Should we exercise any form of censorship in the area of pornography?

Pornography, in today’s context, is one of the most lethal works of art known to man, powerful and bold, and like a drug, it is never enough, causing harm to one’s life. I do not believe that pornography is a degradation of a particular sex because obviously, pornography is not used as a stereotype for the entire population of a gender. Its purpose is for sexual enjoyment and can be found from VCDs sold in the darkest corners of the alley to the ever so open internet, but whether it becomes part of one’s life, is a test of control. Or is it natural for human beings to have a desire for the other sex? Still, we abstain from it since it is widely regarded as immoral due to its obscenity. So for what reasons do we have to or not exercise censorship in the area of pornography?

Watching pornography starts by trapping your heart, your mind, your soul. Being unable to resist picturing that slender or masculine figure regardless of form of pornography, focusing will become a challenge. Returning to the privacy of one’s home will become top priority (as long as there’s internet connection), all prior commitments are irrelevant. One’s mindset will also change; the processes that the brain makes will be different, affected by the tempting actions shown in pornography. Next, after an excessive amount of hormone secretion, the viewer may find that pornography is no longer addictive, even the most extravagant ones become dull. This doesn’t mean it stops here, to gain a more exciting insight the viewer will want to try these immoral actions himself. Entering the point of no return, where there is no chance to undo the actions he has done, destroying his future.

However, another reason why the viewer’s destiny becomes set in stone is due to society’s definition of what is acceptable and what is not, what should be allowed and what should not. Without this common mindset that if one does not dress decently (in this case do not dress), one has no dignity – which has no basis since we were born naked and all animals do not wear clothes – the implications of pornography wouldn’t be like as stated since everyone can accept it so explicit behavior will not become nothing special and won’t affect one’s life.

Even though I do not feel the need for preventing the access of pornography because I feel it is natural for humans to crave for beauty in the opposite sex just like all the other animals do, but the complicated society that we humans have created think that this above average sexual desires are wrong. Therefore, I strongly suggest the censorship of pornography, it does not have much or any positive effects at all but its negative impacts can be great in the society we live in today.

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

The President’s Star Charity Show broadcasts every year, with many famous artistes performing life-threatening or impossibly difficult stunts for charity. These acts of bravery and compassion are supposedly trying to cause the audience to sympathize the less fortunate (touching their hearts) to empty their pockets. Seem unnecessary? However, through the many statistics such as the fact that most calls for donations are made during these charity shows.

Many reasons contribute to the success of these shows, like the idols used in these performances. Due to their popularity, they are the most effective people to use for extracting money out of the common folk. Their experience gives them the ability to speak so emotionally and brilliantly about each of the acts that they perform. Being able to give the most dramatic and spectacular show to the audience, they are selected. The audience, who no doubt prefers it done this way over any others, will consider the show great and worth their donation. But if the money is not gained by the truthfulness of the heart, whether the people or the actors, can it really be considered charity?

Moreover, the tight-fisted people of Singapore also contributes to the need for these shows. In order to loosen the grip, we need to convince them that this investment is worth their money. Especially due to the distrust in charitable organizations Singaporeans have due to the recent NKF saga. Even when the money is suppose to go to the people with kidney problems, people in the company are getting salaries larger than most people in Singapore, TT Durai’s was more than $20,000, and they are suppose to be working for the better of poor? Also, without these charity shows, Singaporeans will not see the reason to donate and will not; they have to be convinced that these lesser humans are indeed very pitiful, as depicted by the actions of the stuntmen and various videos, and deserve to be helped.

Despite the negative basis for the success of these shows, they are worth the good that it will bring. The underlying intention may have been good, but still to them, it’s the end result that matters not the journey.

Regulation of Political commentary on the Internet in Singapore

Singapore is a country, highly dependent on its international relations. Due to the lack of natural resources, trade and tourism is needed to sustain its economy. The basis for this is stability, to attain that high a level, cooperation is required, between the higher ups and the lower downs, especially for a state where manpower is the most important asset.

To empower the people while empowering the government – thus the democratic system in Singapore. And in every democratic system, there is the voting system, which is extremely essential for the popular government to be chosen leading to a high chance that there will be a common agreement in the society on any policies.

In this age, with the internet, the fairness of these votes may be compromised. The internet though has many advantages, like the easy access to knowledge and free-for-all property, has the major problem mainly the credibility and anonymity of sources.

People do put false or biased information on the internet for different purposes, and one of these purposes could well be to mislead voters, and to lead the voters in the right direction again is not easy. If you read about someone's negative opinion on a particular PAP policy, but weren't given the full story from this text, you will have a negative impression on PAP. This isn't fair to PAP or any other party who encounters this problem. To correct this wrong perception of the party, the party must first know that there is such a site (which will take time) and then an explanation must be given. To who? To anyone who has read that post, but they cannot accurately pinpoint who they are so the explanation must be given to the public. If there were many such posts, too much time and effort is needed to correct such false accusations directed to those who read the posts which could just be only a few. The longer it takes for the rumour to change, the more difficult to change and more people will be influenced by it.

In 2001, the Government allowed candidates and parties to use the internet for election advertising. Photos and manifestoes, chat rooms, membership recruitment messages, and announcements of meetings on the web or through email are all acceptable. So, why did they allow it then but not now? One can wonder whether PAP did it for their own self-benefit, knowing that the other parties’ funds are not as high as theirs, is it fair to restrict them from online campaigning which is less expensive but still effective?

Still, I agree with this ban, despite it being difficult to strike a balance in equality, it is needed to give the most accurate results of the opinions of the people without the interference of others’ comments and suggestions.