Should retailers charge us for the use of plastic bags?

Ikea has started to charge its customers in Singapore for plastic bags on 22 April 2007. NTUC had also introduced the “Bring Your Bag Day” every first Wednesday of the month. These are efforts made to conserve our resources, in response to the over consumption of plastic bags last year. Some had protested to the act, thinking that it’s unjustifiable for us to pay for the plastic bags that advertise for them. However, some feel that this is very meaningful and cooperate fully, buying reusable bags.

Firstly, I feel that this brave decision of Ikea is commendable. It is the first shops in Singapore to charge for the plastic bags. I hope other companies will follow suit. This way, Singaporeans will get used to bringing their own bag around and hence reduce the plastic bag consumption rate. This is going to be beneficial to the environment as time goes by, it will soon become a habit for people to shop without expecting plastic bags.

Secondly, there can also be an alternative way; that is to use bio-degradable plastic bags. It will then save our environment too, at the same time, consumers will not complain. However, I feel that there may be a problem to this. It will not address the problem of wasting resources. Many grab plastic bags not because they need it, but because they feel that it should come along with the products they’ve bought. People will continue to take it for granted and waste it like nobody’s business.

Well, people can object n say, “Why should we pay to advertise for the company?” Good question. So what can the company do? For example, Ikea had responded by donating all the money collected to the World Wide Fund for Nature. They are not profiteering. People have to understand that this is an action done to conserve our resources and save the Earth. We cannot take this kind of minor things for granted.

In a nutshell, I would say that it is justifiable for retailers to charge people for their plastic bags, in the interest of the environment.

Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists? Discuss this in the light of the arguments raised in the two articles and substantiate your ideas with examples of your own.



The use of torture in dealing with criminals and terrorists seems justifiable and crucial in getting information in certain circumstances. In the first article, it mentioned that in democracies, we work hard to push the idea of justice. For example, before you pity any terrorist who scream and yelp in torment, think of 9/11, of the horrifying bloodshed. Everything will then sound like justice. It is only right to return the evil with a taste of their own medicine. They deserve to be tortured, if not worse than what they did to the victims.

Torturing criminals are acceptable, in gathering information fast, under pressing conditions. For example, when a cold-blooded criminal tries to stall time with the police when his victim is struggling in an enclosed container, it is important that the police get hold of the whereabouts of the victim in the shortest possible time, to save his life. In this case, torture may become imperative to force the criminal into telling where he kept his victim. A life is at stake. So, do we still insist that it is against the human rights to torture him when one may be slowly dying? It can aid the police’s investigations and increase their efficiency in rescuing the victims, saving more lives.

However, as stated in the second article, there should be a limit to the torture used. Not to the extent of any vicious acts, that may cause harm to the criminal’s loved ones who are innocent. If one is insistent on not cooperating, nothing could be done, if a level of torture is used, but proved ineffective. Further torture should not be continued as it is not going to work. Also, the police should only incorporate torture into their investigations when they are certain of the crimes committed by the criminal.

Hence, I feel that torture is justified when directed at hard-nosed inhumane criminals.

I think that the new media is a form of power to the people. The people have the rights to proclaim their opinions, in this context, through internet blogging. Besides the government controlled media, the people can then analyse the situation better with different sources of information and other people’s point of views. It promotes the freedom of speech in a country, with popular blogs criticizing and challenging ideas established by the mainstream press. Blogging is one form of way to express one’s ideas and include factual information to assist readers in judging for themselves whether the government is right. Also, the politicians can take this opportunity to understand how the people feels and what they can improve on, taking it as a form of positive feedback and thus take the people’s opinions into account.

However, when carried too far, this may also be a sort of problem, with the people misusing the new media, leading to media wars, for example as stated in the text. Terrorists can attack and stir up mixed feelings among people to create discord. This may be a damaging consequence if not handled properly. The new media poses a threat as it allows them to freely spam, corrupting the public’s mind.

Hence, some countries have adopted the “censorship” approach to omit any offensive and untrue articles, to uphold political stability. Many continents are doing this, by censoring websites, blocking emails and persecuting and imprisoning bloggers. They try to filter the internet, and go through any extreme measures to deter bloggers who blog irresponsibly and criticise the government openly.

I do not agree to this, as the new media is a tool, of the new age, for the people to effectively offer their opinions and truthfully express how they feel, be it a positive or negative output. On and all, the government should respect and not disregard the public’s viewpoint.

Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth? Discuss this in the light of the arguments raised in this article and substantiate your arguments with your own examples.



The article questioned the reliability of the media, on their definition of "quality news". As the public relies too much on the media to produce reliable information, they usually forget to ask themself about how true is it. Hence, most of the time, they will be fooled into believing whatever news fed to them by the media, accepting the media's credibility and recognising their ability to produce quality news.

The article suggests that the government or large companies can easily manipulate the media to their own benefit, in fooling the viewers. The news the media publish is actually under the control of the market. The author claims that the factors are mainly popularity, prejudice and profit. The media will only convey quality news, which in this case is not defined as the truth but defined by the popularity of it. This would also link to the profit achieved by the high viewership rate. Some how, in one way or another, prejudice is directly proportional to popularity.The media reserve the rights to censor "controversial" news.

I think that this is a case of viewers choose what they want to see. The media works in such a way that popularity plays an influential role in the information they cover. They are often afraid to "offend" viewers and hence reduce the popularity of the source of media. This will reduce their profits and hence, not lucrative enough for them to continue. The truth may not be what the public want to know. The media works on the mind of the viewers and effectively trick them into believing whatever news that is made available to them by the media.

I refer to a forum article, "Why put graphic anti-smoking ad on TV?" by Miss Faye Chiam, dated 29th march 2007. I agree that graphic anti-smoking ad should not be screened on TV. The national TV is watched by millions of singaporeans daily, consisting of different kinds of people, be it children, elderly, smokers, or non-smokers. So why is this horrific image of a woman suffering from oral cancer permitted? This caused many to grimace in disgust at the sight of it. True enough that it may scare smokers to quit smoking, but, the smokers' population may not even be half of the number of people watching it. From my point of view, i find it not justifiable. What im trying to say is, its not fair to ask children to close their eyes if the gross image scares them. I feel strongly that the anti-smoking campaign should only be executed at a smaller scale, focusing on the targeted group of smokers only.

I think that Mother Teresa had made a significant impact over the standard of living of the poverty. Incontrovertibly, her efforts not only moved those who benefited, it had also brought about the importance and efficiency of self-sacrifice.

In her life, she extended help and contributions to as many as she believed in helping. Through practical solutions and methods, she raised funds, trying to make a difference, One report said that at the time of her death in 1997, she was overseeing almost 700 centers of her Missionaries of Charity, which were operating in over one hundred countries. Her order has 5,000 nuns. These benefited a lot of the needy and motivated more people to help, as there is still a large population of the poor in the developing countries till now.

She had unknowingly, created a greater sense of compassion and motivated many others to follow after her, especially in India. She, alone, answered that phrase, "What can one person do?", with actions. The answer is “Yes. One can do a lot, depending on the person and the opportunities available to that person.” In an interview of Peter Drucker, the management guru, Drucker made an important point. The money she raised, compared to the needs at hand, was minimal, he said. But by captivating people’s hearts and minds, she multiplied total giving.

Welcome to my blog. I am a lively girl who caper my way around the school. I believe that smiling and laughing often not only makes one look prettier but can also lighten up others' mood. I am always full of myself, ready to take on new challenges. If i am to use five adjectives to describe myself, they would be "cheerful", "confident", "hyperactive", "stubborn" and "positive".