singapore Medical Association

Question 2.
· Advanced Medical directive
Question 3

We feel that Sabire should have been allowed to practice euthanasia legally as it would have given her the dignified death she desired in its true right rather than what happened after that. Unable to use morphine due to side effects, Sebire was in constant pain. Hence we feel that she should have been allowed to legally receive life-terminating drugs as she would have felt like her pleas were being listened to, at the very least.

Question 4.

Advanced medical directive will permit an incapacitated patient’s wishes to Oven due regard and restore respect of the patient’s autonomy which other competent and legally capable patients have and exercise. Hence together with good hospice care, it will in fact reduce the pressure for euthanasia. Just that the doctors would not be sole decision makers in the decision process.

TASK 3: [In progress!]

Euthanasia & Singapore

2008-08-25T00:03:00.001+08:00

In Singapore, active euthanasia is prohibited by law but passive euthanasia can be carried out on a terminally ill patient as long as he has signed the Advance Medical Directive (AMD).

AMD is an order to your doctor not to prolong your life. Family members cannot revoke his AMD. However, if the patient is unconscious and has not applied for one, family members and the doctor can decide on the best course of action.

Our group agrees with Singapore’s legalization of euthanasia. In our opinion, it is morally insensitive to deny a suffering patient the right to choose to end his life. We are unable to comprehend the amount of pain he is suffering and to insist he tolerates his tormented plight is inhumane. We should do away with conservative notions which lack empathy. Moreover, we feel that every human being is entitled the right to choose the way he lives, or dies. Also, by permitting passive euthanasia, we are able to preserve the patient’s dignity, giving him the respect he rightfully deserves and respecting his choice.

Done By: Elaine, Thomas, Nicholas & Abhijit

Euthanasia

2008-08-24T23:57:00.003+08:00

Task 1
“Thou shalt not kill.” Why not?

In every case, there are exceptions to the rule. This includes “Thou shalt not kill”. One of these exceptions could be killing in self-defense. The law of nature is that of the survival of the fittest. Everybody has a right to live and thus has the right to protect that right. When somebody is assaulted, it is only right that he protects himself, even if it means killing the attacker unintentionally in the process. It would be unreasonable to blame the victim for his attacker’s death because, given the circumstances, it was the only thing he could do at that point in time to protect his own right to life. Thus, in such an exception, the rule does not stand.

While speaking of the ‘right to life”, this argument against “Thou shalt not kill” could be turned around. Since everybody has a right to live, then we can always say that nobody has a right to take it away. The right to life is one of the most valuable rights a person can ever have. Life is precious – ever since conception it is already a miracle on its own. It is full of potential, full of surprise and it means a person’s existence. Even by according it the status of a “right”, the value of “life” is still impossible to quantify. Killing somebody else means taking a life, and regardless of the circumstances, it will be an infringement of the right to life and hence will be a sin – a sin worse than lying, stealing or infidelity. Therefore, “Thou shalt not kill.”

Task 2
1. What is Singapore's current position on euthanasia?
Singapore is against euthanasia and mercy killing is not legalised in the country.
However,there has been a gradual shift in the attitude public towards greater acceptance of euthanasia as an option for care of the terminally ill and dying. There have also been calls by certain groups to actually legalise voluntary euthanasia for patients that have a sound mind and is suffering from an incurable or terminal illness, experiencing unbearable suffering and uncontrollable pain.

2.What laws or regulations have been instituted with regard to euthanasia?
Netherlands - Requirements: repeated and well-considered request bypatient, unacceptable state of suffering, doctor has to consult a colleague whoagrees to it.

* Procedure:
o practitioner must not declare natural death, but fill in extensive questionnaire;
o medical examiner informed via questionnaire, reports to district attorney;
o district attorney decides if prosecution should be instituted - punishable by up to 3 or 12 years imprisonment or fine
o court-determined crieteria to be met to evade prosecution

Oregon, USA - TheDeath with Dignity act was passed in 1997 in Oregon, permitting physician-assisted suicide.The measures to safeguard against patients from using the law prematurely orimpulsively are that patients must make two oral requests and one writtenrequest at least two weeks part, be terminally ill with less than six months tolive, and be judged mentally competent to make the decision by two separatephysicians. They are also to administer the medicine themselves. Even withthese safeguards in place, objections still occur where the federal governmentwishes to deny the right to euthanasia for the people.

