Is War a necessary evil?

“War must not exist for it’s own sake, it must serve a purpose for the state.” As said by a military theorist. The effects of war have always been prospected as the cause of the deaths of many as well as health and economic problems. War has only brought about destruction to those involved and even the innocent. There are certainly different reasons in which countries engage in war, but have the leaders of the nations considered all the alternatives? Certainly they have – As leaders of a nation, they cannot afford to make rash decisions like engaging in war just like that.
Although one may think that war is a ‘destructor of innocent lives’ and a creator of the obscene and terrible deaths of many, as long as we are only human emotions and beliefs will always come into conflict with others. Humans are always selfish, and as leaders of a nation all they want is an idealistic country for them, and therefore have their own beliefs and ideas. Similarly, other nations hence have unique ideas as well. For example, the South Kordofan Conflict in Sudan as well as the civil war in Libya were both triggered by resentment from the citizens or organizations due to conflicting ideals for the country and for themselves. The only way for human leaders to successfully implant his ideals completely without the intervention and objection of others is to eliminate or oppress them when peace talks could not be reached.
Throughout history, there has been many cases and scenarios of country leaders being corrupted and morphing into a tyrant. If you allow a tyrant room to grow, his power starts to spread like disease and the oppression of the civilians will grow worse day by day – even lives would be lost. In the case of Libya, the government leader Gaddafi could not yet be considered a tyrant leader, but the civilians were already living in suffering, resentment and oppression. Had the rebels decided not to wage a war against Gaddafi many innocent lives would be lost and the lives of civilians in Libya will not improve for a very long time. Another historical example would be Hitler – Had the Americans decided to go to war against him earlier he would never have arrived at a stage where his corrupted power spread like bushfire and was nearly incorrigible. Even though he was eventually subdued, many innocent lives had been lost in the process. It was a sacrifice of thousands, to save the lives of a million more.
When a country’s resources, civilian lives and territory are at stake, the only two alternatives to resolve the situation will be to engage in a peace talk, or go to war. When a country is legitimately threatened, war is necessary. Due to the various conditions involved in peace talks and the already hostile and aggressive attitude between countries, peace talks have always been a failure. In the many wars that have occurred in the 20th and 21st century, how many times have peace talks succeeded? The percentage, if calculated, would have been meagre and minute. Peace talks fail, and countries need to find another alternative to defend themselves and resolve the situation. The only choice the countries have left is to go to war. As the saying goes, “No pain, no gain.” If countries do want something for themselves and alternatives such as peace talks fail, they only have to go to war – The dominant one will get things his way.
War is a necessary evil – We are ultimately humans and always have conflicting ideas, we are ultimately humans and corruption will always be a problem. When we are attacked, the only action what we can take when a compromise could not be reached would be to fight back.

Deadly train crash in China...

It was a day of tragedy when the two trains collided as high speed, but to he citizens of China it was more of a tragedy when the government tried to cover-up the incident.
Why did the government want to cover it up? It was simple. They just did not want the citizens to resent them and blame them for this mistake. However, they have not considered that it would backfire when the public finds out about this. How will the public view the government now then? It will become a kind of distrust and even larger resentment towards them. Imagine someone's relatives who passed away in the train crash, yet the government tries to cover-up and change the death toll. How would you feel?
Some things we have to consider: Is it right for the government to try to cover-up their mistakes? As far as I know, the government should try to keep the site untouched, and before figuring out the malfunction and mistake nothing else should be done to maintain their reputation. Now that their actions have backfired, one of the world's most expensive public work project's safety is now in doubt. Not only that, the government's trust from the citizens has been damaged - Who knows what will the government try to cover-up next? Who knows what will the government do, away from the public eye? After the incident, even the government's claim about the lightning strike that caused the first train to malfunction cannot be trusted anymore. Who knows if the government was simply corrupted, and had substandard work and maintenance?
So, what is the big deal here about the train crash in China? I'm sure accidents happen all over the world and are certainly inevitable. The public cannot blame the government for this if the government has tried their best, and it was due to nature (lightning strikes?) that caused the malfunction. The big deal about the issue here is ethics.
Ethics essentially is a set of principles of right morals and conduct. The government, instead of apologizing to the public and perhaps trying their best to discover the problem with their systems, has tried to abuse the trust of the public. The government has abused the rights of the public when they tried to limit media coverage of the incident. As one reporter said, "We have the right to know the truth!" Another expert exposed the problem: ""To get to the root of any problem, it's very important to keep the site as it is. You can't just move the train compartments around." This incident has only exposed the government's corruption...

Is Shylock a Victim or a Villain?

Shylock is a character from a play written between the years 1956 to 1958 called “The Merchant of Venice”. It was written by a famous English poet and playwright Shakespeare. Just to introduce the story, the play was actually intended as a tragic comedy written for the entertainment of the audience. To point out the main themes of the play: Prejudice, Mercy and Judgement, as well as the prospect of Money.

Shylock is a Jewish moneylender from a city-state Venice. Due to the prejudice against Jews by the mainly Christian-populated Venice at that time, a tragic portrayal of Shylock was written on purpose by Shakespeare for the entertainment of the people simply for the fact that Shylock was a Jew. Prejudice for Jews turns a tragic ending for Shylock into a funny and entertaining scene for the audience.

