Jan 30, 2010
Govt's done enough, it's up to couples
Forum author: Huang Meifang (Ms)
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_484044.html
Commented By: Erika (Yang Yu)
In this forum, the author makes a response to a letter from another citizen, who called for the government to be concentrated on increasing population and to make better policies. This author believes that citizens make their own choices to defer marriage and procreation and they should not blame the government. She further points out finance and limited time should not be the excuses for not procreating.
I partly agree with what this author claims. I would like to talk about my personal view from the following aspects.
Firstly, whether or not to have more babies are individual choices, the population problem should not be ascribed to the government. Government makes different policies under different national conditions, family plan followed by pronatalist policy, which make people very confusing because they also need make individual choices depend on many factors, such as their personal desires and finance conditions. People should be responsible for their children so they have to consider the burden they would face with before they plan to have more babies. Government’s encouragement and helping hand are important, and, on the other hand, many citizens’ situations should be understood.
Secondly, it is about the Singaporeans situations. According to a research, Singaporeans have great pressure from work, which contribute to low birthrate. Furthermore, there is a rising divorce rate, which gives rise to confusion that if people should be encouraged to get married and have more babies. Moreover, finance is undeniable a great problem concerning with this issue. Government should give economic support. I do not agree that the author put this also on the excuses list. I admit that many people who love children are willing to face the challenges, however, as parents, people should be responsible. They should consider their conditions rationally, and do good management.
2010年1月31日星期日
Comment on ST Forum article
Source: Strait Time Forum
Title: HDB ready to build more flats if there is demand
URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_484049.html
Group: Girl&Hill
Name: Ma Tianyang
I could understand that it was inevitable that the reduced supply would impact the housing market.
The lower number of completed HDB indicated that the reduced demand of BTO. Also, there is a big problem we have a large stock of unsold flats.
Additional, HDB has ramped up new flat supply to 9,000 BTO flats last year. The total number of saled flats is 13,500. The government want to have a similar number of demand this year.Although there are 24,000 annual marriages, it is not an appropriate indicator of the actual demand for HDB flats.
Thirdly,some households wish to have HDB resale flats, private housing,so they won't choose first-timers HDB.From the data, we can know the number of first-timers buying new flats or subsidised resale flats has averaged between 13,000 and 15,000 a year.
For my points, I think the government may not depend on first-timers HDB too much. Singapore is not a large population country, also Singapore doesn't have a fast speed of newborns. This is the reason Singapore can not keep a stable number of first-timers HDB. From the article, we know some citizens would like to choose private housing or resale HDB.Both of them are strong competitors for new HDB. The rich want to have wonderful living environment, so they choose private housing. Some citizens may compare the cost between first-timers HDB and resale HDB, there is no doubt resale HDB are cheaper and some of them are in the good position. Additional, I think HDB should be more beautiful. After years and years, HDB are still the same as the old days. The old style can not attract citizens as they want. It is also a good suggest that the government could build more kinds of houses, such as vila with cheap prices.
Title: HDB ready to build more flats if there is demand
URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_484049.html
Group: Girl&Hill
Name: Ma Tianyang
I could understand that it was inevitable that the reduced supply would impact the housing market.
The lower number of completed HDB indicated that the reduced demand of BTO. Also, there is a big problem we have a large stock of unsold flats.
Additional, HDB has ramped up new flat supply to 9,000 BTO flats last year. The total number of saled flats is 13,500. The government want to have a similar number of demand this year.Although there are 24,000 annual marriages, it is not an appropriate indicator of the actual demand for HDB flats.
Thirdly,some households wish to have HDB resale flats, private housing,so they won't choose first-timers HDB.From the data, we can know the number of first-timers buying new flats or subsidised resale flats has averaged between 13,000 and 15,000 a year.
For my points, I think the government may not depend on first-timers HDB too much. Singapore is not a large population country, also Singapore doesn't have a fast speed of newborns. This is the reason Singapore can not keep a stable number of first-timers HDB. From the article, we know some citizens would like to choose private housing or resale HDB.Both of them are strong competitors for new HDB. The rich want to have wonderful living environment, so they choose private housing. Some citizens may compare the cost between first-timers HDB and resale HDB, there is no doubt resale HDB are cheaper and some of them are in the good position. Additional, I think HDB should be more beautiful. After years and years, HDB are still the same as the old days. The old style can not attract citizens as they want. It is also a good suggest that the government could build more kinds of houses, such as vila with cheap prices.
