http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NY-Report-on-NYs-Maid-Exam-Riles-DSK-Team-127921478.html

Recently, the victim of the sex assault of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Nafissatou Diallo, has presented a medical examination which listed "assault" and "rape" as the causes of injuries to her. Corresponding to her statement that she was forced onto a wall to perform oral sex with DSK, tests show that a ligament in her should has been damaged.

However, DSK, being a powerful person, has many strong lawyers and speakers as his backer and they accused the maid of maligning DSK and states that what happened between DSK and the hotel maid is consensual. They claimed that the hotel maid’s medical examination could not be trusted as it is written according to her account which proved to be unreliable.

Regarding this issue, my heart goes out to this pitiful maid as she, being a victim, has instead been blamed for giving fake accounts and all the evidences she produced has been seen and argued as unreliable due to the fake accounts she once gaved.

I feel that it is extremely unjust to be voiding all the evidences she has been producing just because she gave once gave fake accounts as DSK may indeed be in the wrong, forcing the hotel maid to perform oral sex with him. I am extremely serious and furious over this incident as I feel that if the hotel maid is not given the justice she deserves, it may well be showing the inferiority of an African to a white, and possibly the inferiority of the poor against the powerful. This would also give people the wrong idea that with money and fame, you can twist and turn the facts around and can go around doing all the things you like since you will not get into trouble anyway.

Is this the kind of impression the country wants to portray to the world regarding their law?

Is there really justice in such a circumstance where a rich and powerful is fighting a lawsuit with one who is not that influential and rich?

The DSK incident has clearly shown otherwise as till now, this man has not yet been prosecuted. From my point of view, I strongly feel that though the accounts of the hotel maid may be fake and we do not really know whether she has been faking accounts to the doctor as well, we should also not forget the fact that there is really semen found in the hotel maid’s mouth and that there is definitely a very high chance of DSK forcefully performing oral sex with the hotel maid. Instead, many chose to believe that DSK is innocent just because he was once the France presidential candidate and technically, would not do such a thing. I am really disgusted by these people as they should consider the accounts of both sides before siding either one side, and not be like the majority who just sides the powerful ones.

Till now, we still do not know who is speaking the truth and who is not as the truth lies only in the hearts of the hotel maid and Dominique Strauss- Khan. Perhaps, the hotel maid may well be lying, and we, the readers, could only wait and see how the incident unfolds as time goes on, hoping that the true justice be returned to the victim of the incident.

"The news media should be blamed for the unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to the extremes for sensational news. How far do you agree?"

I agree that the news media should be blamed for the unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to the extremes for sensational news to a small extent.

To begin, the news media started this unhealthy paparazzi culture and goes to the extremes for sensational news, for the sake of making money. The news media are the only ones who have the technology and license to go and search for all these information and news regarding leaders and public figures. For example, Rupert Murdoch, CEO of The News of the World of US, was found hiring people to hack the phone of others for the sake of finding sensational news to publish, gaining popularity and money, showing one side of the argument- news media should be blamed for the unhealthy paparazzi culture.

On a flip side, the leaders and public figures should be partly blamed for this unhealthy paparazzi culture. This is because these public figures, already know that the price of being a public figure, is that they are the ones people look up to and they should be more "well-disciplined", be it in their private life or in the public. These public figures got caught on newspaper mainly due to the fact that they have done something disgraceful which captures the public's attention, thus they somehow brought it upon themselves, attracting the news media to them, creating this unhealthy paparazzi culture. For instance, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, being a public figure, went to force a hotel maid to have oral sex with him. This case was stirred up by the maid and received the attention of many, including the news media. Therefore, it may possibly be these public figures, not being able to "discipline", themselves well, that caused this unhealthy paparazzi culture.

Adding on, the public also plays a part in the becoming of this unhealthy paparazzi culture. The aim of most companies is to earn as much money as they can. With that, the news media, being a company, most probably has the same aim. As said earlier, the public seeks news of public figures as they are naturally curious of what these leaders and known figures do with their free time. With demand, the news media, the only ones who are able to get these information, would go to extremes to find these news. Therefore, the public should be partly blamed for unhealthy paparazzi culture and news media going to extremes for sensational news as what the news media did was just to add colours to people's life and satisfy their needs.

Also, I feel that the government should be partly blamed for this unhealthy paparazzi culture. This is because the government has not been harsh enough in punishing the news media and draw a line for the news media to be strictly adhered to so that a certain amount of privacy is given to the public as the news media would be restricted. The ethics of the news media would also be somehow preserved as they do not go through to anymore underhand means to get information on others for the sake of earning money.

In conclusion, though the news media should be partly blamed for this unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to extremes to find sensational news, I feel that they should not be entirely blamed as other factors like the public and even the behaviour of the public figures themselves, should be taken into consideration.