Takenfrom:http://projectsday.hci.edu.sg/2003/webreports/cat3/QL10/casestudies_a.htm

In some European countries, like Belgium, Netherlandsand Switzerland, and alsosome US-states (Oregon?) and some othercountries too - remarkable Thailandsince 2007, a new law, Euthanasia is legal - it is also a kind of'suicide', legally approved.

In Switzerland,you need medical certificates to attest, that you are terminally ill, and ifyou agree, you will get a poison drink, you will face some witnesses and youmust drink it by yourself without help of others, you will be soon in deepsleep within 5 minutes and in 20 minutes you are gone from this world...

Done by: Fang Ting, Bryan, Junling, Min Jia 09S03K

2008-08-24T23:37:00.001+08:00

Task 1

One man's life should not be decided by another. We have no right to deprive others of the right to live, especially since we were not the ones who bestowed the gift of life onto them. Humans are emotional creatures whose judgement may be clouded at periods of time, a slip in judgement may lead to an accidental loss of an innocent life. In short, we have no right to play God when we are obviously limited by our inability to gather all the facts and deal with them objectively.

People should be allowed to kill if it benefits the majority of the society. For example, in the case of patients suffering from terminal illnesses or in persistent vegetative state, they should be allowed to pass away in order to minimize emotional and economical burden of family and friends, and to end their sufferings. When such people are forced to live, they drain resources that can be put into better use without being able to contribute to the society. Besides, they would not lead a meaningful life as they no longer have the will to live. Hence, for the good of the society, killing should be allowed under certain conditions.

We agree to a large extent that relying on plagiarism detection software is a feasible solution to curb academic dishonesty in our country. This is especially so in the short term where turnitin seems to be the best solution to such a problem. Turnitin is still currently the latest software used by countries all over the world and Singapore to battle plagiarism. While some may try to escape detection by buying custom made essays online, the numbers may be small due to the cost and time involved and the lack of confidence in such answers. In the short run, using technology is the only way schools can catch up with students and to ensure fairness in our grading system. Afterall, it would take some time and effort before students come up with new technology to work around such software and in the mean time, they might have an easier time just writing original essays.

However, Turnitin might not be feasible in rectifying the fundamental wrong in mindsets of many. With regards to academic dishonesty, it is usually the thought process and negative attitude towards completing assignments which directs students' actions, which leads them to plagarise and thus give rise to a need for Turnitin to be invented. Although Turnitin has prevented many cases of plagarism, it still doens't correct the root cause of plagarism. Unless we can come up with something else to change the mindsets of students and instill values which are uniform throughout society, Turnitin is not a feasible solution to eliminate academic dishonesty, as it will always be present.

Evelyn, Yihui, Emily, Yinghin, Mansi 09S03K

Euthanasia and Plagiarism

2008-08-24T23:35:00.003+08:00

Task 1 - "Thou shalt not kill" - Why not?

“The right to live gives us the right to die” – If a terminally ill patient or his family decides that his life is no longer worth living, should he or his family be given the right to end it?“Thou shalt not kill” is one of Ten Commandments authored by God, representing moral and religious imperatives. Is mercy killing, or euthanasia, all wrong?

Euthanasia refers to either painlessly putting to death or failing to prevent death from natural causes in cases of terminal illness or irreversible coma. The term comes from the Greek expression for ‘good death.’ It can be subdivided into its active or passive, as well as its voluntary or involuntary forms.

Voluntary active and voluntary passive euthanasia occurs when a competent, informed patient autonomously requests it. The only difference between the two is how euthanasia is carried out. These forms of euthanasia are often considered as the ‘acceptable’ ones due to the given consent from the patient himself.

