Boys found starving; adoptive parents charged

I refer to the article dated 15th July from http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/15/starving.kids.ap/index.html

LYMAN, South Carolina (AP) -- A couple has been jailed on felony charges after police discovered their three adopted sons were severely malnourished, including a 5-year-old boy who weighed less than 20 pounds.

• 5-year old boy weighed less than 20 pounds
• 7-year old boy weighed about 32 pounds
• 8-year old boy weighed less than 40 pounds
• boys were also treated for bruises, scratches, burns and head lice
• they were tied up to be kept from food
• couple's own daughter had head lice but was not malnourished
• couple told officers their family "had been dealing with a stomach virus that had caused the weight loss"

This is a very worrying situation to see that children in the U.S. are malnourished as they are being deprived of food. This couple are clearly very harsh towards these boys as they were adopted and not their biological children. However, I feel that by adopting these boys, the couple should take responsibility of the welfare of the boys and should ensure that they remain healthy. Furthermore, as these boys are the biological nephews of the couple, it doesn't make sense for them to have been abusing the children.

Since the couple has no interest in taking good care of the boys, they should not have adopted them in the first place. I feel that the couple should be denied the rights to take care of the children as their behaviour towards the children is exceedingly violent. Also, I feel that they should be convicted and placed behind bars. Such abuse of children in society today should be condemned and people who do so should be barred from society. They will only pose as a danger and it is only right that they are placed behind bars. Also, although their own biological daughter was not found to be malnourished, she was also found to have head lice. This shows that they are unable to give their own daughter the utmost care, not to mention giving care to other people's children. Therefore, the couple do not deserve the rights to take care of either their own child or their adopted children.

Kazakhstan through the looking glass

I refer to the article dated 15th July from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5181496.stm

With an emerging economy and rich in natural resources, Kazakhstan is seen as a highly desirable place to invest by the West, China and Russia. But behind the wealth, the country's political system is controversial.

• Ten years ago, many people raised their eyebrows when President Nursultan Nazarbayev decided to move the capital of Kazakhstan out of Almaty to a tiny provincial town called Astana in the very heart of the steppe
• Today, ten years and $9.6bn later, Astana is Central Asia's fastest growing city
• Astana has a theme park and an aquarium, and a pyramid is currently being built
• Life is much better for the people today than before
• However, the political system is built around the president and his family
• President Nazarbayev has just recently been re-elected for another seven year term after 17 years in power
• Observers say that the election is neither free nor fair
• Opposition politicans in the country were brutally murdered
• President Narzarbayev's daughter criticised one of her father's closest associate and as a result, the president ended her daughter's political career

Kazakhstan is clearly a country full of potential in riches in Central Asia, however its political system is clearly a one-party system.
However, ever since President Nazarbayev began developing the country, it has been flourishing ever since to become Central Asia's fastest growing city. This situation raise questions whether it is better for a country to have a one-party political system or an equal and fair political system for multiple parties. I feel that this doesn't matter as long as the country is doing well and the people are well taken care of.

In Taiwan for example, there are many political parties in government. Yet, the country's political system is chaotic and clearly as a result the country is not doing well. It is not easy to pass bills in Taiwan as the constitution is constantly contradictory. Therefore, this highlights the efficency of a one-party political system.

Currently, Singapore also has a one-party majority where the PAP occupies 82 out of 84 seats in parliament. However Singapore is doing well. Therefore, it doesnt matter to me whether there is one or 10 political parties in Singapore. As long as we are given sufficient freedom, and the country is doing well, just let things be.

In Kazakhstan, opposition politicians are murdered, and the president does not hesistate to take actions against his own daughter when she says negative comments which may affect him. These are steps taken to ensure that they remain in power. The people said that the president has given them a future, but their political freedom has been taken away. So, should they be satisfied with what they have? Some of them are, while some aren't. Those who aren't happy step out and are brutually mudered. Censorship prevails in Kazakhstan, yet the country is still flourishing. Therefore, does this show that the tighter the freedom in a country, the better the lives of the people? All this is based on perspectives; those who are satisfied with their lives will not bother, while those who are concerned about the political system in the country will bother.

In the end, I still feel that a one-party political system will be the best for the management of the country while freedom will be the best for the people. However, these 2 factors cannot be achieved at the same time. Eventually, there will be a compromise between the two. These may have been achieved in Singapore, where the press freedom is considerably low and there is a one-party majority in Singapore. Yet, Singapore is constantly developing.

Philippines' death penalty debate

I refer to the article dated 26th June at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5117128.stm

In the Philippines, Congress is notorious for taking months - if not years - to pass laws.

• Death penalty abolished in Philippines
• Congress is notorious for taking months, if not years, to pass laws
• However, this bill was passed in quick time
• The Church had placed pressure for this bill to be passed
• The Church wields considerable power in the Philippines
• President Arroyo appears to be trying to gain support from the bishops through this
• Scrapping the death penalty might cause criminals to get away with capital offences

I feel that although the death penalty may be against human rights as we are taking away the rights of a person to live, but it can be necessary sometimes. The death penalty can work as a deterrent for people as they will be more likely to hesistate to commit a capital offence when faced with a death penalty as compared to a life sentence. Therefore, it should not be right for the Arroyo administration to gain support by abiding to the Church's request while giving the criminals more leeway.