Comment on ST Forum Letter
Source: Straits Times Forum
Title: Set a shutdown quota for parks and beaches to fight littering
URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_482911.html
Group: Girls & Hill
Name: Shi Yuanyuan (Yvonne)
I could understand Ms Chua’s feeling that Singapore is not so clean. I can see cans and paper on the grass. Before, I went to school by bus, the driver sometimes opened the window and spit. Now, I am living in NTU, some places are still under construction, everywhere I could see the rabbish left by the workers.
To treat the environment problem, Ms Chua comes up with three ways. First, the authorities should just leave the litter alone. Second, set a limit to the amount of litter collected in a month. When the limit is reached, parks or beaches will be closed for a period. Finally, the authorities could consider making litterbugs cleaners.
I think the first way is not logical. If there is litter and no cleaner clear it, there will be more and more litter. I don’t think those litterbugs will feel uncomfortable with the environment they finally create. If litter is just left alone, there will be more and more people leaving litter here and there. They may think, others could leave litter with no punishment, why can’t I? Also, littering is wrong which should be treated seriously instead of just leaving it alone. If there is a person who rob the bank and receive no punishment, what will the consequence be? I think it is more likely that more people will do so than worried about the others’ and banks’ situation. Therefore, cleaners should be more responsible and clean the litter more regularly.
The second way is not fair. Maybe there are many litterbugs but they are still a small proportion. If parks and beaches close due to their bad behaviors, it is not fair for other people. It is not reasonable that all people are responsible for several ones’ mistake.
The third one is a good idea, only if they experience the work, will they change their mind.
Besides, I think the cleaners should be more responsible for their job. If everywhere is clean, most people will have no heart to litter. Also, in Singapore, many warnings can be seen, but few people get punished. Therefore, laws should be stricter and punishments should be heavier to prevent people littering.
Title: Set a shutdown quota for parks and beaches to fight littering
URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_482911.html
Group: Girls & Hill
Name: Shi Yuanyuan (Yvonne)
I could understand Ms Chua’s feeling that Singapore is not so clean. I can see cans and paper on the grass. Before, I went to school by bus, the driver sometimes opened the window and spit. Now, I am living in NTU, some places are still under construction, everywhere I could see the rabbish left by the workers.
To treat the environment problem, Ms Chua comes up with three ways. First, the authorities should just leave the litter alone. Second, set a limit to the amount of litter collected in a month. When the limit is reached, parks or beaches will be closed for a period. Finally, the authorities could consider making litterbugs cleaners.
I think the first way is not logical. If there is litter and no cleaner clear it, there will be more and more litter. I don’t think those litterbugs will feel uncomfortable with the environment they finally create. If litter is just left alone, there will be more and more people leaving litter here and there. They may think, others could leave litter with no punishment, why can’t I? Also, littering is wrong which should be treated seriously instead of just leaving it alone. If there is a person who rob the bank and receive no punishment, what will the consequence be? I think it is more likely that more people will do so than worried about the others’ and banks’ situation. Therefore, cleaners should be more responsible and clean the litter more regularly.
The second way is not fair. Maybe there are many litterbugs but they are still a small proportion. If parks and beaches close due to their bad behaviors, it is not fair for other people. It is not reasonable that all people are responsible for several ones’ mistake.
The third one is a good idea, only if they experience the work, will they change their mind.
Besides, I think the cleaners should be more responsible for their job. If everywhere is clean, most people will have no heart to litter. Also, in Singapore, many warnings can be seen, but few people get punished. Therefore, laws should be stricter and punishments should be heavier to prevent people littering.
2010年1月28日星期四
Comment on ST Forum article
Source: Strait Time Forum
Title: Full-time mums should enjoy full subsidies too
URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_482909.html
Group: Girl&Hill
Name: Li Ruixue
I refer to the letter on Jan 28 by Ms Ng Hwee Kiang(Full-time mums should enjoy full subsidies too).
I understand Ms Ng’s worries and difficulties. It is an extremely tough task for a mother to work and raise several children at the same time. Working mothers face a lot of pressure and often have difficulties balancing family and work. Some people don’t want to hire babysitters to look after their children because they are worried about the quality of the service and the influence of babysitters’ behavior on their children. Therefore iff a couple want more children, the mother may need to stay at home. Since the Singapore government encourages parents to have more children, policies should be made to ensure the living standard of the families with more children. But I have to say that this issue should also be considered from other standpoints.