On the other hand, involuntary active and involuntary passive euthanasia are often considered ‘unacceptable’ as it is usually up to the family or spouse of the person involved to make the decision. In involuntary passive euthanasia, the life-support machine is taken off the patient, allowing the patient to die. Despite it seeming immoral, unethical and against the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, involuntary euthanasia reliefs the family of the financial and emotional burden that arises from keeping the patient alive. It also ‘takes away’ the pain the patient was suffering from.

However, the decision made to end human life and the sanctity of life is questionable. By pulling the plug, it is no longer God’s decision to take life away, but rather that of humans themselves. Involuntary active euthanasia can be considered as murder and voluntary euthanasia suicide in this case. Killing another person by euthanasia involves taking someone else's life prematurely. Hence thou shalt not kill, and as euthanasia is almost equivalent to murder, it too should not be allowed.

Task 2 - Euthanasia in Singapore

What laws on regulations have been instituted with regard to this issue?
Singapore rejects active euthanasia that comes in the form of pressure for legislation to permit euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, both of which require active intervention, most often by a doctor.

However, passive euthanasia, though discouraged is possible in Singapore through the administration of the Advance Medical Directive (AMD)

Do you agree with Singapore’s position? Why or why not?
We do not agree with Singapore’s position in disallowing active euthanasia. We feel that active euthanasia is the more humane form of euthanasia compared to passive euthanasia. This is because the pain endured by the patient undergoing active euthanasia would be considerably less compared to one seeking passive euthanasia. Patients undergoing passive euthanasia die slowly from dehydration, which is an excruciatingly painful process. On the other hand, active euthanasia spares the patient from much suffering by ending their lives quickly.

Task 3 - "Battling term paper cheats"

Joey Smith states that relying on both honor codes and plagiarism-detection software is the whole idea of trust but verify. To what extent do you agree with this idea as a feasible solution to curb academic dishonesty in your country?

The “whole idea of trust but verify” is the situation where plagiarism software is used to check for cheating but at the same assuring the students integrity. This is a relatively feasible solution to curb academic dishonesty in Singapore. It will force students to think twice before committing plagiarism and ensure that those who do so are not ‘rewarded’. For example in Singapore, some schools run students’ projects through plagiarism software to sift out works that may contain plagiarism. Such practices help to prevent those who plagiarise from being unduly rewarded and to ensure fairness to all students. Such a method, I feel will help to ensure fairness when teachers assess their students’ works and will help to ease the minds of students, that they do not have to worry about someone else having an unfair advantage because that person plagiarised.

On the other hand, ‘the whole idea of trust but verify’, is not a feasible solution to curb academic dishonesty as it could possibly lead to greater mistrust between teachers and students causing ‘paranoia’. In Singapore, in order to prevent students from generating mistrust towards their teachers, some teachers do not believe in using plagiarism software, trusting the integrity of their students. I feel that such a method might make students think twice before committing plagiarism as they may not want to breach the trust their teacher(s) has in them. However, some students may also take advantage of their teachers’ trust in them and plagiarise. Hence I feel that whether or not a teacher uses plagiarism software to check his students’ work depends on how he rates the integrity of his students. Although he may not be able to rate their level of integrity accurately, it is a gamble that the teacher will have to take.

In Singapore, I feel that ‘the whole idea of trust but verify’ is generally a feasible solution to curb academic dishonestly and would most likely be a move that will be welcomed by Singaporean students. This is due to the relatively competitive nature of many young Singaporean students. As such, these students would not want anyone to get away with plagiarism and worse still, achieve a good grade despite having plagiarised someone else’s work. At the same time, Singaporean students would still be able to take heart that their teachers do trust them not to plagiarise and that the only reason why their teachers put their works through plagiarism software is so as not to reward those who plagiarise, those who cheat.

In conclusion, I feel that while ‘the whole idea of trust but verify’ might be a contentious issue in the States, it might be generally welcomed by Singaporean students as it help to weed out students who plagiarise and prevent them from being rewarded.

