Bangkok blocks you tube over thai king video
strait times/050407

Provocative video that mocks reverend King Bhumibol Adulyadej was blocked. It's not about freedom of expression, said Mr sitthichar Pookaiyaudom.
It is clearly visible that people who creates such sites are abusing their rights. These offenders are guilty because they had inflicted harm upon the king's reputation intentionally. By saying this, I would mean knowing the Thai custom and Laws, yet breaking them.
Since the web could conserve our anonimity, many have taken the advantage to post up whatevever comments which seems desirable to them, regarless of its reliability. In this case, should the government intervene by placing in censorship or even restriction to these videos or even written onformation?
This may be good in a sense that there will be more transparency over the handling of sensitive issues. However, it is bad when such windows could potentially harm the public through its fake perceptions and distorted facts.

Dual citizenship will affect security
strait times/050407

Allowing dual citizenship would lead to dire consequences for Singapore's security as young men would be able to opt out of national service.
However, this might be good news for working Singaporeans for, it will provide them with the opportunity to grow and advance. Afterall, Singapore has its limitations. Eventually, the benefits will be extended to the country itself when these learned individuals decides to make their contributions for Singapore.
I believe that a Singaporean will always remain as one. Therefore, singaporeans will never neglect their country when she is in a state of trouble. In addition, it may not necessarily harm singapore's security because having a dual citizenship means that one is committed to two countries. Therefore, if one holds a singapore citizenship, would one not be oblinged to undergo national service trainings?

Home study pays off for self-described Maverick
Straittimes/home/6april
To be or not to be in the classroom? Do students even have an option these days? For most of us, school is considered our second “home”. This is not surprising as all students spend an average of eight hours in school. In other words, school is our life.
It is no wonder that everyone believe in the effectiveness of attending school and getting an education. However, home study may or is as equally effective. At the very least, effective for Jeremy Chua, who spent his final year in junior college studying at home, yet, being able to achieve very good grades during the A levels.
However, we have to be wise enough to acknowledge the fact that the same rule need not necessarily apply to all. I agree this could be a liable option for students who are mentally prepared for exams and needs the extra time out to complete their revision. However, for students who are lagging far behind and those who need coaching in their school work, an idea like this may not be realistic. Hence, schools should not generalize its effectiveness by minimizing curriculum time for all students.

Law society give judges leeway to set aside death penalty
strait times/05 april 07

The law society wants the madatory death penalty for crimes such as, drug trafficking abd fire arms-related offences be scrapped. Instead, it wants judges to be given the discreatuib to either sentenceoffenders to death, or just a jail term.
Now, the question of fairness sets in. Lets say the murderer happens to be a wealthy fellow and is able to engage a superior and experienced lawyer. This would set as an advantage for him or her because this lawyer will be capable of convincing the judge. Hence, they could stay away from a death penalty despite them being guilty.
Justice no longer prevail here.Furthermore, it proves to us that money can buy almost everything, even justice. Such a regulation will absoultely disadvantage the poor.
If the aim of the law was to protect the powerless in the first place, i do the see the light in such a decision made.

Scientists Make Part-Human Sheep
CBN News
March 26, 2007

A bio-ethical debate is raging at a Nevada university, where scientists have created the world's first sheep with half-human organs. University of Nevada Professor Esmail Zanjani has spent seven years perfecting the technique, which involves injecting adult human cells into sheep fetuses. This caused the animals to be born 15-percent human. Scientists say this development will make it easier to use animal organs when people need transplants. But the development is likely to revive criticisms about scientists playing God.
The issue of legalizing cloning has always been very controversial. Cloning is not just a modern advancement in the medical arena but, also, a potential threat to the human society. I agree that cloning is a remedy to many terminal diseases. However, in my opinion, we seem to be defying the order of nature. I suggest that people should die naturally when their time is up. Prolonging our life is important. However, along with the rapid advancements in cloning, there is a possibility that humans may live forever. When this happens, our society will be stagnated because there is no longer any growth in the family tree and redevelopment will cease to exist because people will become too complacent with their endless opportunities in life.
Furthermore, by legalizing organ cloning, we are dangerously taking our first step towards legalizing human cloning. There are many implications with regard to human cloning. Firstly, human clones could be used in warfare in the future. Secondly, all man would be branded by their status of birth. That is, if you are a clone, your status are equivalent to that of a pariah. This would lead to disintegration in our society when discrimination is openly accepted. Sooner or later, one would be judged by their race as well.
The above are the repercussions of cloning. Though I agree that cloning are beneficial to us in some ways. However, I think it is more important to attain a microscopic view towards the effects of cloning before any law is implemented.