This is very important in the Philippines where violent crimes are prevailing in the country, varying from kidnappings and extortions to insurgencies. With crime rates at such a high level, the death penalty should be implemented as a deterrent. By removing the death penalty, the criminals will be less hesistant in committing such capital offences. This will eventually lead to an increase in the number of capital offences being committed in the Philippines. These factors will only lead to more chaos in the country. Therefore, I feel that President Arroyo should not think about gaining support only, but instead should look at the whole situation as a whole. They may have gained the support of the Church, but it was done at the expense of the country's welfare.

Smoking accounts for health gap

I refer to the article dated 14th July at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5176822.stm

Smoking is to blame for half of the difference in male death rates between men in the top and bottom social classes, say international researchers.

• Men have a two-fold increased risk of dying earlier in England, Wales, the US, Canada and Poland
• On average, 19% of people in the lower social class are more likely to die compared to the people in the upper social class
• Half of this difference is related to smoking
• Lower income group men are more likely to smoke
• Smoking is the highest cause of health inequalities
• A man in the poorest social group has a 1 in 2 chance of surviving till the age of 70 while a man in the highest social group has a 2 in 3 chance.
• Heart disease prevails in poorer areas

Although smoking is clearly a health hazard in this world, many people in the world are still smoking despite this. Out of these people, most of the people who are smoking are those in the lower social classes. As the people in the lower social classes are unable to get help, the average age which these people live to are much lower compared to people in the upper social classes, therefore it would be practical for the government to help these people.

In Singapore, the government has currently imposed an islandwide ban on smoking in public places. This is quite encouraging as the smokers can no longer easily find a place to smoke. In the long run, it might even be a factor for smokers to stop smoking as it is too troublesome to smoke. I am very supportive of such forms of smoking cessation in Singapore as it will help to reduce the number of smoking-related illnesses in Singapore.

Perhaps, some time from now, Singapore might achieve a total ban on smoking in the country. But at the present, we will have to wait till people get tired of smoking. Clearly, as smoking has no health benefits whatsoever, there would be no point for smoking to prevail. I believe that if smoking cessation could globalise, everyone around the world will live to a riper age than before.

Philippine 'attack plot foiled'

I refer to the article dated 12th July at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5171654.stm

• Six fugitive army officers arrested for plotting attack on parliament in 2003
• Plan to seize control of the House of Representatives
• Wanted to introduce a new revolutionary regime
• They led hundreds of soldiers who briefly occupied buildings in Manila's Makati financial district
• Civilian fact-finding commission concluded that the mutiny was part of a larger plot to replace President Gloria Arroyo with a military government
• Coup plots are common in the Philippines

This article highlights a mutiny that occured in 2003 when a group of army officers were involved in a plot to overthrow President Gloria Arroryo and replace her with a military government. It is rather surprising to see that coup plots are actually common in the Philippines. Two presidents had been removed from office by popular revolt, backed by the military in 1986 and 2001. This shows that the Philippines government seems to be unable to achieve a proper equilibrium with its people. While 2 coups had already occured, there's already a 3rd coup stirring in such a short period of time. Clearly, the people are not happy with the government and the government had lost some of the support of the military.

I believe that each government should work to their best to ensure that the needs of the people are satisfied. For example, basic necessities in life such as food and housing are not available to people in the Philippines. For a political party to stay in power, they require the support of the people and the military. If they are unable to gain these support, there must be some aspects which are causing the government to lose support. Therefore, I would suggest that the Philippines government try to regain the support of the people before another coup goes down in Philippines history.

Discipline, death and martyrdom

I refer to the article dated 9th June 2006 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5051652.stm.

In this article, the author reports on what happens inside the Tamil Tigers.
According to the article, each Tamil Tiger carries on him a small glass vial containing a fatal dose of cyanide. Upon capture, the rebel will bite into the glass, cutting himself so that the dose of cyanide can enter his bloodstream, killing himself after around 7 seconds.

The Tamil Tigers have been fighting against the Sinhalese majority in Sri Lanka for twenty years and they had killed one Sri Lankan president, the former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, and many others, with a total of more than 240 suicide attacks. The latest attack was in April this year, when a female suicide bomber targeted the chief of the army, Sararth Fonesak.

The Tamil Tigers are led by the reclusive Velupillai Prabhakaran, whom is called the great leader, and his picture is everywhere in rebel held areas.

The Tamil Tigers say that they have suffered years of oppression at the hands of the Sinhalese majority, therefore the only way to tackle this is for them to fight for an independent homeland.


I find it very unsettling for a Tamil Tiger to talk about how they kill themselves with the dose of cyanide without any tremor in his voice. This shows that these rebels have laid down their lives for their purpose and are willing to sacrifice their lives at any time. It is rather disturbing to see that for many Tamils in Sri Lanka, their lives is a war against the Sinhalese majority. They sign up voluntarily for the suicide squads and sacrifice themselves to fight against the Sri Lankan government.

It is terrible to see such bloodshed going on in Sri Lanka. The raging civil war has caused multiple blows to the Sri Lanka economy and yet the government are not making distinct moves to assure the Tamils of what they want, namely equality, power sharing and a form of federal autonomy.

I feel that the Sri Lankan government should grant these Tamils their rights so that they can end this civil war soon. When there is a civil war ongoing in a country, usually the people suffers. Considering the state of the Sri Lanka economy currently, it would be practical for the government to work towards ending the war. Also, it will end the people's terror everyday of being the next suicide victim.

It is always best for a country to have peace, and for the people to live in peace. This peace will only come to Sri Lanka when the war is over. The Tamil Tigers are only fighting for what they think is right. Therefore, the only way peace can be brought to this country is for the government to answer to the requests of the Tamil Tigers.