Justice or Mercy

Let me start of with the meaning of both Justice and Mercy. Justice is just behavior or treatment, and the quality of being fair and reasonable. Mercy is compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm. These two are shown in the Merchant of Venice. The outcome also shows which supersedes the other.

Shylock wanted justice and refused to show mercy at all. Even when given ten times the debt Antonio has to pay, Shylock' s mind was all about killing Antonio. On the other hand, Antonio believed strongly in mercy, and in the end, had the last laugh.

It is clear that Justice is inferior to Mercy. Justice is the belief of having fair treatment. If someone punches you, he is most likely to get punished by law as there is justice. However, justice is a little like revenge, which is wrong. We should just love our enemies and let everything happen naturally. When Mercy is shown, it is double blessing.

Justice can lead to a lot of problems. For example, when a person does not show forgiveness and compassion, the victim might go for revenge and in the end, every party will suffer. If mercy is shown, not only will the victim be blessed, because he is forgiven, the giver is free from possible harm and also feels good as he did something morally upright.

In the end, it all depends on what circumstance it is in. If the bad deed is murder, it is not right to let the criminal go unpunished, as he did something too serious. However, if it is like stealing a small amount of money, I believe mercy should be shown.

This is the clear differentiation between Justice and Mercy, and the decision to show any of them lies with us.

Why is Shylock introduced into the merchant of venice

I think that Shylock is created because he is very important for the plot to be good. Every story needs a protagonist, and antagonist. Can you imagine a story without bad people but only good people? It will be any typical and boring children story book. Furthermore, without Shylock, Shakespeare cannot convey the message of Justice and Mercy, Racial Discrimination, Friendship. Today, I will be talking about why Shylock is important for the above themes.

Firstly, justice and mercy. This is very obvious. Shylock is the bad guy, the one who is cunning and manipulative. He comes up with a superb plot in order to kill the good guy, Antonio. In the end, the plot backfires, and Antonio escapes Shlock's trap unscathed. This shows that justice will still prevail in the end. Without Shylock, there will be no theme as without an antagonist, there will not be any justice at all. Next is mercy. Antonio and Shylock' s creation into the Merchant of Venice also show the different contrast between the two characters. While Antonio strongly believes that Mercy is the key, Shylock feels otherwise. The contrasting relation provides the basis of the storyline, where Antonio, despite almost being killed by the merciless Shylock, was still able to show mercy and spare Shylock his life and some money.

Secondly, racial discrimination is any theme in the story that is of great importance. Shylock is a Jew and he is portrayed as the bad guy. On the other hand, all the Christians are good. This adds flavor to the entire story, as it is not only about Justice-good or bad, but it conveys a deeper meaning, that Christians are the true religion, and all Christians will have a happy ending. This story is actually about Christian VS Jews. In the end, Shylock was also converted into Christian, showing the superiority of Christianity in Shakespeare's opinion.

Finally, it is Friendship. Shylock s introduction to the story distinctly shows his greed for money, and what defines a good man. His view of friendship is one that has money, like Tubal, his only friend on the story. His life is about money. On the contrary, Antonio and Bassanio had a strong friendship, in their case, meaning loyalty. The introduction Shylock shows the contrasting views.

In conclusion, Shylock' s introduction to the story is of great importance, as Shylock presence conveys a deeper meaning of the theme, and also adds a lot of decoration to the story. Without him there will be no story at all.

I think that Jim Rogers is trying to say that children now need to have global experience, instead of just " bravery, hardwork, curiosity and compassion". He said that US is now a depleting superpower, as the government did not emphasise on education. " Only a quarter primary school offer any language instruction at all". This shows that other than English, Americans simply do not care about their future by learning other languages etc. Now, the rising super power is the East, not the west, and the creditors are from the East, while the debtors are from the West.

That is why he travelled half the world, just to seek a bilingual school in Singapore, to make sure that his daughter receives the best education he thinks. Jim Rogers feel that in order to prepare his daughter for the future, she needs not only the chinese langauge, but appropriate education. Singapore provides this well.

I do agree with his argument as I feel that to become a global citizen. One needs to be open to the world, and most important, understand their culture and communicate well with them. It is necessary to do that, as communication is the root of all success. If one person does not know the culture of another when discussing business, he or she may accidentally insult the other party. That is why to be a global citizen is very important.

