I refer to Jeremy Su’s blog post “Ageism + sexism = axeing older women?” I’ve read the article he’d made reference to and too, found it ridiculous for the particular local nightspot to refuse a 55 year-old women of the free drinks promised to all ladies, just because she is over the age limit of 35.

I agree that this is a case of ageism. It is unfair that the special privilege was only entitled to young and attractive women. However, I feel that it is not as much of sexism. It is a stand taken by the nightspot, to attract more people, consisting of mainly the men and hip youngsters. Older men are not denied from entering nightspots as they form a big percentage of the customers. Thus, in order to keep these potential customers, the nightspot has conveniently excluded older women as they are labeled as less attractive.

Clearly, this is a case of the “demand-supply” effect. In this case, older women face discrimination in nightspots which has the stereotype of being a fun and youthful place. Older men were not denied entry, entirely because of the fact that there are bigger groups of them and they spend at the nightspot. Hence, economically, they have no reason to discriminate older men.

The argument that ageism plus sexism is also observed in our workplaces and communities could not be more true. There has always been some form of gender discrimination in the society. Men are viewed as the stronger sex and are more capable. Women, on the other hand, are thought to be dependent on men, substantiated by most women being housewives. They are supposed to belong to the home while men, on the battle ground. Besides that, many companies prefer younger workers, who are thought to be more efficient. That puts older women into further disadvantage in the working society.

However, this is a problem faced by many countries and in Singapore, the government had taken a strong stand against ageism. There had been efforts made in retaining older workers and upgrading women to help them return to the workforce. We have to be more practical and accept the fact that our population is ageing and being old is not a crime. It also does not mean that we get useless when we’re old. In fact, we have more life experience and that make us a better person, in our career as well.

I find it impossible for government to criminalise such acts as it is not going to be within their control. Say, if a company does not want to hire someone, even if it is because of her age, they can come up with a dozen excuses of why they refuse to employ her. After all, its ultimately their choice. The are limitations to what the government can do. Yes, it is the mindset of the society that has to be changed.

For that, everybody plays a part. We have to start with the younger generation by educating and instilling into them, the point that beauty does not go with age. Experience comes along with it, beautifying our lifes. Especially older women., they should be viewed upon as role models for the younger women, not discriminated.

Can poverty ever be eradicated?

The stand I’m going to take is no. Poverty will never be eradicated. The major factor to eliminate poverty is to improve the level of technology in the society.
However, the poor will always be trapped in a vicious poverty cycle. They cannot afford to upgrade themselves. There is no way we can solve this problem. To give them loans may end up causing them to be burdened with a bigger sum of unpaid debts. Subsidies and incentives are not practical, as it is not possible for any country or any organization to come up with such a huge amount of money to help all of them. One example, is the high yielding varieties (HYVs), which only benefited the rich, widening the income gap as the rich get richer and earns more profit from it while the poor are forever trapped in the poverty cycle, with no money to pay for the crops, land, fertilizers etc. In the passage it also mentioned that “As an alternative, a poor country that wants to be richer cannot expect to develop its own technology. Therefore, a poor country must import technology that produces more and better goods and services for its own people and for producing goods and services for trade with foreigners”. Whatever said might be hard to put into action. As stated, it is a poor country. Where will they get the money to import technologies and upgrade themselves?

Some others can argue that when there is an overall increase in absolute wealth, it is inevitable that some will spill over from the rich to the poor, via trade and globalization. The government can play a part by strongly encouraging the people to work harder, hence generate more income for the country to get richer. Well, making use of the limited natural resources a country have may also be one of the choice to take. But, my question is, how far can all this bring us? Can it really make us richer? Will it eradicate poverty?

The scope of discussion should be wider. Education is another factor. Also, its not all about technological advancement. We have to take cultures into account. Here comes the problem. Culture is not something that can be changed in a day or two. It requires constant effort and careful actions of the government. We need a competent and honest government to bring us through this progress. The point I’m trying to bring across is, no matter what, poverty will remain a concern in our society. We’ll try our best to solve it, but to completely eliminate it, is not possible.

Are you for or against the death penalty?


I agree that death penalty plays an important role in deterring murders. It serves as a warning to other potential murderers that they will not get away with it. They will have to pay for the misdeed, for the life of their victims, with their own life. It is unjust for the innocent victims to lose their lives. Hopefully, with death penalty, murderers will think twice before committing the heinous crime.

However, some argue that death penalty is a question of morality and a violation of the human rights. It radically negates the doctrine of human rights, which is founded on respect for life and the dignity of human beings. This seems like a paradoxical statement to make. Nobody has the moral right to take anyone’s life, not even that of the most condemnable murderer. If that is going to be the case, why are there still murder cases? Who gave the murderers the right to kill people? So, are we going to just let the murderers get away with it?

Fine, they may refute that punishment should not be retributive in nature; instead, we should try to rehabilitate the criminal in order to enable him to live in society with other human beings. But, who is going to account for the victim’s life? Looking at the interest of the criminal, we cannot forget the rights of the victim’s family. They don’t deserve to lose their loved ones.

The learning point is: If we intend to abolish the gallows, we should also fight for the prevention of crime and against the inhumanity of many prisons.