In my personal opinion, I believe that Shylock was a victim. I know there’s a difference in time, but if I were to step into the shoes of a Jew in the 14th and 15th century I would become a victim as well mainly due to the prejudice from the Christians. In the story, there is solid evidence of how the Christians have bullied him, both in social and daily life and in court.
For a start, Shylock has mentioned (and Antonio has confirmed) of how the Christians have been treating him. In Act One Scene Three, Antonio and Bassanio are attempting to borrow money from Shylock, and a speech by Shylock shows that the Christians call him “misbeliever” and “cut-throat dog”, and they spit on him as well. Antonio, as a non-profit moneylender criticizes Shylock’s way of earning money (to charge interest in moneylending). However he failed to think about the fact that Shylock is a Jew and hence unable to work or be employed anywhere in Venice. Shylock then has no other alternative to make money. Almost everywhere in the story where Shylock is mentioned there is always a relation to insults, even between Salerio and Solanio who called Shylock a ‘dog Jew’, and gave him a social standing where even beggars are fit to compare to him. Even the Duke calls Shylock a ‘stony adversary’ and an ‘inhuman wretch’. Constant mockery and insults would be what Jews in those years have to endure from the Christians. How are they then not victims? As for Shylock, things were worse as his only relative, Jessica his daughter eloped with a Christian, the people he had hated and loathed all his life. With no more joy and love of a family member, how could life be for Shylocks’ remaining years?

In the trial of Shylock, Antonio and their bond (Act Four Scene 1), Shylock is again a victim. The lawyer (Portia) had actually lured Shylock into a trap, and after playing with the words in the bond she managed to bring down Shylock and prevent him to getting a pound of flesh from Antonio. However, the conditions then would be to split Shylock’s properties in two, giving half to Antonio and half to Lorenzo and his daughter Jessica. The Christians actually felt that they were already merciful and hence were hypocritical of Shylock when they called him cruel for repeatedly attempting to gain a pound of flesh from Antonio. Another condition to let Shylock go was for him to convert to Christianity. To Shylock, this is horrendous and outrageous as Shylock was forced by the Christians to abandon and betray the principles and beliefs with which he had lived by since he was born. Not only was this very desolating for Shylock, it also cages and forces him to a corner in life. As a converted Christian, the Jews will no longer regard him as a friend and instead perceive him as an enemy. Similarly, as an ex-Jew the Christians of Venice will not accept him into society either. When the Christians decided to take away Shylock’s property, they are actually ruining his future life due to this change in social standing: Shylock is an ex-Jew, he will still have to burden the consequences like a Jew and be unable to work, etc, and therefore unable to earn money by working. Such were the cruelty and lack of mercy from the Christians towards Jews such as Shylock. It was a tragedy - Shylock was a victim.

Who will listen?

The production from the Hwa Chong English Drama Club won Gold in SYF, and certainly deserves it. Titled “Checkmate”, the play was about a mayor and the last source of water in the world (the water station). To maintain the amounts of water left, the king executed devious plans and massacred the citizens. This secret was found out by the king’s son. Although he was constantly trying to persuade the mayor to change over, the mayor refused to change. Eventually the son leaked this secret out to the public, and participated in rebellions all around without the mayor’s knowledge. Only when the mayor captured his son did he know he was involved. However this was not enough to convince his father – he eventually drowned himself in the water station and contaminated all the water inside. Only then did the mayor realize his fatal mistakes, but it was too late.

This production was based on a simple theme: “Who will listen?” the play was actually an intense portrayal and an extreme example of the problems children face nowadays. I’m sure many of my friends face problems with their parents and even with their teachers. These problems arise when their parents always have an egocentric thinking, and teachers were always unreasonable. Some do not even have friends who were compassionate; neither do they have friends who even care about them. Then, who will listen?

Another play by the HCI English Drama Club was titled “Bang bang, it’s too late”, and was about a boy named Joshua unable to handle stress. In school, he was trying his best at studies, however his results were never good enough to please his Dad. Eventually he slipped into a complex situation where his friends laughed at him for slipping before even kicking an immobile ball; the counselor refused to help him; his teacher being unreasonable and pressurizing towards him. He had enough, and eventually he took a gun and shot everyone. Although it was also a rather extreme case, I have to say again it’s a perfect example of my friends and the problems they face: stress. In my opinion, to handle stress one needs to have friends, parents and even teachers who are willing to talk into their heart with them. When students are unable to handle their stress other challenges arise: Personalities change, hence behavior changes too. A chain reaction would lead to the same person losing friends and the trust of their teacher. Therefore, if we wish to help these people and solve the problems of stress, we need to be compassionate to other around us and always willing to talk with them.

The last play was from Clementi Town Secondary. Titled “Happiness.com”, it was about a boy who was also unable to handle stress and ostracism from his friends and had to resort to a pornographic website called “Happiness.com” to entertain himself. Eventually he reached a situation where he expended too much money from his mother’s credit card, and was too late to turn back. Yet another case of “Who will listen?”, the only difference was the outcome of inability to handle stress properly. To avoid all these, I reiterate that one needs to have friends who are willing to listen, and parents who will always be there for you when you need to pour your heart out to them. (: