I refer to the article, 'Plastic Bags are not the enemy', published in The Straits Times on Saturday, 12th May 2007.
In it, the writer, Andy Ho, discusses the plausibility of adopting a plastic-bag-free society in a bid to do our part for the imperiled environment. Of course, the route to obliteration that the world had embarked on was designated by humans, and now, the efforts we take to steer Mother Earth back on the right track seem to be derisive and ironic, if I may suggest. Maybe it is why this article is of such great importance to us. It reveals an interesting fact ; that replacing the plastic bag with paper or cotton grocery bags may not be such a 'helpful' effort after all.
Quote 'Research in several countries shows that the main problem with plastic bags is not their environmental impact per se but littering.' The crux of the article lies in this line. The general misperception that most of us have, is that plastic bags are non-biodegradeable, which makes for less of a conservation effort for our environment as they will inevitably end up polluting our world when the only viable option to get rid of the plastic waste would be to incinerate them. However, this article throws light on the actual figures shrouding the so called alternatives to plastic bags. Comparing the consequences of using the paper bag and the plastic bag, results show us that we are not actually getting a better deal by switching over to using reusable carriers, and we risk doing more harm to the environment.
Alternative measures may not always be our best bet, in this case the plastic bags. However, I'm sure most people will think twice about the perceived repercussions from using plastic bags, as opposed to using paper bags. We ought to ponder extensively over our plans, and strategise our goals to suit our country's aims to conserve our environment. This is to make sure the facade of our efforts is not the only outlook we are trying to achieve. The deeper meaning to conservation should stem from our hearts' desires to do a part for what is really good for Mother Earth.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Term 2 Week 4 Task 4: New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability? Discuss this in the light of the arguments raised in the two articles and substantiate your ideas with examples of your own. Your response should consist of at least two content paragraphs and be at least 300 words long.
New Media, a phrase coined for the new-age mediums of information, to the likes of emails, Internet, and blogging, has moulded our world into a different one. Traditional mediums of information, such as the newspaper, have come to pass, for now, the new modes of broadcasting of information is faster and more efficient in the sense that we do not have to wait for news to come in reported style hours after events occur. They are preferred over the cliché newspapers for practical reasons. These mediums provide us with news ‘fresh from the oven’; the access of the news in these mediums is not restricted by the periodical availability of the newspapers. Although the arrival of New Media should herald an age of non-illiterates, many media entities have, in their so-called course for free press, misused it for the wrong reasons. As the first article suggests, the media outlets in many parts of the world find it their mission to "inflame and distort – rather than to explain and inform". This may be due to the fact that New Media calls for fewer restrictions on who can use them to relate information. Terrorists have used it to the best of their abilities to spread propaganda, and the slow-reacting American government cannot blame anyone other than themselves for not utilising it for counteracting the terrorism efforts. Such is a paradigm of the detrimental aspects of New Media.
Yes, I feel that New Media can be used as a tool for undermining some governing bodies. This is due to the fact that people do not use it for the right reasons. Instead of completely denouncing free press, we can put in place censorships to reduce the exacerbation of certain information, as countries feel that there is simply the need to do so. If we are to reach an agreement for what is best for both parties, namely the government and the citizens, we should alter the extent of censorship so that freedom of speech can still subsist in a country. If freedom of speech is to be unrestricted by any proper regulations, we can forget about stability in countries as conflicting interests will brew riots and anger among the people. Government and absolute freedom of speech can never co-exist. Take for example, before online slander was made well-known among the general public, racist remarks grew wild on Singaporeans' blogs. After receiving necessary flak, the government raised the penalty bar and controlled the inconsiderate remarks by imposing fines and jail terms. This is a fine example of countries being driven into controlling the freedom of speech given to the people. We cannot allow either the freedom of speech or the government to achieve authoritarian status in any countries as doing so will only obliterate a country’s socio-economy.
We cannot hold anyone responsible for the malicious intentions carried out by people abusing the power of media, for this is the price to pay for our technologies. However, what we can do is to educate our people so that they do not commit such extenuated offences, or not fall prey to these intentions, for the targeted victims are those who are ill-informed.
New Media, a phrase coined for the new-age mediums of information, to the likes of emails, Internet, and blogging, has moulded our world into a different one. Traditional mediums of information, such as the newspaper, have come to pass, for now, the new modes of broadcasting of information is faster and more efficient in the sense that we do not have to wait for news to come in reported style hours after events occur. They are preferred over the cliché newspapers for practical reasons. These mediums provide us with news ‘fresh from the oven’; the access of the news in these mediums is not restricted by the periodical availability of the newspapers. Although the arrival of New Media should herald an age of non-illiterates, many media entities have, in their so-called course for free press, misused it for the wrong reasons. As the first article suggests, the media outlets in many parts of the world find it their mission to "inflame and distort – rather than to explain and inform". This may be due to the fact that New Media calls for fewer restrictions on who can use them to relate information. Terrorists have used it to the best of their abilities to spread propaganda, and the slow-reacting American government cannot blame anyone other than themselves for not utilising it for counteracting the terrorism efforts. Such is a paradigm of the detrimental aspects of New Media.
Yes, I feel that New Media can be used as a tool for undermining some governing bodies. This is due to the fact that people do not use it for the right reasons. Instead of completely denouncing free press, we can put in place censorships to reduce the exacerbation of certain information, as countries feel that there is simply the need to do so. If we are to reach an agreement for what is best for both parties, namely the government and the citizens, we should alter the extent of censorship so that freedom of speech can still subsist in a country. If freedom of speech is to be unrestricted by any proper regulations, we can forget about stability in countries as conflicting interests will brew riots and anger among the people. Government and absolute freedom of speech can never co-exist. Take for example, before online slander was made well-known among the general public, racist remarks grew wild on Singaporeans' blogs. After receiving necessary flak, the government raised the penalty bar and controlled the inconsiderate remarks by imposing fines and jail terms. This is a fine example of countries being driven into controlling the freedom of speech given to the people. We cannot allow either the freedom of speech or the government to achieve authoritarian status in any countries as doing so will only obliterate a country’s socio-economy.
We cannot hold anyone responsible for the malicious intentions carried out by people abusing the power of media, for this is the price to pay for our technologies. However, what we can do is to educate our people so that they do not commit such extenuated offences, or not fall prey to these intentions, for the targeted victims are those who are ill-informed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)