The trial scene is the longest in the play and stands as one of the most dramatic scenes in all of Shakespeare. A number of critics have raised questions about the accuracy and fairness of the courtroom proceedings: the presiding duke is far from impartial; Portia appears as an unbiased legal authority, when in fact she is married to the defendant’s best friend; and she appears in disguise, under a false name. These points would seem to stack the deck against Shylock. However, while Portia bends the rules of the court, her decision is nonetheless legally accurate. More important for the cause of justice, the original bond was made under false pretenses—Shylock lied when he told Antonio that he would never collect the pound of flesh. Therefore, Portia’s actions restore justice instead of pervert it.

Shylock's reply - "My deeds upon my head! I crave the law" (IV.i.202) - makes him appear totally without mercy, at least superficially. However, we know that Shylock has little reason to trust Christian Venetian society because he has been abused and reviled by Antonio and others. It seems more likely that by being merciful, he would be accepting their value system and be taking the first step towards assimilation within Christian society (after all, his daughter has already converted voluntarily). Antonio would have won in court and in society, and could feel justified in treating Shylock with even less respect than before. In other words, Shylock would lose power, and this, in essence, is how we can view the conflict between Shylock and Antonio,as a power struggle. Once Shylock is defeated by Portia's clever interpretation of the law, we see that he is now at the mercy of the court. It is here that mercy and revenge become equated. Portia tells Shylock that for threatening the life of Antonio, his goods are forfeit "And the offender's life lies in the mercy / Of the Duke only...." (IV.i.351-352). She finishes by saying "Down therefore, and beg mercy of the duke." (IV.i.359) Both the Duke and Antonio appear to be merciful when they spare his life and some of his wealth, but in light of Shylock's tenous position in Venetian society, it would appear that they are trying to completely crush him, especially when he is required to become a Christian. Thus, mercy is only shown superficially towards Shylock.

The recent uprisings, revolutions, and festivities erupting in the West Asian and North African region are steeped in desires for “Justice” in terms of political rights, economic standards, and social position vis-à-vis the dominating few in the state. Much of the assorted coverage has highlighted the demand of the “masses” for justice, peacefully and violently, yet, few have noted the unspoken sentiment behind the protests for “international” or let us say global fairness and equitability. The structure of “the international” and of peoples’ experiences with it can be seen as a reflection of the micro-resistance we’ve seen from Morocco to Bahrain, Syria to Libya. The domestic is always tied, reflects, and interacts with the international, and vice versa; as beyond so below, to paraphrase that irritating, yet profound, cliché.

Today, I will be penning down my thoughts recently posted open letter to the education minister by a secondary 4 student from nan chiau high school.

First off, the gist of the letter is that schools are stifling creativity of the students and that schools place academics above everything else in the student’s education. I agree with the writer as I believe that this is the general trend of most schools. Schools emphasize on giving “politically correct” answers as opposed to truly giving your opinion. Schools also have a very tight syllabus to follow thus causing the teachers lack of time to answer the students various queries.

However, I think that the writer is being unfair at times, making unjust generalizations and assumptions about various aspects of schooling. I would like to draw your attention to what the writer said that teachers do not accept key terms or phrases in biology and chemistry that he rephrased. I would like to point out that these key terms are usually very difficult to replace, and one’s word can hardly fault the teacher for not accepting paraphrases as more often than not, the paraphrases deviate from the original meaning. Besides, the writer’s association of lack of expression to social networks being more used is a false one. Students use social networks for a variety of reasons, usually more of interacting with their friends than as an outlet to express their opinions. Furthermore, I disagree with the writer that “tons and tons of model answers and model essays” have to be memorized. Full length essays are hardly memorized in schools and model answers are only memorized as the students usually cannot use their own words to explain them. For instance, how to you rephrase key biology terms such as “sperm duct” and “prostate glands”? It simply cannot be done. Moreover, it is also necessary for students to be familiar with the theory side of a subject before being able to formulate their own opinion.

I believe that the tone of this letter is quite apt. The writer is humble, merely sharing his opinion in the letter while realizing that the opinion of a 16 year old might not mean anything at all. He does not force people to accept his arguments and opinions, merely stating his observations and his opinions from those, leaving us to come to a conclusion ourselves. However, I believe this is what will finally convince us of his opinions. It is a well crafted letter as at different parts of the letter, it directly addresses the minister, or the students, whenever appropriate.

If I was writing to the education minister, I would also emphasize on the points in this letter. Besides that, I would also raise the issue of students not developing a global perspective, preferring to huddle together in their own group while not mixing with other people of different nationalities or races. Besides, the issue whereby special programmes promote elitism is also widely discussed, and I will also raise it with the education minister. The sole criteria for entering special programmes in schools is usually academic excellence, however is academic excellence enough as a criteria? People is special programmes usually are given special preference, with the majority of the school’s funds spent on them. However, are the students in special programmes really better than students outside of them? Would it be better if there was no criterion for these special programmes, trusting in the student’s ability to decide what is best for them?

With this I end off, leaving you with this thought, is there really a perfect education system?

Today, I would be blogging about the evolution of war from the past to the present. The history of war can be classified into 5 different sections, ancient warfare, medieval warfare, gunpowder warfare, industrial warfare and modern warfare.

There were many instances of war in ancient times. Diplomacy was uncommon, thus the differences between different communities were resolved using war. Due to limited agriculture ability, there were few areas that can support large communities, leading to fighting and eventually war. War in those times made use of primitive weaponry. For example, Romans, whose armies consisted mainly of heavy infantry and only smaller cavalry contingents.