Indeed, non-working mothers may feel it unfair and disappointing to receive half subsidies. However, to be in the working mothers’ shoes, it also seems unfair if full-time mothers also enjoy full subsidies because working mothers not only contribute to increasing the population, but also contribute to increasing Singapore’s GDP at the same time.
Just as “ForeignerTheOnlyHope” has replied, if "Logically, doesn't a single-income family deserve more subsidy than a dual-income one?", then logically, a family with no bread earner should enjoy even higher subsidies. “Those who contribute less get the same”, this is not logical.
The subsidies come from the taxes paid by the working population. Therefore logically, those who pay deserve more money back. In this sense, it is fair for working mums to receive more subsidies than full-time mums.
To make it fair for both working and non-working mothers, I think that the family should be given a certain amount of money for every child, which I think has already been implemented in Singapore. So generally, I think the policies are reasonable. There may be room of improvement, but it is impossible for the government to give everyone the same treatment.
Title: Full-time mums should enjoy full subsidies too
URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_482909.html
Group: Girl&Hill
Name: Li Ruixue
I refer to the letter on Jan 28 by Ms Ng Hwee Kiang(Full-time mums should enjoy full subsidies too).
I understand Ms Ng’s worries and difficulties. It is an extremely tough task for a mother to work and raise several children at the same time. Working mothers face a lot of pressure and often have difficulties balancing family and work. Some people don’t want to hire babysitters to look after their children because they are worried about the quality of the service and the influence of babysitters’ behavior on their children. Therefore iff a couple want more children, the mother may need to stay at home. Since the Singapore government encourages parents to have more children, policies should be made to ensure the living standard of the families with more children. But I have to say that this issue should also be considered from other standpoints.
Indeed, non-working mothers may feel it unfair and disappointing to receive half subsidies. However, to be in the working mothers’ shoes, it also seems unfair if full-time mothers also enjoy full subsidies because working mothers not only contribute to increasing the population, but also contribute to increasing Singapore’s GDP at the same time.
Just as “ForeignerTheOnlyHope” has replied, if "Logically, doesn't a single-income family deserve more subsidy than a dual-income one?", then logically, a family with no bread earner should enjoy even higher subsidies. “Those who contribute less get the same”, this is not logical.
The subsidies come from the taxes paid by the working population. Therefore logically, those who pay deserve more money back. In this sense, it is fair for working mums to receive more subsidies than full-time mums.
To make it fair for both working and non-working mothers, I think that the family should be given a certain amount of money for every child, which I think has already been implemented in Singapore. So generally, I think the policies are reasonable. There may be room of improvement, but it is impossible for the government to give everyone the same treatment.
2010年1月16日星期六
Reflection on "Prison may not be a perfect solution, but it's all we have"
The New York Times
January 16, 2010
Prison may not be a perfect solution, but it's all we have http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7004829/Prison-may-not-be-a-perfect-solution-but-its-all-we-have.html
Group: Girls & Hill
Name: Li Ruixue(Rachel)
The House of Commons Justice Committee of UK has published its first report, in which it insisted that increasing the number of prisons in the past decade was a mistake and the government should have devoted the resources to alternative methods of rehabilitation. The author found the report very feeble.
The report said that UK imprisoned more of its population than some other European countries. However it ignored the fact that UK had an extremely high crime rate and UK actually imprisoned a lower proportion of convicts than some adjacent countries. The author pointed out that some statics used in the report didn’t have a reasonable connection with the conclusion. Moreover, the author believed that prison was the most effective way of preventing further crime because prisoners could not reoffend. In the end, the author indicated that the committee did not really know what they were talking about and showed contempt for the public.
The author’s analysis and argument make sense to me. Prison may not necessarily reform convicts, but it protects innocent people, deters some potential criminals from committing a crime and serves as a kind of punishment. I think the increasing prison population is a consequence instead of a choice of the government. The report insisted that it would be far better if the number in prison had dropped dramatically. However those who deserve to be imprisoned shouldn’t be given the chance to escape punishment just in order to reduce the prison population.
However, the increasing prison population should still be paid attention to. Prevention of crimes and rehabilitation are also important. The government should be responsible for its people. It is not fair of the government to do little to the causes of high crime rate and only punish people after they’ve broken the law. Some people in prison deserve to be given a second chance.