Inez, Bryan Oh, Charlene and Isis
09S03K

Euthanasia

2008-08-24T23:27:00.003+08:00

1. What is Singapore's current position on passive and active euthanasia?

Singapore is highly against active euthanasia and only made passive euthanasia possible with the signing of the Advance Medical Directive (AMD) after 9 years of contreversy. Presently, Singapore is promoting and raising the standards of palliative care to encourage patients to do away with the thought of euthanasia.

2. What laws or regulations have been instituted with regard to this issue?

An Advance Medical Directive (‘AMD’) is a document signed to instruct the doctor treating you (where you are terminally ill and unconscious or incapable of making a rational decision) that you do not want any artificial means of prolonging your life, such as the use of life-sustaining equipment (eg artificial respirator), where there is clearly no hope of finding a cure on either a temporary or permanent basis. The Act defines ‘extraordinary life-sustaining treatment’ as any medical procedure or measure which will only prolong the process of dying for terminally ill patients when death is imminent but excludes palliative care. Palliative care is the provision of reasonable medical procedures for relieving pain, suffering or discomfort and the reasonable provision of food and water.

One has to be 21 years and above and of sound mind, may obtain a prescribed AMD form at any polyclinic or private clinic. After completing the form, he must have it signed in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom must be a doctor. The other witness must be at least 21 years old and must not stand to gain upon your death (eg a beneficiary under your will or your policy of insurance or CPF monies). Both witnesses must be physically present to witness the signing of the AMD as well as to sign the AMD as witnesses. The doctor who signs as witness is responsible for ensuring that he is at least 21 years of age, of sound mind, and having made the AMD voluntarily and without inducement or compulsion, are informed of the nature and understand the consequence of making the AMD.

Three doctors, including the patient’s hospital doctor, must unanimously certify that the patient is terminally ill. Two of the doctors must be specialists. If the first panel of three doctors cannot reach a unanimous decision that the patient is terminally ill, the doctor-in-charge will review his diagnosis and may refer the matter to a second panel of three specialists, to be appointed by the Ministry of Health whose services will not be charged to the patient. If the second panel of specialists cannot agree unanimously that the patient is terminally ill, the AMD will not take effect.

A Lawyer is not required to make an AMD. However, since one of the witnesses has to be a doctor, one may be required to pay the doctor for services rendered. The AMD itself is free.

3. Do you agree with Singapore's position? Why or why not?

The Singaporean government does not allow the practice of euthanasia, but allows patients to sign an Advanced Medical Directive (AMD), thus giving consent to not want to continue life-sustaining treatment and be allowed to die. While this act of the government is undoubtedly in the best interest of society, it may not necessarily protect the patients’ welfare. The symptoms of dehydration, inclusive of delirium and paresthesia, entail extreme discomfort to the subject in question, and the process of dying may be a slow and painful one. In contrast, active euthanasia gives a quick and painless death to the patient, sparing him/her much suffering caused by passive euthanasia. Moreover, should the patient be in a persistent vegetative state and be unable to make such a decision, intimates would not be allowed to make the decision for him/her. The financial burden incurred from medical expenses could pose a problem for households lacking in wealth. By empowering family and close relatives to make the decision for the patient, the family would be absolved of a large amount of stress.

In conclusion, we disagree with Singapore’s position on euthanasia as the death it brings is neither quick nor painless, and the policy developed to deal with euthanasia is flawed and could have financial/emotional repercussions on the person’s immediate environment. The policy for euthanasia should be active euthanasia carried out on a case-by-case basis, with the primary intention being minimal suffering of the patient and family.

Edmund, Jonlim, Shiyuan
09SO6H

2008-08-24T22:26:00.002+08:00

1. What is Singapore's current position on passive and active euthanasia?

Singapore disallows active euthanasia and treats it as murder or assisted suicide. However, passive euthanasia is possible in Singapore through the administration of the Advance Medical Directive (AMD) whereby one is able to decide for oneself whether to accept life-prolonging medical treatment.

