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.