January 16, 2010
Prison may not be a perfect solution, but it's all we have http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7004829/Prison-may-not-be-a-perfect-solution-but-its-all-we-have.html
Group: Girls & Hill
Name: Li Ruixue(Rachel)
The House of Commons Justice Committee of UK has published its first report, in which it insisted that increasing the number of prisons in the past decade was a mistake and the government should have devoted the resources to alternative methods of rehabilitation. The author found the report very feeble.
The report said that UK imprisoned more of its population than some other European countries. However it ignored the fact that UK had an extremely high crime rate and UK actually imprisoned a lower proportion of convicts than some adjacent countries. The author pointed out that some statics used in the report didn’t have a reasonable connection with the conclusion. Moreover, the author believed that prison was the most effective way of preventing further crime because prisoners could not reoffend. In the end, the author indicated that the committee did not really know what they were talking about and showed contempt for the public.
The author’s analysis and argument make sense to me. Prison may not necessarily reform convicts, but it protects innocent people, deters some potential criminals from committing a crime and serves as a kind of punishment. I think the increasing prison population is a consequence instead of a choice of the government. The report insisted that it would be far better if the number in prison had dropped dramatically. However those who deserve to be imprisoned shouldn’t be given the chance to escape punishment just in order to reduce the prison population.
However, the increasing prison population should still be paid attention to. Prevention of crimes and rehabilitation are also important. The government should be responsible for its people. It is not fair of the government to do little to the causes of high crime rate and only punish people after they’ve broken the law. Some people in prison deserve to be given a second chance.
Reflection on" Google Users in China Fear Losing Important Tool"
The New York Times
January 16, 2010
Google Users in China Fear Losing Important Tool-APF
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/world/asia/17china.html?ref=business
Group:Girls and Hill
Name:Ma Tianyang(Hill)
Google will left the country. Interviews in Beijing's downtown and university district indicated that many viewed the possible loss of Google’s maps, translation service, sketching software, access to scholarly papers and search function with real distress. Google has stirred up the dispute over the government’s claim that constraints on free speech are crucial to political stability, however, Google left China has clearly discomfited the government.
The average age of Chinese netizens is still very young. This is a matter of the future and whether the government’s Internet policy wants to fight with the future. Now a lot of citizens realize that their freedom of getting information has been infringed upon. Some citizens thought Google left China is unimportant, because Google should obey the rules in China. Communist party needs to stabilize its governance.
On the other hand, Internet control decrease the entertainment of Chinese netizens.In the name of rooting out pornography and piracy, Chinese authorities have shut down hundreds of Web sites offering films, music downloads, video games and other forms of entertainment since November.It seems difficult to download movies and music for free in China.
As my personal point, Google left the China, Chinese netizens will lost a lot. Although Google is not No.1 search engine in China, it still give us internationalized information that other search engine can not instead. There is no doubt that Google is the most popular search engine in the world, if Chinese citizens want to know the world well, Google is the best choice. If Google left China, we can only use Baidu, that means we can not get any compare with other authoritative foreign websites. We can not know what we get right or wrong? Most information we get only shows the attitude of Chinese government. I agree that Chinese society must be stable under a controlled
Internet environment, but that does not mean kick out all the information from Google. Government should have a right attitude to others comments and reports. If you haven't proven you are right, and you deny others, that only means you don't have the confidence to prove yourself,or you are really wrong.
January 16, 2010
Google Users in China Fear Losing Important Tool-APF
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/world/asia/17china.html?ref=business
Group:Girls and Hill
Name:Ma Tianyang(Hill)
Google will left the country. Interviews in Beijing's downtown and university district indicated that many viewed the possible loss of Google’s maps, translation service, sketching software, access to scholarly papers and search function with real distress. Google has stirred up the dispute over the government’s claim that constraints on free speech are crucial to political stability, however, Google left China has clearly discomfited the government.
The average age of Chinese netizens is still very young. This is a matter of the future and whether the government’s Internet policy wants to fight with the future. Now a lot of citizens realize that their freedom of getting information has been infringed upon. Some citizens thought Google left China is unimportant, because Google should obey the rules in China. Communist party needs to stabilize its governance.
On the other hand, Internet control decrease the entertainment of Chinese netizens.In the name of rooting out pornography and piracy, Chinese authorities have shut down hundreds of Web sites offering films, music downloads, video games and other forms of entertainment since November.It seems difficult to download movies and music for free in China.