2. What laws or regulations have been instituted with regard to this issue?

Although an AMD form can be easily obtained from any polyclinic or private clinic, it is a hassle to process as two witness must be present at the time of signing the AMD. Also, one of the witnesses would have to be a doctor, while the other would have to be someone who would not stand to gain anything from your death.

3. Do you agree with Singapore's position? Why or why not?

We do not agree with Singapore's position of disallowing active euthanasia while passive euthanasia is allowed. Being the key to passive euthanasia, the AMD already sets a limitation to those who can administer passive euthanasia - one would have to be of sound mind at the point where he/she signs the AMD. In some cases, patients would postpone the administration of the AMD as they are not experiencing excruciatingly unbearable pain yet. However, by the time a degeneration of the human body is evident, patients may have already entered the state of an unsound mind, thereby preventing them from signing the AMD. When such a situation arises, patients have no way to change their decision to opt for euthanasia.

Even so, active euthanasia should be disallowed as others may stand to benefit from the death of one person and would then only allow others to achieve their ulterior motives. Hence, my group proposes that active euthanasia be carried out by a case-by-case basis in order to achieve only one motive - that is, to end the suffering of the patient and his family.

- Baorong, Bryan, Melissa, Ruisi 09S06J

Euthanasia & Plagiarism

2008-08-24T21:55:00.003+08:00

Task 1
Thou shalt not kill. Why not?

Argument from opposing stand:
We should not kill as everyone has a right to life and death. We have no right to deny anyone that right to life. Life is sacred and we have no right to decide to take away life from another person, no matter from whom. Furthermore, killing infringes on moral values, and can be an act of murder if its intentions are malicious. There is no clear yardstick as to whether one is in the position to kill, and under which circumstances to do so.

Refutation:
It is often argued that everyone is equal and has the equal right to life and death. However, people who threaten the right to the life of the others have no right to keep their own right to life. For example, a serial murderer who kills innocent victims one after another should not get to keep his own right to life after he had robbed that very same right from so many people. We should put the murderer on death row in order to prevent him from killing more people, and depriving more people of their right to live. A person who does not respect others’ right to live deserves to be deprived of their own right to live. As such, the justification to kill also largely depends on its impact on the rest of the society, such as its potential benefits or harm.

Task 2
1) What is Singapore’s current position on passive and active euthanasia?

Singapore is against euthanasia, though it seems to give a certain leeway on this issue. It is definitely not encouraging passive euthanasia, but makes it accessible to people who might want it. For example, the Advance Medical Directive(AMD) form is available at any polyclinic or private clinic for adults above 21 years of age to fill up, indicating that you do not wish to use any artificial means of prolonging your life (when you are terminally ill and unconscious or incapable of making a rational decision).

On the other hand, Singapore seems to be extremely against active euthanasia. Dr Lee Pheng Soon, Director of the Singapore Medical Association said in year 2005 that “The Singapore Medical Association does not believe that there has been any change in attitudes towards euthanasia within the medical community here. We do not support euthanasia.” On the contrary, more and more doctors within Singapore are learning about, and practising, better palliative care. Dr. Akhileswaran pointed out 90% - 95% of patients suffering from terminally ill patients can have their situation relieved by palliative care, and that the remaining 5% to 10% can have their suffering reduced to a more tolerable level that would make them drop the idea of euthanasia completely but Singapore still has a lot to catch up on improving palliative care here.

2) What laws or regulations have been instituted with regard to this issue?

Passive Euthanasia—AMD (Advance Medical Directive) to be signed in the presence of a doctor and a witness who will have nothing to gain from your death. It is a document you sign to instruct the doctor treating you (where you are terminally ill and unconscious or incapable of making a rational decision) that you do not want any artificial means of prolonging your life, such as the use of life-sustaining equipment (e.g. artificial respirator), where there is clearly no hope of finding a cure on either a temporary or permanent basis.

