AQ/Tan Ping Hao/10s403

The author in Passage 1 states that "The society operates on the assumption that they not only can be taught, but must be." I agree with the author that the society must be taught as without education on moral values and the culture of shame as without it, children would end up growing up not knowing how to lead their lives. We are not born with natural morally correct instincts, and have to be guided to the correct paths in life. There are many examples of such an education being implemented, such as the civics and moral education in schools in Singapore which is compulsory for all students. However, the society may not respond appropriately to the teachings implemented. It is clear that even with moral values being taught to the society, the society still chooses to ignore these values, or consider them irrelevant and unimportant. This results in the disasters caused such a lack of moral values. Some examples include abuse cases and teenage pregnancies. In fact, some societies in other, more liberal countries do not even operate on the assumption that the society must be taught moral values, and consider actions fuelled by a lack of moral values as a norm in their society. However, the idea in passage 1 is relevant to our society as Singapore is still considered more traditional than liberal today, and places much importance of the upbringing of their children. Acts caused by a lack of moral values, such as rape, teenage pregnancy or abuse, are still deeply frowned upon and not considered a norm in society at all. The government also places much empahsis on the importance of our values through education and campaigns, in order to make sure that even though Singapore progresses, her civillians are still able to maintain and pass on their values to later generations.

The author in Passage 2 states that "We are, very simply, unprepared for dealing with pangs of shame or for undertaking spiritual soul-searching." I agree with this as while the society is progressing materiallistically, we remain stagnant when it comes to spiritual well-being. The society today is driven by economic progression and the improvement in technology and other material gains, so much so that the basic value of conscience and humility are ignored. Students are trained to deal with problems at work or school and are educated in problem-solving methods, but they are uncertain and apprehensive when it comes to the culture of shame. With a higher standard of living, people nowadays also become more complacent and confident of themselves, and do not try to assess themselves. For example, a businessman may be more driven by profit than how morally correct his methods to gain profit are. They have little shame in what they do, as long as profit is earned. This idea is applicable to my society as Singapore is fast progressing economically and with our higher standard of living and quality of life, humility has become a rarity.

AQ/Faris Hakim/10S403

The author in passage 1 says that society operates on the assumption that they, values, not only can be taught but must be. I disagree with the author because in a more liberal society, these values has been eroded. The values are being taught but it has not had any effect on the society. This can be seen from the reality show 16 and pregnant. Their society view it as a norm for an unmarried 16 year old getting pregnant. If this happens to a more conservative society such as those in Asia, the girl and her family would be deeply ashamed. Hence, i disagree with the author because not all societies operates on the same assumption. This idea is applicable to my society because Singapore is still largely considered as a traditional and conservative society. However, this may change in the coming years because Singaporean youths are becoming more liberal.

The author in passage 2 says that the basic problem is that there is an absence of a culture of shame. I agree with the author because as society strives to improve its economic and material well-being, much of these values are being ignored as they tend to hinder society's progress. This idea is not applicable to my society because Singapore is still considered a traditional and conservative society.

Want more babies? Men, step up.

Low birth rates in Singapore may be linked to lack of gender equity

Two Mommies is one too many

Two lesbian partners planning to raise a child together. Their actions may bear severe consequences when the child gets older, go through puberty and become mature. He will wonder why his family has deviated from the norm. How is he going to survive high school with his peers teasing him about not having a real dad?

Constant teasing may lead to low self-esteem and many other social problems. The problem will continue to grow and develop until the boy reaches adulthood. If he does get married, he will probably not know how to discipline his child properly as he has never experienced it himself. However, this does not mean that his two mothers are not capable of disciplining him but they cannot replicate how a father would do it.

Same-sex marriage has become the norm in America. This can be seen from the hit musical comedy series GLEE. The female lead character in the series was brought up by two gay dads. Just wanted to bring this point up because GLEE is AWESOME (inserts smiley face)


Faris Hakim signing off

Ivy/ CONFUCIANIST VIEW(Blame the woman, spare the man)

1. Women are encouraged to forgive their spouse when they go astray. This is because a successful man's marital infidelity for example, Jack Neo has historically been tolerated in Chinese culture. A men having more than one partner seems to be accepted in the Chinese tradition which could be seen from many rich and successful men in the past having 'three wives and five concubines'.