As my personal point, Google left the China, Chinese netizens will lost a lot. Although Google is not No.1 search engine in China, it still give us internationalized information that other search engine can not instead. There is no doubt that Google is the most popular search engine in the world, if Chinese citizens want to know the world well, Google is the best choice. If Google left China, we can only use Baidu, that means we can not get any compare with other authoritative foreign websites. We can not know what we get right or wrong? Most information we get only shows the attitude of Chinese government. I agree that Chinese society must be stable under a controlled
Internet environment, but that does not mean kick out all the information from Google. Government should have a right attitude to others comments and reports. If you haven't proven you are right, and you deny others, that only means you don't have the confidence to prove yourself,or you are really wrong.
Reflection on “Facing End-of-Life Talks, Doctors Choose to Wait”
The New York Times
January 11, 2010
Facing End-of-Life Talks, Doctors Choose to Wait – APF
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/health/12seco.html?ref=science
Group: Girls & Hill
Name: Shi Yuanyuan (Yvonne)
Guidelines for doctors say that end-of-life talks should begin when a patient has a year or less to live so that patients and their families can plan whether they want to do everything possible to stay alive or to avoid wind up dying in the hospital. But most doctors prefer to postpone those conversations until the patients feel worse or there are no more treatments to offer.
From my point of view, the early end-of-life talks are essential.
For patients, they have the right to know the truth and to make the decision. Actually, it is not rare to see that after suffering several months’ terrible and painful radiation and chemotherapy, patients still go to the other world in the end. However, if they could know their situation earlier, they could make a different choice. They could spend the rest of their life more meanful instead of wasting their precious time facing various kinds of machines. They could be happy and optimistic with their families rather than becoming more and more disappointed and depressed from the endless unbearable treatments. Also, if patients are told the truth when they have no more time, it is quite difficult for them to accept that. Although I am an outsider, I suppose nobody is willing to die in the hospital with his or her body connected to all kinds of tubes and machines.
For doctors, when they know someone is going to die of their desease, it is only fair to help the patients understand that. What’s more, I think good doctors should not only take care of the patients' body but also pay attention to their psychological state as well. Doctors should be trained to improve the communication skills as the patients need to know the real truth and remain a positive attitude towards their life at the same time.
January 11, 2010
Facing End-of-Life Talks, Doctors Choose to Wait – APF
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/health/12seco.html?ref=science
Group: Girls & Hill
Name: Shi Yuanyuan (Yvonne)
Guidelines for doctors say that end-of-life talks should begin when a patient has a year or less to live so that patients and their families can plan whether they want to do everything possible to stay alive or to avoid wind up dying in the hospital. But most doctors prefer to postpone those conversations until the patients feel worse or there are no more treatments to offer.
From my point of view, the early end-of-life talks are essential.
For patients, they have the right to know the truth and to make the decision. Actually, it is not rare to see that after suffering several months’ terrible and painful radiation and chemotherapy, patients still go to the other world in the end. However, if they could know their situation earlier, they could make a different choice. They could spend the rest of their life more meanful instead of wasting their precious time facing various kinds of machines. They could be happy and optimistic with their families rather than becoming more and more disappointed and depressed from the endless unbearable treatments. Also, if patients are told the truth when they have no more time, it is quite difficult for them to accept that. Although I am an outsider, I suppose nobody is willing to die in the hospital with his or her body connected to all kinds of tubes and machines.
For doctors, when they know someone is going to die of their desease, it is only fair to help the patients understand that. What’s more, I think good doctors should not only take care of the patients' body but also pay attention to their psychological state as well. Doctors should be trained to improve the communication skills as the patients need to know the real truth and remain a positive attitude towards their life at the same time.
2010年1月15日星期五
Reflection on Reid regrets “negro” remarks
Staits Times
Jan 10, 2010
Reid regrets “negro” remarks----APF
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_475582.html
Group: Girls and hill
Name: Yang Yu ( Elika)
US senator Harry Reid apologized for his racial comments about President Barak Obama’s election and Obama accepted it.
Here I would like to divide my reflections into the following three aspects.
First of all, it indicates racial discrimination is still a serious problem that US has never resolved thoroughly since its founding. It has been decades of years since civil war, the period when Martin Luther King was denoted as a hero for his trying to demand equal rights for black people. However, research shows there is huge difference between the living conditions and employment status of the colored people and the white, and thirty percent people admit they have racial prejudice. There is even no exception for president Obama, who is the first Africa-American president. He was commented “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one” for his election.
