my last post

Shylock is one of the antagonists in Shakespeare's play, Merchant of Venice. In here, he is seen as a sly and crafty villain in Merchant of Venice and is obsessed with money.
This can be seen in the play whereby when Jessica went away, he cried in anxiety ‘‘my daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter! / Fled with a Christian! O my Christian ducats!" from here, we can see how crazy shylock is with money that he treats money above all even above his daughter.


Next, Shylock is seen as a sly and crafty villain who slowly plots his way to kill Antonio. We can see how he turned an innocent loan into an agreement between life and death and he slowly persuades Antonio to sign it by telling him it is worth it. Later once the Antonio broke the agreement, he immediately made preparations to kill his enemy as he wants the kill mainly Antonio by taking a pound of his flesh through a bond which he signed with him. Shakespeare here is probably trying to depict the Jews as bloodthirsty and sly evildoers who sin and is prejudice against him.


However another thing to take note is that Shakespeare also criticizes Christian in his play. We can see how he portray Antonio whereby Antonio normally hurl unkind insults at shylock calling him a dog etc and even going to the extent of spitting on him.


Hence, in conclusion, although Shakespeare wanted to show the extent of the evilness of Jews in his play, he also emphasizes that everyone sin and this can be seen about how he portrayed Antonio. Hence I feel that Shakespeare wanted to make everyone be it Jew or Christian a sinner and that no one is perfect.

mov

I feel that Shakespeare is biased against the Jews and this can be seen from how he described shylock in the play whereby he was described as a cruel and heartless person in the book unlike the christian characters like Portia etc. In the Merchant of Venice, Shylock was often discriminated by Antonio whereby he would usually spit on Shylock and hurl nasty insults at him. This clearly shows how Antonio, a Christian, looks down on Shylock, who is a Jew. Also Shakespeare gave him a pitiful life story whereby not only he was terribly punished in the end but he lost his daughter, servant and wealth. This shows how terrible a fate and person shylock is as the way Shakespeare wanted to picture it and shows how Jews were treated at that point of time. In conclusion, I feel that it is through these events that Shakespeare reveals the Anti-Semitism theme to the audience.

mov

I feel that Shakespeare is biased against the Jews and this can be seen from how he described shylock in the play whereby he was described as a cruel and heartless person in the book unlike the christian characters like Portia etc. In the Merchant of Venice, Shylock was often discriminated by Antonio whereby he would usually spit on Shylock and hurl nasty insults at him. This clearly shows how Antonio, a Christian, looks down on Shylock, who is a Jew. Also Shakespeare gave him a pitiful life story whereby not only he was terribly punished in the end but he lost his daughter, servant and wealth. This shows how terrible a fate and person shylock is as the way Shakespeare wanted to picture it and shows how Jews were treated at that point of time. In conclusion, I feel that it is through these events that Shakespeare reveals the Anti-Semitism theme to the audience.

post 4

I feel that Jim Roger's argument in which he decides to send his children in order to prepare for the future where Asia would be the leading super power in the world. He argues that he sent his children to Singapore to study in order to enable them to be bilingual as to prepare for the future and I strongly agree as with China undergoing rapid industrialising and is slowly immerging to be the world next super power, we definitely cannot sit back and do nothing and instead we must be prepared, prepared to change. The ability to adapt is very important and we must quickly adapt to the rapidly changing world in order to stay at the top. Hence I agree with him due to our common belief that we need to have a global perspectives it will be unwise to think that a country would forever be the world’s leading market. Hence in order to prepare ourselves from the unkwonn future, learning a skill or 2 now is defintetly useful and that is why he sends his children here to learn Chinese.

blog 3

I feel that she is right with her points being extremely effective and clear. They are impactful and useful as they are not only truthful but also talk straight to the problem. She cover three main problems in this letter which are killing the children curiosity, affecting the inquisitive nature of a child and the way the school teaches moral values. In this letter, she has questioned the meaning of the word education to the government with her trying to bring out examples and what she had experienced to give some feedback to the government so as to make the government realise the flaws in the education system. This has proved effective with the education minister of Singapore request to invite her in a discussion which he plans to start where they will discuss possible future education policies. He hopes that many youths will come and join in the discussion so as to improve the system and bring the nation forward.





