Passage 1 says that “If barriers of language or culture keep an immigrant child from fitting in, it can increase the risk that he will become alienated and, given enough triggers, resort to violence.” Singapore is a cosmopolitan society where people from different countries are welcomed to apply for residency. With more than 70,000 new immigrants in 2009, this view is very applicable to our country. It is true that language and culture barriers can spark off unhappiness within this group of population and eventually lead to violence. Singaporeans are often judgmental and skeptical towards immigrants, especially if there is the possibility of having fewer jobs available for ourselves. Many times, as I have witnessed in school, foreign students are alienated and are not socially accepted, resulting in segregation even during mealtimes where the foreign students seat in a corner by themselves. Like passage 1 says, such an exclusive culture can stir up unhappiness due to the unjust treatment and this is definitely a trigger in causing them to turn to violence in order vent their anger and seek “revenge” on the locals.
Passage 2 says that “traditional parental control has disappeared”. This view is only partly applicable to Singapore’s context. Traditional parental control would refer to parents having the last say on various subjects with regards to the lives of their children these days. Indeed, the amount of control the adults have on their children these days is less than in the past, as more freedom has been accorded. However, it is not true that parents in Singapore no longer have any control over their children. Many parents still do set curfews and ground their kids when such measures are called for. Majority of the children in Singapore also still do obey and respect their parents, submitting to authority most of the time. Thus I would say that the view of parents no longer having control over their children is definitely not applicable to Singapore.
No comments:
Post a Comment