From passage 1 by the Newsweek, the author claims that there has been an increasing rate of criminal violence in countries with higher accessibility and those that differ in their social structure where it is hard to bond people together as one. This is indeed true in my society. For example, in the recent stabbing incident in Nanyang Technological University (NTU) shows that with increasing accessibility to weapons and the difference in social status may drive an individual to turn violent. On the other hand, it is also an overgeneralised statement. Having differences among countries, let alone individuals, makes them unique. Even if there are differences, criminal violence can still be minimized in countries. My country, Singapore, is a multi-racial society. The government managed to promote peace among all citizens by building a common identity through events like Racial Harmony Day. Hence, the possibility for an individual to turn violent still depends mainly on his characteristics, and not only the surroundings.
Friday, July 23
LYNN/ tjc09_violence
Roy looks at the cause of violence as a act of vengeance at being denied their cultural heritage. I think that this is applicable to my society. In 1964, there was a race riot that took place in Singapore between the Chinese and Malay. The cause of the riot was that the ties between People's Action Party (PAP) and the UMNO were severely strained after being competitors in the 1964 Malaysia federal election. As PAP were mainly filled by the Chinese, the Malays may have felt that they were unable to do their part for the country because of their race. This thus caused the act of vengeance using violence. On the other hand, this may be minimal on the global level. Cultural heritage is deep-rooted within a person. For larger scaled incidents like the September 11 terrorist attack, misconceptions by the terrorists can be seen as they take innocent lives. Therefore, this shows that there are other factors contributing to the use of criminal violence and not only cultural heritage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The point that Lynn has picked out from the passage answers the question and is also further substantiated with a local example which limits the argument in a Singaporean context, as in the case of the stabbing incident in NTU. V good :)
ReplyDeleteMy country, Singapore, is a multi-racial society. The government managed to promote peace among all citizens by building a common identity through events like Racial Harmony Day.
ReplyDeleteby leaving your evaluation with a simple statement about the govt, you are not building a convincing argument. isn't "increasing accessibility to weapons" a little exaggerated? you need to take your argument one step at a time.
1. explain how your NTU eg supports the author's point
2. draw a link between the author's point and the violence exhibited in your eg.
3. limit the author's point by arguing how this may be an exception instead of the rule. what is it about Singapore that allows foreign students and workers to feel comfortable, if not fully integrated?
for passage 2, the author's point seems to have been paraphrased well but loses its meaning: at being denied their cultural heritage. the article specifically says this is not true. so your evaluation for the entire second paragraph is inaccurate.
you have definitely fulfilled the requirements but need to pay attention to the article further to build a convincing argument.