Explain the nature of pornography and give your reasons to why we should/should not exercise any form of censorship in this area.

Pornography, based on the random house dictionary, refers to obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit. Its primary purpose is for sexual arousal. It is portraying nudity or sexual acts through imagery or any other media. Pornography has both its supporters and critics, with equally strong arguments on each side. For those who see no harm in pornography, base their arguments mainly on the fact that pornography can be referred to as a form of art, similar to Erotica. Erotica is a form of art that deals with erotically stimulating or sexually arousing descriptions. Though it can be argued that the two are different, we cannot deny that there is similarity between the two, and pornography can be Erotica if viewed from different perspectives. On the other hand, those who are against pornography base their arguments mainly on the fact that it degrades the role of a woman to that of a sex object. A woman is no longer human then. A woman's role will be to cater to male desires. Hence, there is strong basis for the need to exercise any form of censorship of pornography for both sides.


Firstly, let me explain the reason as to why censorship of pornography should go. Pornography, to some extent, can be referred to as Erotica. Erotica, as explained earlier, is a form of art. Though it suggests and encourages sexual fantasies, it is widely accepted unlike pornography. The reason being that it encaptures formal elements of art, and drawing on other historical artworks. Hence, the point to be made is, if pornography is close or similar to erotic art, why can't pornography be accepted by the public? Though it can be argued that pornography differs in terms of the way it is portrayed, it still serves as a piece of art. The purpose of pornography is ultimately decided not by the creator, but the audiences. It is them who chooses to see it as an art or content which caters to men desires. They decide if it is art or the stereotypical harmful thing that most people view it as. Hence, since the purpose and effect is solely dependent on the mind of the beholder, there is no need for the censorship of pornography to stay, because the person ultimately responsible for themselves are themselves. Another reason for pornography to stay is that there is in fact a drop in crime rates. In 20th century Japan, there was increasing pornography use. Instead of encouraging sexual assaults, Japan have been experiencing a significant drop in rape and other sex crimes. This further proves the existence of pornography as healthy and not harmful.


However, there are also solid reasons for pornography to be censored. A very good argument is the fact that it humuliates women. It degrades women to sex objects, for fulfilling men desires. We must reach this point that women are not born to serve men. This is still so if the woman did it on her own will. No one is born an unequal, and more importantly no one deserves to be treated unequally. Moreover, there are also religious objections to pornography. Most religions either see sex as a sacred, highly-pleasurable activity or as something limited to its purpose of breeding. Hence, the unconstrained idea of pornography is strongly objected by many religions. In addition, though it is true that in japan the sexual crimes decreased, it is not necessarily the same for the rest of the world. In fact, pornography had made the situation worse, by conveying the message that all women really want to be raped. A study done on rapists found that the assailant had the wrong conception on sexual activities, and insisted that "the victims not only enjoyed rape but also extreme violence." Clearly, the sex predators got the misconception that victims will like what they do to them. This is especially so for those who watch pornography. Another study conducted examined the exposure to and the usage of pornography in the histories of 38 rapists and 26 child molesters. Rapists and child molesters were reported to be "significantly more likely" to use pornographic materials prior to and during their offenses. Moreover, pornography is very addictive. With more people having access to it, it is no surprise that the number of sex offenders will increase. Furthermore, with no restriction on internet pornography, pornographic materials are easily sent from home to home, causing greater harm to the society. In an article on New York Times, a Florida man was caught offering to trade nude pictures of his young daughter and other forms of child pornography in an Internet chat room. This person had exploited the use of the internet, for the entertainment and enjoyment of himself and other dirty men. He is not the only one. There are many others who abused the internet for similar reasons. This explains the plethora of pornography material online, many of which were not even uploaded by the 'actors' themselves. Therefore, with all these harmful effects going on currently with almost no restriction, there is concrete basis for pornography to be censored.


Though there are strong arguments on both sides, i am more supportive of censoring pornography. Though there is healthy sides to pornography, I feel that pornography has more harmful effects. We must understand that pornography is not something good to us to begin with, especially to individuals with absolutely no self control. However, it is ultimately up to the individual to decide if pornography is good for them. Similarly, after making their decision, they would have to bear the consequences. It is completely up to them to choose their path. They chose what they did and they have no one to blame but themselves should trouble arise.

President’s Star Charity Show- is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?

Charity shows are shows that showcases famous artistes' talents in order to get people to donate money to the unfortunate. Or in some cases, it is to gain sympathy from the audience. While some may agree that it helps the unfortunate get noticed or highlighted, there are also controversial thoughts on the need for such a performance by the artistes. While it is true that it does help get donations for the needy, there are some who argue that it is not necessary. The donors did not help on their own accord. Rather, they were impressed with the stunts by their favourite artistes. To skeptics, there is no need for such a show. Donors will find organisations to donate to if they have the compassion and sympathy for the needy.


As President S.R. Nathan said, "the aim (of President's Star Charity Show) was to create a caring and compassionate nation by fostering acts of kindness and generosity towards the less fortunate in our society." For those who strongly support it, it is a chance for the public to show their warmth and kindness which is clearly lacking in the everyday lives of Singaporeans. Singaporeans get to lend a helping hand and it is spiritually fulfilling too. Similarly, it is an opportunity for the needy to gain support and help which they desperately need. It is known that there is a huge number of people struck with illnesses or poverty and is unable to cope with current living standards. To them, this is their chance to be highlighted. This is their lifeline. Removing the show would mean depriving them of help in the form of money. Life would continue to be a suffering. Taking away the show would thus be immoral. Hence there is basis for creating such a charity show.