By the end of the trial scene, do you think true justice and mercy was achieved? Reflect and write on the following questions:
‍1. Is there true justice? Why?
‍2. Is there true mercy, as expounded by Portia? Why?
‍3. 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.

1. I feel that there is definitely no true justice being meted out in the Merchant of Venice. Firstly, I feel that that pound of flesh Antonio "owes" Shylock should be paid and given to Shylock and that Antonio should die, with respect to the fact that Antonio knows that he is going to die when he sign the bond with Shylock, if he is not able to return the money in time. However, Shylock did not get what he should get but instead got forced to change his religion, and share his fortune. This is definitely not justice as Shylock had indeed lent the 3000 ducats to Antonio, stating in the bond that he will take a pound of flesh from Antonio if he could not repay, but instead of that, Shylock becomes a victim to his bond and loses more than 3000 ducats.

2. I feel that there is no true mercy expounded by Portia. In the case of Merchant of Venice, even if there should be mercy to be given, it should and could only be from Shylock as he is the person who lent out the 3000 ducats and mercy, in this case, could be given if Shylock forgave Antonio. However, even if he did not, it is justified. In the case of Portia giving Shylock "mercy", I feel that it is just a play of words on Portia's part, as she twists the fact in the text, making Shylock guilty instead. This is definitely mercy as Shylock should not even be punished in this case and forcing him to change his religion and share his fortune can never be justified, in my eyes.

3. I agree to this statement to a certain extent. In the third world country where the pay of people in power is not that high, it is often seen that these people do illegal things like embezzlement to earn more money and not get caught just because they are the ones who set the law in the country. This is definitely not justified as their people work extremely hard to earn meagre sums of money while they just embezzle, to get the money, without even working hard.

Also, in the text, justice and law is obviously manipulated by people in power, or should we say, educated people. As Portia imitates as a scholar, the Duke and the people naturally believes that what she says is true, and thus, she is able to twist the fact that that Antonio should die, with a pound of flesh given to Shylock, to the fact that Shylock is guilty.

However, in developed countries like Singapore, law and justice is definitely not manipulated by people in power as the citizens are all diplomatic and educated and would definitely voice out their displessures, leaving no chance for the people in power to twist and turn facts.

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.
Firstly, I do agree to her stand to a certain extent that the education system in Singapore mainly covers memorising stuff and "vomitting" all out during exams. Well, subjects like Integrated Humanities and Sciences need memorising or at least need one to know the facts as the information found in the textbook have been proven true and the questions that come out for exams would definitely have these answers as their model answers, even if they are phrased in a different format. Integrated Humanities, in the context of history may need one to memorise the dates and years of the happening of a particular event so as to score in the constructing explaination part. However, what I do not agree with her is that not all the subjects requires memorising. It is wrong to stereotype the fact that all subjects requires memorising. For instance, subjects like English and Chinese, our languages, does not need memorising as they rely a lot on application. Also, I do understand her point that when she expresses her answers for her science exams in her own words, she gets them wrong. This is mainly due to the fact that key words play a big role in the giving of marks in exams, therefore, I hope that she could understand her teachers. I feel that she may use this method of expressing her ideas in her own words for subjects like literature where she could just give her points if they are justified and she will be able to score in the subject. She also states that the CME class of Singapore is useless because teachers tend to take up this lesson to finish up the syllabus. Personally, I have experienced this when I was P6. As the teachers prepare us for PSLE, they tend to get anxious over whether they are able to finish their syllabus and thus take up the CME lessons, feeling that it is not so important. Let's be fair here. Teachers did this for the sake of us, students, hoping to clarify more doubts, and give more practices. However, as CME lessons shapes a character and teaches one values, what they did is wrong. Therefore, her point could be said to be justified or not justified based on the point of view of each individual.

2.‍Examine her tone and attitude in this letter. Do you think it’s a well-crafted letter with the appropriate tone?
Firstly, I feel that the letter was written solely based on her point of view and it may be biased. She could be said to be a good writer as she recognises that there are sure to be flaws in every system as no one system is perfect. However, she is wrong in saying that Singapore has no talents etc. She did not really get her facts right before writing this letter. The tone of her letter is rather firm and formal, however, she is rather rude in questioning the education system which has been set after much decision making and vetting through on the MOE side. She seems to be unhappy with the current education system and I feel that she is taking things for granted as she is already very fortunate to be able to be given the chance to study, recognising the fact that this letter was written to improve the current education system. I feel that she can be more tactful and not so demanding when writing this letter, so that it will sound very polite and firm, while bringing her ideas across.

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.

Firstly, I would like to propose to take away the CME lessons as after going through years of these lessons, it does not really seem to help and I truly think that the role of shaping us into a good and upright person lies on our parents.