On the one hand, Obama apparently shouldn’t get these injustice racial comments. Is that he is the unprecedented black skinned president the reason contributes to more disputes, or is it just the presidents are always being judged? On the other hand, Reid’s comments reflect what many Americans think of unconsciously and instinctively to some degree. It cannot be asserted that racial discrimination is deeply ingrained. The election of Obama is a milestone that shows the changes. Why he is popular among the voters also reflect the current situation. What President Obama does on his position will also affect this country.
Secondly, I would like to discuss the event itself, making unfavorable comments about government leaders, or said offend. Reid was later called on to step down for his remarks, but we can tell it was more like the result of a Party struggle. Let’s see, what will happen if it is in countries like Singapore or China? There was literary persecution in the olden times, and there is strict censorship in the present age. What are the consequences of civilians’ offence to government officials in China? Most people know the fact but it is even not wise to talk over.
In US, the presidents, the Congress and the elections are always the subject of innuendo in many fields, cartoons, movies, novels etceteras. It seems people are free to joke about them, or perhaps when not raise touchy subjects. In this country where the freedom of speech is of great importance, are the consequences serious for offending the president? Joe Wilson who yelled “you lie” to Obama, and this time Reid, they both apologized to the president after offence and were forcing to step down. Besides, they became very famous of course.
Thirdly, is Obama a good president? He was violated as a person and also a president. Did the President accept their apologies as a president or as an individual? Obama is popular among the voters mainly because he is close to people and his personal charm. He urges economy reforms to save the economic crisis and puts forward health care plan to lighten citizens’ burden but confronted with great resistance. On the contrary, some people think he should solve the problem of using crude oil and clear all the nuclear weapons as a good president. As an outsider, I cannot tell if he is a good president for US or not, I can only say he is trying hard to do the “changes”, but he is too eager and his plans and reforms are too massive that he cannot achieve his goal instantly because the country may be not capable enough to go through these changes.
Jan 10, 2010
Reid regrets “negro” remarks----APF
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_475582.html
Group: Girls and hill
Name: Yang Yu ( Elika)
US senator Harry Reid apologized for his racial comments about President Barak Obama’s election and Obama accepted it.
Here I would like to divide my reflections into the following three aspects.
First of all, it indicates racial discrimination is still a serious problem that US has never resolved thoroughly since its founding. It has been decades of years since civil war, the period when Martin Luther King was denoted as a hero for his trying to demand equal rights for black people. However, research shows there is huge difference between the living conditions and employment status of the colored people and the white, and thirty percent people admit they have racial prejudice. There is even no exception for president Obama, who is the first Africa-American president. He was commented “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one” for his election.
On the one hand, Obama apparently shouldn’t get these injustice racial comments. Is that he is the unprecedented black skinned president the reason contributes to more disputes, or is it just the presidents are always being judged? On the other hand, Reid’s comments reflect what many Americans think of unconsciously and instinctively to some degree. It cannot be asserted that racial discrimination is deeply ingrained. The election of Obama is a milestone that shows the changes. Why he is popular among the voters also reflect the current situation. What President Obama does on his position will also affect this country.
Secondly, I would like to discuss the event itself, making unfavorable comments about government leaders, or said offend. Reid was later called on to step down for his remarks, but we can tell it was more like the result of a Party struggle. Let’s see, what will happen if it is in countries like Singapore or China? There was literary persecution in the olden times, and there is strict censorship in the present age. What are the consequences of civilians’ offence to government officials in China? Most people know the fact but it is even not wise to talk over.
In US, the presidents, the Congress and the elections are always the subject of innuendo in many fields, cartoons, movies, novels etceteras. It seems people are free to joke about them, or perhaps when not raise touchy subjects. In this country where the freedom of speech is of great importance, are the consequences serious for offending the president? Joe Wilson who yelled “you lie” to Obama, and this time Reid, they both apologized to the president after offence and were forcing to step down. Besides, they became very famous of course.
Thirdly, is Obama a good president? He was violated as a person and also a president. Did the President accept their apologies as a president or as an individual? Obama is popular among the voters mainly because he is close to people and his personal charm. He urges economy reforms to save the economic crisis and puts forward health care plan to lighten citizens’ burden but confronted with great resistance. On the contrary, some people think he should solve the problem of using crude oil and clear all the nuclear weapons as a good president. As an outsider, I cannot tell if he is a good president for US or not, I can only say he is trying hard to do the “changes”, but he is too eager and his plans and reforms are too massive that he cannot achieve his goal instantly because the country may be not capable enough to go through these changes.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)