During the period of medieval warfare, militaries were forever changed. There were technological, cultural, and social developments had forced a dramatic transformation in the character of warfare from antiquity, changing military tactics and the role of cavalry and artillery. Similar patterns of warfare existed in other parts of the world. In China around the fifth century armies moved from massed infantry to cavalry based forces, copying the steppe nomads. The Middle East and North Africa used similar, if often more advanced, technologies than Europe.

After Gunpowder weapons were first developed in Song Dynasty China, the technology later spread west to the Ottoman Empire, from where it spread to the Safavid Empire of Persia and the Mughal Empire of India. This all brought an end to the dominance of armored cavalry on the battlefield. The simultaneous decline of the feudal system — and the absorption of the medieval city-states into larger states — allowed the creation of professional standing armies to replace the feudal levies and mercenaries that had been the standard military component of the Middle Ages.

As weapons—particularly small arms—became easier to use, countries began to abandon a complete reliance on professional soldiers in favor of conscription. Technological advances became increasingly important; while the armies of the previous period had usually had similar weapons, the industrial age saw encounters such as the Battle of Sadowa, in which possession of a more advanced technology played a decisive role in the outcome.

In modern times, war has evolved from an activity steeped in tradition to a scientific enterprise where success is valued above methods. The notion of total war is the extreme of this trend. Militaries have developed technological advances rivalling the scientific accomplishments of any other field of study. What distinguishes modern military organizations from those previous is not their willingness to prevail in conflict by any method, but rather the technological variety of tools and methods available to modern battlefield commanders, from submarines to satellites, from knives to nuclear warheads.

In conclusion, war has evolved a lot from the battle horses we see in ancient times, to the nuclear bombs that we experience in today’s modern warfare.

In today’s competitive society, it is inevitable that the deciding factor of entering into relationships lie with monetary issues. I believe that there is indeed an upward trend of relationships and marriages valuing money over other qualities.

This trend can be attributed to a number of factors, the most pertinent one of them the rising cost of living, and the alarming inflation of prices. The rising cost of living results in people using relationships as an avenue to earn fast money. It is indeed simple and quick, getting in a relationship with a rich person and your life immediately turns comfortable. Sometimes, it is also difficult to blame them as technically they have done nothing wrong. It is the human nature and survival instinct in them that makes them want to have the easy way out. Although their choice is by no means ethical, it certainly is an attractive option.

The consequences of this trend are disastrous. The divorce rates will increase due to unhappy marriages and marriages solely based on material wealth. Children will thus be unhappy when their parents divorce, leading to a lack of concentration in their studies and other activities, resulting in the decline of their results. Furthermore, crime rates might also increase due to the growing unhappiness of the divorced people.

In a nutshell, I believe that today’s trend in relationships are leaning towards monetary emphasis. Thank you.

Today, I will be blogging about my opinion on the topic ‘Is money important in a relationship?"

I believe that money is not important in relationships. Money can be used to make relationships easier; however I believe that as long as love is present in the couple, the issue of money should not be a hindrance in maintaining a relationship. As long as both people in the relationship are willing to sacrifice, it is entirely possible that the relationship will work out.

Critics have argued that money is necessary to at least fulfill the basic necessities of the couple. They have also stated that money is needed for the male to court the female, and that people will usually view money as the deciding factor as to whether to enter a relationship with that person. I concede the fact that some money is needed to buy food and water, but I believe that minimal amount of money is needed there. I believe that fancy gifts or 10 course dinners do not symbolize true love and is totally unnecessary in a relationship. These expensive gifts or meals are merely a reflection of one’s wealth and not of one’s dedication to the relationship. However, it is true that money is usually the deciding factor of entering a relationship. All I can say to this is that if true love is present, money should not be a hindrance in relationships. Furthermore if a person declines to enter a relationship because of the financial problems of the other party, we can infer that the person is not suitable for the relationship. Perhaps this is a good thing after all, better to be rejected by an unfaithful person now then to be betrayed by him later.

All in all, the fact that a minimal amount of money is needed to maintain relationships is inevitable. However, all the money beyond this, although appreciated, is totally unnecessary in making a good relationship work out.

I do not really know why NS is formed in Malaysia. Technically, it is compulsory for certain Malaysians to go after to the NS after they are randomly picked. However, there are several reasons why the NS in Malaysia is often treated as a joke. For example: If an 18 year-old teen got picked to go to the January NS which will last for a few months, causing his or her college studies to be delayed to the June intake. Of course, this person will feel unfair because only he or she has to go to the NS and needs to delay his or her studies while some others just continue smoothly with their studies. Furthermore, the NS is fairly easy to skip without reasons as compared to Singapore's NS. Therefore, many teenagers do not follow the rule.

In addition, the racism in Malaysia is pretty serious to the extent that many unfair benefits and advantages to the Malays are being carried out such as: the Malays have a higher chance to obtain scholarships to study overseas compared to other races as the criteria to obtain a scholarship for Malays is more lenient. For example: a Chinese student may have gotten 9As but got nothing, while a Malay just have to get 6As to be awarded an overseas scholarship. It is just so unjust to be so biased towards the Malays and so discriminative against other races. Without a sense of belonging, teenagers will not have the urge to attend NS.

I do not feel the same way as the speaker towards my country. This country is full of corruption, racism which includes even the leaders of the country. This is not how a country should be, and this is definitely not how a country should be governed if we want success.

However, my loyalty towards Hwa Chong is totally different from my loyalty to Malaysia. Malaysia is unfair to non-Malays. I decided to come to Singapore because I thought that Malaysia is not treating the people fairly and I was unhappy about it. I believe that Singapore sees the importance of having equal rights regardless of race, language or religion, and so I came to Singapore. I am loyal to Hwa Chong. Maybe I cannot die for Hwa Chong, but at least I respect the leaders of Hwa Chong and will strive for excellence Hwa Chong.

No offense meant in this post :)