Secondly, I feel that the education system should run in the way where "memorising doesn't make the world go round" and that exams should be mainly on application, especially for humanities and sciences, not forgetting the fact that one should at least know the basic facts before going for the exams. Possibly, the education system can place lesser weightage on the part where memorising is needed, for example in humanities, assign lesser marks to the constructing explaination part and instead give more weightage to the source-based quesitons.

Lastly, I feel that we should use the conventional method of teaching and not introduce gadgets like ipad or even laptops to be used in school for learning. This is because the misuse of these advanced technology are commonly seen and this may cause the grades of students to drop. Also, with the advanced technology, I would like to question the use of teachers as with the heavy reliance on computers where we, students learn through computers, teachers tend to lose the objective they used to have, that is to make the students understand a particular subject, through explaining in class. If materials on the net could make students understand a particular topic, what are teachers for? Why do we need so many teachers since only one teacher is needed for each subject in each level to post the materials on the net?

In your opinion, is money important in a relationship? Consider the 'transactional' element observed in the relationships between the couples. Do you think there is an upward trend of relationships and marriages valuing money over other qualities? Provide examples for your responses.

Honestly, I do feel that money is important in a relationship as it is the source for all the luxuries which may follow. Judging at the current society, very little couples would settle for a simple life, without money and the 5Cs which is often talked about in Singapore. However, I feel that money should not be what a person should be looking out for, be it man or woman, in a relationship, as this will make them suffer if they were to get married.

I feel that there is an upward trend of relationships and marriages valuing money over other qualities to a certain extent.

This can be seen through more and more old men marrying young women when their age are double of their partner's. Why are these women willing to sacrifice their youth for old men? Personally, I feel that this may be because of the wealth the old man has as significantly, those reports about this topic reported in articles are often about a rich old men eyeing for a young pretty lady.

However, there are also relationships which really value love over money. For example, teenage relationships is often seen in our current society. These relationships usually value love over money as both parties are often not very rich and them getting together would meant that they feel for each other, showing true love over money.

Lastly, I would like to conclude that in a relationship, although money is important, love should be the priority in sustaining a relationship as that quality is the one which will make a relationship last, and make couples live happily together.

How war has changed over time?
Firstly, war has changed greatly from the past to the present due to the evolution of technology. In the past, when fighting war, people had to get into formations and prepare spears and forks to fight with another country who would do the same and they will charge at each other and fight in a battlefield. In current warfare, people use guns and machines to help fight wars and instead of getting into "formations" in the battlefield, their formations are usually very different as guns which are deadly could be used as range weapons. Also, communication have also improved as in the past, people had to run back from the battlefield to report to their kings on the details of the war which is ongoing while now, telephones and other forms of communications are used to make information passed around easier. Lastly, the forms of fighting war are much much more different in current warfare as bombs are used to somehow "speed up" war as we have suicide bombers, atomic bombs etc. These points could be referred to the prominent WWII and the wars fought way back when China have not gained independence. In WWII, the Japanese used suicide bombers while we have the Americans using atomic bombs on the Japanese.

"The Soldier" by Rupert Brooke
If I should die, think only this of me:
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England. There shall be
In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;
A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware,
Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,
A body of England's, breathing English air,
Washed by the rivers, blest by suns of home.

And think, this heart, all evil shed away,
A pulse in the eternal mind, no less
Gives somewhere back the thoughts by England given;
Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;
And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness,
In hearts at peace, under an English heaven.

Reflection Qn: Anually, we need young men in Singapore to do NS. Why do you think NS is compulsory in Singapore and why is this important? In the above poem, the speaker expresses his love for his country, England. Do you have this same spirit of patriotism towards Singapore? Why? Do you consider yourself a patriot to your country?

I feel that NS is important in Singapore as it firstly, builds a sense of belonging in the young men towards Singapore, and also matures them both mentally and physically and develops strong leadership skills in them. Next, NS forges strong relationship among Singaporeans from different background and race as they are bound by a common experience, national pride and a greater cause. It also helps to forge lifelong friendships between fellow soldiers. Just like Rupert Brooke, Singapore men would be able to have the same spirit as he had for his country, that is willing to die for the safety of the country, after the come out of NS as they bond together as one united people. Last but not the least, NS definitely prepares a small country like Singapore for war and when other countries invade us, we would have the adequate skills and manpower to defend ourselves. I do have this same spirit of patriotism towards Singapore, just like Rupert Brooke as Singapore is my homeland and I would not be who I am today without her, therefore, I would definitely appreciate Singapore and defend her if we were really invaded. Lastly, I am not sure whether I am considered a patriot, but what I am sure of is, I love my country and I will stay behind to defend it in times of war.