3) Do you agree with Singapore’s position? Why or why not?

Singapore does not allow the execution of euthanasia. Although we understand that Singapore’s position on euthanasia is to protect the patient’s welfare and prevent any wrongdoings when dealing with patients with terminally ill diseases, we do not agree with Singapore’s position because we feel that active euthanasia is a more humane form of euthanasia compared to passive killing. In Singapore, a doctor is not allowed to administer drugs that can terminate the life of a patient or providing the means through which the patient can kill him or herself (assisted suicide). However, a patient will eventually die of dehydration if the life-supporting devices are withdrawn from him or her, which is a very painful process. On the contrary, active euthanasia, which involves taking specific steps to cause the patient’s death, such as injecting the patient with poison, can speed up the process of death of the patient. By carrying out active euthanasia, the patient can endure less pain and avoid dying through dehydration.

Active euthanasia must be accompanied by laws and regulations and better hospice care. It will be more difficult to regulate active euthanasia than passive euthanasia because active killing involves many ethical and moral issues. A basic principle that should be kept to is that active euthanasia should only be carried out with the patient’s consent. Furthermore, the patient should be in a clear psychological state of mind to make independent decisions. Any euthanasia performed without the patient’s knowledge should be considered as murder and charged. This is so as euthanasia can easily be equivalent to murder if its intentions are not carefully assessed. Similar to AMC, there should be a procedure for carrying out active euthanasia. A form should be filled up and doctors as witnesses should be present.

Task 3

Joey Smith states that relying on both honor codes and plagiarism-detection software is the whole idea of trust but verify. To what extent do you agree with this idea as a feasible solution to curb academic dishonesty in your country?

We agree that Joey Smith’s idea is a feasible solution to curb academic dishonesty in Singapore to a small extent.

We do not deny that relying on both honor codes and plagiarism-detection software is a good way to curb dishonesty. According to the passage this idea ensures the culture of trust, but couples it with verification to enable efficiency in curbing dishonesty. This is true to an extent in all societies as people prefer to be treated with respect than to be accused of cheating by the very existence of plagiarism-detection software. Thus Joey Smith’s idea is feasible so long as the implementing body sends out the right messages to the people, and ensures that the objective behind this idea is understood by all.

However, the success Joey Smith’s idea of “trust but verify” is largely dependant on the type of society where the idea is implemented in and it may not be feasible in Singapore’s context. From the passage, the student-union president of Mount St. Vincent University complained that plagiarism-detection software created “a culture of mistrust, a culture of guilt”. Similarly, the younger generation of Singapore consists of outspoken teenagers to young adults who are more than willing to challenge the governing body. For example, the existence of students’ councils in Singapore junior ensures students’ welfare are not exploited and should Joey Smith’s idea be implemented in Singapore, it may face strong protests from the youths, students’ councils, leading to banning of the plagiarism-detection software eventually.

Moreover, plagiarism-detection software inevitably consist of loopholes that youths can make use of, rendering it useless in curbing academic honesty. From the passage, Tim Dodd, executive director of the Duke-affiliated Centre for Academic Integrity stated “We will truly lose the battle if we think we’re going to fight technology with technology. Kids will always be two generations ahead of us”. This is true in all societies, especially in Singapore where majority of youths are internet users, as people can obtain unlimited information from the internet, or buy newly-designed essays from the internet such as affordabletermpapers.com . This makes it impossible for plagiarism-detection software to include all information in the world into its database so such software do not serve its purpose effectively and is not a feasible way to curb academic dishonesty.

In conclusion, Joey Smith’s idea is not impossible but definitely difficult to implement and curb academic dishonesty in Singapore as Singaporean youths are internet-savvy and will not tolerate events that threaten their stands.

Euthanasia

2008-08-24T21:52:00.002+08:00

What is Singapore’s current position on passive and active euthanasia?
Singapore does not legalise active euthanasia, as it is similar to murder. However, it does allow passive euthanasia to be administered (see AMD below).