Though it is true that such a charity show is beneficial for both parties, there are people who feel that it is unnecessary. Even if people donate, it is only because they were fascinated by performance by the MediaCorp artistes. This is especially so for the fans who are moved by anything that their idol says or does. All that the artiste got to do to garner donations is to appeal to the fans. Thus, what people really donate for is not out of compassion for the needy, but to support their idol. If people wish to help the needy, there is certainly no need for artistes to milk compassion and sympathy for the needy. People will help in every way they can if they have the sincerity and humanity. Furthermore, we cannot deny that there will be instances when people misuse the donations. An example would be the NKF scandal. NKF had been carrying out their own charity shows for years. At least a few million dollars have been donated into NKF's charity fund. However, it was embezzled by the CEO T T Durai. The money, meant for the ailing and poverty-stricken, instead went to the CEO. He went on to enjoy luxurious living each year, from installing gold taps in bathrooms to going on first class in SIA, all at the expense of the needy. After he was exposed, people no longer trust NKF, with some even questioning the necessity of such a show. The donations from the people could have gone to better use if they had donated directly to the organisations for the needy. Though it is true that not all charity shows are not as controversial as the NKF case, we must admit that the liability of all organisations are questioned by the public. People now think twice before donating to charity shows. Hence is there still a need to carry out the President's Star Charity Show now that faith in them has been lost?


In conclusion, who really determines the need for the President's Star Charity Show is neither the president nor the producer. Rather, it is the public that decides if the show should stay or go. Yes, the show may carry on. However, without the support and donations from the public, the show is nothing but a mere performance from MediaCorp artistes. Hence, the public needs to decide if such a show is really necessary, or if they are willing to bypass the show and go to the extend of reaching out to external organisations to donate. They must know that they should not regret after donating, even if the funds are wrongly used. Afterall, they have done their small part in helping the needy carry an optimistic outlook of life. Whether or not the performance of the artistes is necessary, they have already shown their compassion for the unfortunate in the society.

Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore- Refer to TalkingCock.com/ Mr Brown

Political commentary is is criticism that is specific of or relevant to politcs, including policies, politicians, political parties, and types of government. Political commentary in this case, refers to Singaporeans slamming the government in the form of blogging and expressing their thoughts freely. In Singapore, people have the freedom to criticise the government on the internet but it is strictly regulated. Minor cases are tolerated. However, it is not common to see the government let their critics off. The regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore is known to be so tight that people have to declare bankrupt after being sued by the government. Regardless of the government's intention, we cannot deny the necessity of the move. The government needs all its citizens to be cooperative, so as to allow the country to function efficiently. Without the cohesiveness and unity of the people, however witty the members of parliament may be, Singapore will never progress forward as a country, as a unit.

One good example is Dr Chee Soon Juan. He allegedly accused Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for misleading Parliament over an alleged $17 billion loan to former Indonesian president Suharto. Mr Goh and Mr Lee then filed a lawsuit against him, forcing him to declare bankrupt. Though it was not clearly explained why they filed a lawsuit against Dr Chee, the intention was obvious. It was to protect the government from being tainted by such rumours. Such regulations are made to restrict political content. The regulations removes any doubt from the people of the government. Though it creates an different, perfect image of the government, this at least, secures peace and harmony between the citizens and the government.

The same goes for political commentary on the internet. The internet has evolved to be an important tool of communication in our daily lives. Even the slightest comments on the government posted on the net will have an impact on people. It is especially so when political commentary appeals to the entertainment of the people. It is human nature to be inquisitive and thus it is no surprising that websites like talkingcock.com receive lots of views. Therefore, it is also no mistake of the government when it comes to restricting political commentary. With the internet, common ideas are developed when people communicate. Should someone post a negative comment on the government, other people might also develop the same idea and hence will start to doubt the government. This explains the necessity of the regulation of political commentary.

However, we must not deny the fact that lesser restriction on political commentary is helpful too. What most citizens really want is actually a transparent government in which they know what is going on. There is no point covering up flaws in the government and finally collapsing in the end because of poor management and mistakes made. Furthermore, though we can argue that people can come up with rumours, we must also know that there is nothing to be afraid of if we have done nothng wrong. A good government will remain good no matter how people comment on their performance.

Hence, though political commentary may not be good, it is not exactly all bad either. The ability of each minister of parliament cant possibly change overnight because of criticsm. The competence and capability of the government will not alter. The government will still remain steady despite comments by a few unhappy citizens if the government is really that good. Instead, the only thing that will change is the popularity and trust the people have in the government. As always, we can argue that the popularity and trust is more influential and important.

What will be ultimately decided lies with the government. It has the power to choose whether to allow freedom of speech or a regulated, restricted political commentary. Though both have their pros and cons, the government will have to decide which choice will benefit them in the long run, for what is more important than the image of the government is the image of the country. The unity, the harmony and the progression of the country is the ultimate goal, not the government's image.