Recently, a young trio were hauled up for posting some racist comments on facebook. Some people said they were too young and silly to understand the implications of what they were saying. Others said that racism is too dangerous a problem to ignore and that they must be taught a hard lesson. What’s the right answer? How harsh should we be on youngsters who post material on the internet that may get them in trouble with the law? Should age matter? Or should we adopt a strong stand against such kids, to enhance the deterrent effect?
Well my fellow debaters, what do you think?
[Best Comment of the month stands to win an exclusive DA(S) 5-VCD debate set with accompanying guide booklets]
Google’s Street View application was launched in Singapore in Dec 2009, providing free virtual-tour/photo-mapping for all of Singapore using their special camera-mounted cars. Read the Singapore article here.
Internationally, this free service has caused much dismay and concern. Some privacy advocates are worried that the service is an intrusion that citizens cannot “opt out” of – even if you do not want your house to be photographed, there is nothing legally preventing Google from doing so. Security officials are even more worried – would this tool allow terrorists and criminals to plan their attacks better? This side of the argument feels that Google needs to be stopped today – because as the photography resolution gets better in a few years, Google Street View will be able to take high-resolution images of people changing in their apartments, or even clear photographs of barcodes on the ID tags of security guards for criminals to copy.
(more…)
[Winner announced in the last comment, along with brief adjudication comments]
PM recently announced a change to our election process that will require all involved political parties to stop campaigning 24 hours before the voting day. The intent, he says, is to give voters “time to reflect on their decisions”. The opposition parties are up in arms, claiming that this will benefit the ruling party (who can use the government civil servant officers as their policy “mouthpieces”) and disadvantage the opposition parties. Others claim that in the age of digital interactive media and the internet, such rules are impractical, a point that PM acknowledges somewhat.
What do you think, fellow debaters? Is Singapore moving a step towards better democratic processes with this measure, or is this a policy doomed to failure? Will it benefit the voters as PM claims, or are we better off with all parties fighting till the very last moment? (more…)
[No winner was announced for this debate, but there are brief adjudication comments at the end of the comments]
We’ve had some interesting opinions on our first Debate of the month, so hopefully the second one will be even better. We’ve picked another controversial news item for this debate, and to spice things up, we will be offering a prize for the best comment (a DA(S) pen and t-shirt)- so we’re hoping this spices things up a bit more. Vote for your favourite comment below!
Singapore’s Attorney-General Walter Woon raised this dilemma recently when he spoke at the Singapore Children’s Society. The law is very clear when an adult has sex with a minor – even if the minor consents, the adult should have known better and not done the deed. What happens when two minors have consenting sex? Should they be prosecuted at all? If so, who should be prosecuted, and what punishment should be meted out to them? On this, A-G Walter Woon said, “The problem is, do we send the boy to jail? What good would that do?’ A-G also gave a few other case studies to ponder.
What should the legal system do in this case, my fellow debaters? To prosecute, or not to prosecute, that is the question.
So we have a new feature – a “debate poll of the month” in which we ask fellow debaters for their opinion on a range of topics – from the ultra-serious issues facing humanity to the more silly things that tickle us in the news. We’ll start a new poll every month (accompanied by a post like this for you to make your short case)
Right now, the hot topic seems to be the question of whether somebody with a criminal background should be allowed to represent Singapore in international pageants. The Ris Low saga has been going on for a while now – if you strip away the noise about her command of English and other personal attacks, the more important philosophical question remains, which is the topic of this debate. On one hand, we are trying to push for a forgiving society with the Yellow Ribbon Project… on the other hand, we need to ensure that the person who represents our country is a role model in every way.
What are your views on this topic, debaters? Cast your vote on the right, and drop a comment below to explain your viewpoint.
Loading ...