What laws or regulations have been instituted with regard to this issue?
Section s.3 of the Advance Medical Directive Act (Cap.4A): A person above 21 and of sound mind is allowed to execute a directive (witnessed by a family member and a medical practitioner) that he does not desire to be subjected to extraordinary life-sustaining treatment in the event of his suffering from a terminal illness.

Do you agree with Singapore’s position? Why or why not?
We think that the issue of whether euthanasia should be administered should be considered on a case by case basis. As every patient’s circumstances will be different, there can be no standard criteria to determine if euthanasia should be legalised. Therefore, we disagree with Singapore's stand that active euthanasia should definitely be illegal, because a patient might be experiencing such intense suffering that he would very much prefer a quick, painless death.

Zoe, Yingxin, Benkhoo, Joel, Cheryl
09S06H

Singapore and Euthanasia

2008-08-24T21:08:00.003+08:00

Singapore allows passive euthanasia (if the patient signs the Advance Medical Directive (AMD). The patient's decision in the AMD overrules EVERYTHING else, including his or her family's decisions.

If the patient did not sign the AMD and is legally unable (e.g. he's in a comma state and does not have the ability to think rationally or make his own decisions), his family/spouse/relative etc will make the decision for him.

Singapore is explicitly against active euthanasia. laws and regulations include the AMD (which reportedly took 8 years to pass due to ethical concerns) and the penal code (which deems active euthanasia as murder or assisted suicide)

we do not agree with Singapore's position, since active euthanasia should be allowed as an option in the AMD as well. There may be cases where the patient is suffering and wishes for a quick and painless death, and his quick death may allow his organs to be harvested, thereby saving other lives. Active euthanasia may therefore be respectful of the patient's wishes and may be for the greater good. In some cases, when patients have to wait for their death to come, their whole world is changed, and redefined. some of them with physical deformities may be looked at differently, some of them will not be able to interact with their family members, or carry out their daily routines. this to the patients, will become painful as life can slowly become meaningless. As such, active euthanasia can be a quick way to end their pain, and their family members' pain, who have to watch them suffer and go through this tiring process.

If active euthanasia is not allowed in Singapore due to ethical concerns and potential loopholes in such laws, then one should also consider how facilities, or institutions can be made more available for patients undergoing passive euthanasia, to allow them to have their last few days in peace and reserve their last bits of dignity.

posted by 09S06H, wenyu, tu guang, jasmine, amanda

Our stand on organ trading

2008-08-23T22:22:00.002+08:00

Our group believes that organ trading should be allowed if it is mutually beneficial to both parties involved in the trade.

From the perspective of the patient on the receiving end of the trade, the benefits of organ trading to him are obvious. Organ trading can help to relieve the shortage of organs available for transplant, allowing the patient to have a higher chance of receiving an organ, which will go a long way in his recovery and rehabilitation. As such, from the patient's point of view, organ trading is certainly beneficial as it will improves his quality of life.

However, things are different from the perspective of the organ donor. While it can be argued that organ trading is beneficial to the donor since he receives a monetary return from donating his organ, many fear that permitting organ trading could create a situation whereby the poor and socially-disadvantaged who are unable to make informed choices would be exploited into selling their organs. This reason has been frequently cited by the Singapore government to support its ban on organ trading since such exploitation could subject the unsuspecting donor to potential medical risks. At the same time, the amount of money the donor receives can vary and poor donors might be tricked into accepting a smaller sum of payment. As such, organ trading might not be that beneficial to the donor after all.

Such drawbacks can however be overcome. The organ market can be made into a government-regulated monopsony with the government being the sole purchaser of donated organs. This will ensure equity since all donors will receive the same monetary payment and therefore will not be subjected to exploitation. At the same time, the government should also be the only one that carry out the harvesting of the organ so that it would be in the position to screen donors for potential medical risks prior to removing their organs and for compatibility with the recipient. A real-life case study for such a system would be Iran.

Eugene, Ruiting, Yingying, Yiksin (09S07A)