1. Do you think justice and mercy can co-exist?

Definition of both: Justice and mercy seem like they are at polar opposites. Justice is making sure that everyone is acknowledged for his right-doings and punished for his wrong doing. Justice demands that these rewards and punishments reflect the measure of devotion or lack of devotion to obedience for the law. So it seems like justice punish the sinners and reward saints. However, many people think that mercy is ignoring guilt. Actually i disagree, it is a act of compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm, shown towards sinners. It is also an event to be grateful for, esp. because its occurrence prevents something unpleasant or provides relief from suffering.

It is indeed hard to let both co-exist as they are opposites. One would definately be more predominant that the other. Many times, people are caught between these choices and have no idea what to do. An example in adult life might be catching a friend's spouse cheat yet you cannot choose whether to tell them or risk ruining your friendship. These choices come with equally heavy consequences. One should note that there is a great danger in showing mercy because if used too often or in the wrong circumstances, it can actually undermine itself. Many philosophers and legal theorists have noted that the more one pardons crimes, the more one also emboldens criminals, because you are essentially telling them that their chances of getting away without paying the proper price have increased. It would be unfair and many would question you and the system.

2. How is justice and mercy shown in this case?

In this case, it is hard to differentiate between both. Justice would be when Shylock "gets" what he deserves and is charged with the attempted murder of a Christian. Then when he was spared the death sentence but forced to convert into a Christian, how is it justice then? To a Jew, it is an utter insult for him to do so. The story shows much prejudice against Jews as Venice is a Christian city. Thus is is not possible to differentiate between justice and mercy.

Do you agree with the final verdict?

I don't agree fully with the final verdict. i believe that some prejudice was at play as Venice was a Christian city and although the duke was suppose to be Justice, i think that many factors may have altered his opinion. Also, Shylock was accused of taking the life of a Christian. It is wrong to say that Christians are superior to others, therefore Shylock should be killed. Are Jews and people from the other religions not human? The final verdict did not make sense. How does attempting to kill someone causes him to give half his fortune to the government and half to the victim? i understand the victim part but no the government. Lastly, why is Shylock forced to convert? It does not make much sense as they know that it is utter insult and made Shylock live in sadness. I dont think the final verdict is entirely wrong as he did try to take the life of Antonio as revenge because of Antonio's insults. But it is no excuse for Shylock to act this way. In the end, there is a part of me that agrees, but there is also a part of me that disagrees.

4. Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. Comment on this with reference to the text and other real-life cases and examples.

I think that this is quite true as money and power can influence alot of people. Rich people have powerful friends, which can get them away and out of trouble. Many of these rich people are able to hire the best attorney, at at times able to win the case just because of their wealth and their attorney which could enable them to crush their opponents who are unable to hire best attorney. It is hard to say that they can actually manipulate people by their power, but they might give them a definite advantage to their case. Antonio had Portia to help in the case, and it helped greatly. Though her being a women, she has high intellectual ability and is able to manipulate not only Shylock, but also the whole jury.

1.To what extent do you agree with the issues that the student has raised here? Point out some issues of agreement and possible contention.

I dont fully agree with her on all her views. One thing that i dont agree with is her attitude towards education. She says that she is being forced to memorise the model answers and asked not to question they, but it only shows that she is has no interest in it. If someone is really attracted to a subject, he should have an open mind and would love to have challenges that the teacher ask them. If it forbids them to ask questions in class, they could find out the reason themselves and their love and interest would drive them on furthur. Singapore's government schools actually limit the interest of a student. They seem to not have a choice of their interest and are forced to take up the o level subjects. They are not a major in any are and the other subjects might burden them and make them lose interest. And carbon is definately not a metal due to its arrangement of valence electrons which does not mimic properties of metal. I also think it is the failure of the system. Teachers in public schools are forced to stick closely to the syllabus and are unable to express them in a different way, unlike private schools. This thus does not strike interest in students and they feel bored and have lack of interest in their subjects.

2.Examine her tone and attitude in this letter. Do you think it’s a well-crafted letter with the appropriate tone?

The tone and attitude the author decides to pick is overly critical. It only names the flaws and is one-sided. This is acceptable letter but it is too superficial. It may be due to her displease with the education system for the past few years.

3.If you should write a letter to Minister of Education, what are some issues you would raise? Remember- your intention is to make the system better for society’s betterment via CONSTRUCTIVE ideas.

I would raise the difference between education of singapore and other countries. i would not just criticise but to also give ideas on how to make situation better, such as adopting a more holistic education system for public schools.

For Love or Money?

Many couples are now marrying for their partner's status and wealth instead of true love. Many of these examples are common amongst us and there are celebrity marriages that have been hyped by the media. Such examples would be Hugh Hefner and his runaway bride Crystal Harris, ----. There has also been a new slang word that is used to describe these kind of people, mostly women. Golddigger: Any woman whose primary interest in a relationship is material benefits. A woman who cares more about a man's bank account than she does about the man.
To me, money is defiinately important in a relationship, however it cannot exceed the importance of love. People can live without love, but they cannot live without money in this modern world. Money is definately a factor to consider in modern marriages as many want to live a better life with lesser money troubles. Love is also an important factor as if you marry just for money, you would most likely be unhappy as there is no emotional attachment to your spouse and the marriage would most probably end in disaster. there is definately an upward trend in these kind of marriages as people are getting more materialistic and only want the best for themselves. I think these kind of marriages are pointless. There should be an equal number of both love and money as in the modern world, no one can live without money. Love brings many happiness, money bring happiness aswell, but there should always be a perfect balance for a happy marriage.

How has war evolved from the past to present

War is commonly an armed fight between states or parties with issues with one another. Some people may say was brings evil, but i would say that war is necessary evil, in fact i think it helps in the advance of technological developments and makes the society a better one. These is a quote "War brings out the best in men", people suffer as one and go through the pain of war. through this suffer, many would understand the true meaning of life. War has also spurred the growth of technology. For example, the Iron age has brought the invention of the cannon, as time progresses, the gun was then invented. The Tank was also first introduces in world war 1, and furthur refined by world war 2. Without these needs to develop new weapons, these inventions might not have existed today. War has also evolved from being labour demanding to technology demanding. Before the 1900s, wars were mostly fought by soldiers without the aid of air support or transportation to help bring them from war zone to war zone. Coming into world war 1, the tanks was introduced as an superior form of artillery as it would prove to be an important asset to mankind, there were also aircraft to help the soldiers by air raiding the enemy's territory. Now, the method of was has completely changed and many countries are in a arms race to developing toward chemical warface. As war progresses, there is less emphasis on the soldiers, but the technology.