In my opinion, I feel that there can never be an "ideal" education system. Every single person is born differently and everyone has special talents and weaknesses and there can never be a system so good that it caters to everyone and develop everyone talents and skills to the maximum. Furthermore with different opinion of everyone on the education system and how it should be run is different, there can never be one that fits all. Hence, I feel that the best form of education would be to separate students into different streams so as to cater to people with different learning paces so that teachers will be able to focus on the capabilities of the students better and bring the best out of them. Hence despite an ideal education system is impossible, a good one can still exist.

Term 3 Week 2 (Blogging Assignment)

In many parts of the world where the people are extremely in need of water either because of pollution or the lack of it, it is important that everyone gets enough for survival. If it is the case of commodity in these places of crisis, only the rich will triumph for they are the only ones who can afford it while the rest will perish. This can be seen from third world countries like Africa whereby only the selfish and rich people can afford and abuse it while the people get dehydrated and die in vain due to the lack of supply. It is clearly unfair for this is our world and it is everyone’s right to have access to this valuable resource instead of only the powerful being able to obtain this. The wealthy people are not in any way more deserving of Earth's water than the poor people.
Hence it is clearly important for water to be treated as a human right to ensure the continuity of mankind. With water treated as a human right, everyone will be able to obtain water fairly and only with this can everyone be treated fairly as it should be as all humans are equal.

Some self centred people may argue that it is unfair for their ability to obtain a vast amount of water to be taken away from them as they deserve it for they can afford it. However, the simple fact is that this model of privatization doesnt work. You cannot marry the profit motive to something like water or air which people need to survive. We have to take this notion of fresh water out of the market place and say that it belongs to the earth, it belongs to all species, it belongs to future generations, and no one has the right to commodify it for personal gain

In conclusion, this world belongs to humanity. Hence everyone should have the rights to have access to this valuable resource and we should all share it equally for this doesn’t only belongs to us, but to every single soul living in this world.

Term 3 Week 1 Assignment

In my opinion, maids should not be given a rest day in Singapore as the situation and environment here is simply not suitable to do so. Some people say things like maids should be acknowledged as humans, not properties and we treat them like slaves etc….how wrong they are. In our civilised first world country with the population being so well educated both academically and morally with the lowest crime rate and a strong charity fund, it is clear that many of us have a morally upright character here and seldom will one find an employer mistreating a maid making her work so much that the maid is overly fatigue. Instead it is common to find maids happy working here with a good salary and such excellent working conditions here that makes Singapore one of the most popular places to work in the world, with firm laws that prevent abuse to them. And with all these measures and environment in place are maids treated so stressful that they need a break? Are they treated so miserably that they feel that they are treated like slaves so much that a third party who does not even know about their feelings and most importantly ours have the rights to make such a bold claim?


No, that is my answer why should maids be given a day leave when all they are doing are simple household chores and looking after the employers’ needs? Furthermore with the stressful environment here, which employer will want to give a maid a day leave when it will simply add to their worries? Thoughts like this will pop up: what if my maid has bad company and steals when I am not around during her free time? What if she is influence by outsiders to go against the law which will implicate me? What should I do when there is no one at home to look after my baby? Who will look after my aged parents when I am busy at work? This will simply add to our worries and increase our already high stress level. Many Singaporeans do not like this idea hence creating the online buzz and many employers around the world detest the idea so much that they are willing to ‘bribe’ the maid by giving her extra money so that she will stay at home on the free day. Furthermore to the worry that without these conditions that we may find it costlier to hire maids in the future as supply of maids to Singapore decreases, this is very wrong as the main reason why maids come here to work is due to the good salary here with the Singapore dollar so strong which will allow them to live a better live back home instead of these conditions.


I agree that everyone has human rights but only to a certain extant and by giving them a one day leave a week is simply crossing the line. Many people especially youths who are immature in my opinion who simply do not know the consequences behind this movement. This can be easily supported by our top class government disapproval to the idea. In my opinion, maids can be given some free time in a day like a few hours whereby not only can they have a good break which will solve this problem, this will also ensure that they do not get lead astray at the same time relieving the employers’ worries. This in my opinion is a win- win solution instead of that myopic person who came out with this idea that maids should be given a one day leave a week without thinking about the negative consequences that might harm our society.