I feel that what he is doing is very good for his daughter. This is because the daughter will now know chinese language and it is China that is tipped to be the next superpower. I feel that America should change their education policy in order to remain as the superpower. They do not emphasise on important aspects of education, and the new generation of Americans are no more the dominant generation.

My comments on Janelle Lee's letter

Firstly, I
admire Janelle Lee’s courage to speak up. Not many students dare to voice their
disapproval of the education system in Singapore. To a certain extent, what she
said is true. After all, the point of education is to gain knowledge, and one
way to do so, like Janelle Lee said, is to ask why. However, there are some
things that cannot be answered, and impossible to ask why.

Definitely,
it is true that one cannot just memorize their textbook to learn and gain
knowledge. One has to understand instead. By memorizing, it is impossible to
remember a particular piece of knowledge. However, by understanding, one can
grasp the basis of this piece of knowledge, which can be used not only to get
more A1s, but also to apply it to daily life. For example, if you learn
biology, say ecology by memorizing model answer’s, chance of you getting A is
very high. However, do you actually understand what you are learning? Have you
have appreciated the magnificent world of Biology, the flawless system of how
the food chain works? Instead, if you understand how the food chain works, you
can apply your knowledge for a wide variety of questions, just by
understanding. As you can see, memorizing is a very dead way of studying, and
makes the whole process a dull and uninteresting one.

Only by
asking why can one understand. However,
in the education system, if one lacks certain keywords, you can have all the
answers in the world, but never a correct answer. This, I feel is the major
problem. Yes, memorizing is not the way to study, and it is necessary to
understand. However, where the education system is flawed in Singapore is the
criteria to getting a full and complete answer. I feel that the education
system should award marks based on what level of understanding of a certain
topic. Also, there should be more application questions, to test the level of
understanding, instead of those that can be memorized.

Next is
about moral education. Janelle Lee mentioned that she learned civics and moral
from a textbook. She mentioned that this is not the way to teach moral
education as teachers are just doing it for the sake of doing it. However, I feel
that this is not the case. The civics and moral textbook is used as a guide on
how can one learn to become a better person. Also, teachers are often very
passionate and they do teach us moral values instead of doing it for the sake
of doing it. However, what Janelle Lee said about teachers using civics and moral
lessons to teach other subject, it is very true. Some teachers may be too
concern when it is very near the exam period. This is not the way as no matter
what, the moral education is the first priority. Therefore, I hope that rules
must be implemented to stop this from happening.

I feel that
it is impossible to have an ideal education system. This is because there are
always students who disrupt the teacher, students who are not up to standard
academically, and also half-hearted teachers. These entire elements will slow
down the rate at which the teachers teach. In the end, memorizing will still be
the ideal way to learn. In the world now, it is no more about understanding, as
not all things can be understood, and many students detest learning.

In
conclusion, I feel that Janelle Lee’s points all do make sense, but there are
no immediate solutions, and in order to change the mindset of people, it will
take a long time.

The religion of water

Water is a necessity in our lives. Without water, we will all die. Definitely, water is a commodity as it is very valuable. However, I think it is more of a human right. This is because the absence of water will cause a person to die. Every one of us has the right to live, and so, we should treat it as a human right, not a commodity.

Water is very important to us. Almost everything we do requires water. Our body needs water so that our system will be replenished with water, and unwanted substance can be removed through the flow of water. Water is used for a wide range of activities, ranging from bathing to irrigational purposes. The absence of water is definitely impossible without water. Earth is the only planet that supports life as it is the only planet with water. As you can see, water is not a commodity. It is “compulsory”.

There is a difference between human right and commodity. A commodity is something very valuable, but human right are rights that are justifiable to every humans. According to the above definitions, if water is treated as a commodity, it means that water is very valuable, but may not be necessary. On the contrary, human right, in this case, is the right to be able to drink water. This is the difference between what is human right and commodity, and it clearly shows why water should be treated as a human right instead of commodity.

In the world today, no matter what race or religion one is, no matter how smart one is, every man on this earth is entitled to the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law. Similarly, everyone should be given the right to have water.