2. Men were also referred to the ones who really play a role and matter in the any relationship, which caused many females willing to endure and accept when their spouse stray. This could be seen in many celebrities nowadays willing to forgive their spouse and allow them to return to their side. Furthermore, In a survey two sinologists carried out in the mid-1990s in Taipei, Guangzhou, Shanghai and Beijing, most respondents felt that the wronged party - usually the wife, of course - ought to remain patient and do her utmost to persuade the wayward spouse to return.

3. It was also stated that men prefer women who are pretty, chaste and healthy women who were less educated, less intelligent, or had less promising careers than they did. While on the other hand, women preferred men who were smarter and financially stable and it also further supports its stand that the third party in the relationship which in this context, the female, ought to be blame which could be seen from the article that modern, financially independent women with their own careers who are willing to get involved with married men for the romantic intimacy, without eventual marriage in mind.

I disagree with the writer to a large extent, this is because when a man gets caught having an affair with another woman, the wife or the third party should not shoulder the full blame, the man should also be blamed to some extent, to the fact he could not control his urges to get involved in another relationship, knowing that it is morally wrong and letting his spouse down.

Though its mainly stated in confucianist point of view that woman are largely to be blamed ''the wife who is responsible for the domestic conditions that impel her man to play the field or just that the other woman had set out to seduce a married man, it is still women who are really at fault.'' as well as "modern, financially independent women with their own careers who are willing to get involved with married men for the romantic intimacy, without eventual marriage in mind." This is only a minority of women, at which the survey is taken, women should not be stereotyped as the one's who look for short term relationship just to fulfill their satisfaction and not be assumed that they would necessarily forgive their spouse and beg them or allow them to return to their side when they stray.

Parents: Relax

This article mainly talks about how teenagers these days are deemed worse off than their forebears, and that it isn't true. It talks about how parents should "relax" and that teens are less violent and more sober, rational in thinking, and should be given more rights in deciding their lives. It says that the teen brain may well be evolving, and that teens are actually becoming more rational and make better decisions compared to their forebears, so their parents, being the forebears, should rest easy knowing that their children are probably better at making the right decisions (albeit not as often as adults) as they themselves were when they were teenagers. The idea of introducing a type of 'competency test' to determine his/her rational thinking, no matter what their age is, was offered by Robert Epstein. The children/teenagers who pass this test can then be allowed more rights, such as signing their own contracts, vote and do essentially anything he/she wants, like drinking, smoking, driving, etc.

The author made a very good point in saying that even though this test can be considered, the question is, who will be the one who creates the test? Psychologists could, as Epstein said, but who can say that these psychologists can even agree on the level of maturity and rational thinking the applicant must have? Even though they are all in the same field, they would have different ideas on the competency level they think the children should have before they "pass the test". It's the same as different doctors coming up with different diagnosis for a single patient. This test could lead to even more problems because of the difference in opinion.

I agree with the author that teenagers now are more rational in their thinking compared to their forebears. This is because they are exposed to different environments. Teens nowadays have sources like the Internet where they can always research on whatever they want to know, and decide for themselves whether something is morally right or wrong. Most schools also tutor their students in what they should do and what they should not. For example, many schools invite professionals to come to their school and give talks to their pupils (eg on the harmful effects of smoking, drugs, etc.) Their forebears didn't get as much exposure to this kind of things when they were our age, as what was most important was their education, not overall upbringing. Violence is also decreased as most violent tendencies that teenagers may have are resolved as soon as possible. Although there are still cases of violence and shooting, it has become relatively less(as shown from the article-'the rate of school violence fell from 48 crimes per 1,000 students in 1992 to 22 per 1,000 in 2004, according to the Department of Education').

The author commented that since kids have been making better decisions in the past 20 years, they should maintain status quo and that it 'would be perverse to reward them by saying that we don't care if they get drunk and watch porn, or do anything else wrong. I disagree. Since it has already been proven that kids these days have better rational thinking skills and the ability to judge for themsevlves, giving them more freedom is simply what they deserve. They can be offered all the choices in the world, but if teenagers know what is right and what is wrong, they themselves will decide what they want to do. Thus, yes, parents should simply relax and let us learn how to live life our way.


-pinghao