the main reason for creating the character Shylock was to personify the Jews, which were a very infamous religion as the rivaled the belief of the christians, as the Jews were another larger religion, thought still smaller than the christians.

throughout the book, Shylock is portrayed as rather inhumane, with little pity and emotion. he demanded a pound of flesh from Antonio, and seemed totally void of pity when begged for mercy. also, when his daughter left home, he hoped not for his dauhgter, but the small fortune that the daughter had gone off with.

with these two forms of description, Shylock seems like a riches above kin, revenge over humane kind of person, and the further emphasis on the fact that he is a Jew makes people all the more strereotypical towards the jews

also, in the court scene, he is portrayed as some one who would rather accept punishment than repent, which goes to show how much Shylock is devoted to his religion, which was then not a very highly-respected religion.

Also, he was portrayed as the type of person who was bullied by the christians. through verbal insults and acts like spitting, there was an obvious hatred Shylock had towards the Christians, which are a sort of evidence ans wering the question of Shylocks prejudice.

thus, this puts Shylock in a better, and worse light. Now, he is someone who is not just snapping at the Christians randomly, but has his own reasons for doing so. also, he is put into an even worse light than before because he now seems like a lunatic bent on revenge.

thus, i am guessing that this was probably shakespeares point of view of the Jews at that time.

he was probably trying his best to condense the general Jew under a single character, whether to ridicule or help them

i feel that Jim Rogers is an extremely far sighted man, and he is trying to say, not only the West has potential, which is definitely true. China is definitely a rising superpower in the world. with gargantuan landmass, and the willingness to work, it is no surprise that China may eventually overtake America.

thus, will it be very useful to learn English only for future? not really. Of course it will be useful to a certain extent because you can still do business in English speaking countries, you will not even be able to touch China for development, as unless through an interpreter, you will fail greatly to communicate with almost the whole population.

thus, what is the best method to maintain happy's English roots, yet be able to venture out into new areas for economic purposes? bilingualism of course. which is essentially learning more than 1 language, but 2

by learning both English and Mandarin, they will be able to do business with both the current superpower, and the rising superpower. in a way, whichever country, be it America or China that makes it to the top, someone who can be in touch with both, benefits from both.

essentially, having a wider spectrum of languages increases the number of business opportunities and the thing is, most Americans are not realising this as America has been the best for many decades,

thus, many people do not see the need for 'when you cannot beat them, join them', and they continue to have their heads in the clouds

her main complaint, it seems, is the rigidness and inflexibility of the education system. to her, asking 'why' is taboo, and students do not need to understand the cold hard facts forced into their minds, all they have to do, it seems, is to memorise them.

The way of studying is no longer understanding and doing, it is about memory-work now. people are no longer concerned about how these nuggets of knowledge will affect them in their real life, and how these will be useful, but instead, they focus on how to use these knowledge to pass tests with flying colours.

thus, this creates a person who only focuses on the short term obstacles and are not looking at the big picture. they are in a certain way of speaking, short-sighted. these are studying for the wrong reasons. they are not trained to ask questions, but t give answers.

'You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.'

said Naguib Mahfouz, thus no matter how many answers and facts someone knows, he is only clever, till he can break from this education scheme and start asking, then he will be truly wise.

Now, the question lies, is ideal education possible?

this is a question that requires one to think deeper. there are a few things to think about. subjects themselves are rigid, but in the real world, people will not ask you for the sum of numbers. the open world is flexible and different from school.

thus, you cant have the best of both worlds. to be clever, you have to rigidly learn. To be wise on the other hand, you have to flexible and eager.

So, to make people wise and clever takes very long. Education is a lifelong process. thus with this much time to make the best of people is very difficult a process. thus to make a flawless education system in the time dedicated to education, is not enough

Is there a difference between treating water as a human right and as a commodity? In your opinion, should water be treated as a human right or as a co

Firstly, what is a commodity, and what defines the term 'human rights'. Firstly, the term commodity refers to a useful or valuable thing (water is an example ). the term human rights on the other hand refers to a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person.

Thus from the definitions, it is right to say that it is different to treat water as a commodity and as a human right. If all referred to water as a human right, which all should have, then should they not be giving out gallons by now, but instead there is PUB bills, charging people for their water consumption. Yes, it may be a measure so that they do not use water senselessly, but at the end of the day, they reap the profits of it. they are thus treating it as a commodity, giving to those who can afford it, and cutting those who cannot afford it away from it.

In my opinion water should be treated as a human right for people all walks of life. Water, whether you like it or not, is not just a vital factor for economic development, but a neccesity for survival. yes, though 75% of the Earth is water, people do not have the ability to filter it. Rich people thus treat water a commodity for profit purposes.

but we do have to consider the people who treat it as a commodity and their reasons. Some have no choice but to use water as their income. In poorer counties, the only thing in demand is the water itself, but of course, they have to charge the buyers for the water out of the need for cash.

in this case, it is acceptable to charge.

As mentioned before, to control the usage of water. if water was given to everyone for free would people come to treasure it. the obvious answer is no. People would use it anyhow they wanted to and eventually, despite Earth's water abundance, it would deplete. then, it would be too late to regret it.

So in a nutshell, water has always been a commodity, and should remain that way. only with a price tag attached on the water they use, will the people be careful about how they use it. Water trade is also one of the things that is keeping the economy moving.

In your opinion, should the giving of weekly days off be legislated in Singapore?

In my opinion, maids are every much as human as all of us, it i only fair that they, like us get an off-day. I am sure that they too, want a day off whereby they can let loose and talk openly to their friends.

With reference to the recent events, be it on STOMP or on the papers, more and more maids are taking advantage of moments alone with elderly to do their own things, such as hair re bonding in one instance. Thus, by giving them their day off, they will less likely try to sneak time to do such acts.

Similarly, there are the social problems of these aspects as well. the people they mix with might be the wrong company, which could even endanger their lives. Quoting from the Straits Times, the maid who got murdered by her Bangladesh boyfriend while they met up. Clearly, wrong company is a hazard and a hindrance to allowing the maids to leave the house .

Once again they are human, they are working in Singapore and it is not right to treat them like they do not matter at all. they are like a tortoise in a well. they work in Singapore yet have never seen the sights there, it will not be fair if all they have seen from application to termination, is the walls of our homes.

Similarly, apart from chores, they are also assigned to take care of children and elderly, thus making it all the more inconvenient to leave the house at all. Yet, being a domestic worker is a job that requires a lot of commitment. Just think, one person's work quality controls the hygeine of the entire house.

Similarly, prevention is better than cure. i would rather the maid remain confined than have her life endangered or here wealth targeted in any way.

term2 lesson 2

War was everywhere, leaving nothing but destruction. Hunger plagued the land, everyone was starving. The only word to describe the people here, was scrawny. With almost no flesh on their bodies, and their frail legs barely supported their skinny bodies. The atmosphere itself was saddening.
Everyone was cynical. They seemed to hold the mindset that nothing would change for the better, and that the war that ravaged their once peaceful lands was going to be eternal.
As a journalist from Singapore, i only felt guilt as their sorrowful eyes met mine, and almost at once, i realised that i wanted to do so much more for them, and realised that war benefits nobody.
i found myself digging into my pockets, trying to find the tiniest morsel of food, to feed these innocent people. they did not deserve to suffer. They received the food gratefully.
These, were of the few burned by the war, they did not deserve it, neither should anyone else...

my comments