Is the poblem of declining birth rate, which is happening in many countries worldwide, an inevitable problem?

Articles- THE STRAITS TIMES, WORLD (April 28 2007)
- BABY BLUES
- BABY BOOM

First of all, I do not agree that the problem of declining birth rate, which is a common scenario in many countries, is an inevitable problem. However, there are some causes to this problem that is more or less not within control of the government. One is the increase in highly educated women. This is a cause as according to a study, “40 per cent of highly educated women are still childless by the time they are 35.” This is out of the control of governments as a continual supply of educated people is required for maintenance of a booming economy in many countries. Another cause of a drop in birth rate in many countries worldwide is the high standard of living in many developed countries. The high standard of living gives people a feeling of economic instability and hence, inability to raise children when they cannot even provide for their own needs.

However, there are ways in which governments can cope with the problem of declining birth rate and several countries have achieved it. Two of the countries are France and Australia. One way is to change the thinking of educated women so that they are willing to consider motherhood. Another is the monetary benefit, which both France and Australia uses. France provide parents of newborns with up to six months off from work with nearly full pay and a guarantee of reclaiming their old jobs while Australia gives a baby bonus of A$4000 to mothers for each child born in Australia. Other incentives such as reduction in tax and discounts on necessities (e.g. public transportation, food, clothing etc) also appeal to mothers.

While there are certain causes to the problem of declining birth rate that are not within control of governments, governments can work on other areas to improve on the birth rate for their country. Hence, the problem of declining birthrate is not an inevitable problem for countries worldwide.

Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?

I do not think that the use of torture is justified, even if it is used in dealing with criminals or terrorists. As stated in the article, the use of torture as a method to obtain more information is not only morally prohibited but also against the international laws. Hence, how could some police force or peacekeeping force use torture on criminals.

An example was also stated in the article, where a prominent character in a terrorist organisation, Abu Zubaydah, was captured, brutality was used on him but the result was insignificant. In addition, torture removed the platform for the opportunity to develop a captor-captive relationship and hence, a loss in opportunity to uncover more secrets about the respective terrorist organisation.

In another example stated in the article, "the interrogators presented a tough but very human face, the detainees were confused. Small amenities... were the kinds of things that eventually turned them. " This once again proved that torture is not the only way to obtain information but is in fact less effective than many other ways.

The article also showed some comments that implies that torture should be justified. "There was a fear of a second-wave attack" and "harsh interrogation methods were not illegal, were often productive and were something he had reserved the right to order again" both showed that use of torture on criminals and terrorists is justified. However, it has been proven by several examples in the article that use of torture is not really as effective as what it seems and in fact, there are better methods to obtain information from criminals and terrorists.

One phrase in the article states that "to pull out a fingernail of a terrorist in order to save a couple of million lives" was morally right". I do not agree with this statement at all. First of all, it has been shown that use of torture on terrorists is ineffective to a certain extent. Secondly, even if we get to know of the terrorists next operation from the mouth of the detained terrorist, it is not definite that the operation could be effectively prevented and the information from the terrorist have might been a trick. However, at the instance torture is used on the terrorist, immeasurable pain is felt by the terrorist and such inhumane punishment should not be a method for obtaining information from the terrorists.

New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability?

I believe that the new media is more of a threat to stability than power to the people.

The new media has provided a new platform for terrorist organisations to terrorise the public with their effective usage of the the various means of media sources to intimidate and affect the will of the public. As stated from the article, the terrorists tend to use attacks to create headline-grabbing news and through this method, it impacted the will of the public, hence threatening the stability of society.

Another issue stated in the article is that many media sources around the world do not at all times provide the accurate and exact facts on an event, but rather distort and change the facts. An example is the desecration of a Koran, which could have incited deadly anti-American riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

While the earlier example showed how terrorists could utilise the global reach and immediacy of the media to intimidate the public and affecting the collective will of free people, the second example showed a direct effect of media on the violence it can cause. Both of these examples have illustrated the danger and the immense threat that the media can have on the stability of our society.


Although the media have caused a threat to the stability of the society we live in, it also brought power to the people.

One such example is blog. With the rapid increase in usage of blogs worldwide, media have brought power to the people. It changed the way people view news stories and also provided a platform for people to discuss and debate about the various events that are boradcasted or published by the media and press respectively. Blogs has also allowed bloggers(people who blog) to reach out to people worldwide and form their own opinions on the various events. Blogs have created such a large impact on the society that now, even the mainstream media has been put in the unusual position of reacting to news that bloggers generate. Not only that, many mainstream news organisations have also launched their own blogs. All these examples showed how blog, as a means of media, has brought power to the people.

However, these blogs could also be a threat to the stability in the society. Several terrorist organisations could set up blogs whenever they want and publish videos showing an impending terrorist attack and this could cause the public to panic. Hence, the new media is more of a threat to stability than being a power to the people.

Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth?

Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth? Discuss this in the light of the arguments raised in this article and substantiate your arguments with your own examples.

From the article, it seems as though that media should never be trusted to convey the truth. However, I think this is only true to a certain extent.

In the article, it is stated that the media publish articles according to the 3 'P's, Popularity, Prejudice and Profit, with Profit being the most important. It also provided several examples such as the exaggeration of facts by corporate-controlled news media on the Iraqi war to boost profits. Another instance is that interviews carried out by reporters are usually edited before publishing, unless the interviews are aired live. All these showed that medias are willing to publish articles as long as it is advantageous to them, such as giving them higher profit or higher popularity. Also from the article, it also showed the presence of bribery in the cases of Armstrong Williams being paid $240,000 and Maggie Gallagher being paid $21,500 for publishing articles that aided in the actions of the briber. All of the above illustrate the inability to rely on the media to convey the truth. Not only these, the article even showed the lack of truthfulness in the media by stating that “ in today’s America, people who want real news or honest criticism are better served by not watching “news” programs at all.”

However, I think that the media can be relied on to convey the truth to a certain extent.

One instance would be that if a media source keeps on portraying unreliable information about news, people can compare the news with other sources of information. When it is eventually shown that the media source has a poor reputation of providing false information to the public, this will in fact reduce the number of subscribers to that source of news, hence reducing profit. Thus, news provider is unlikely to provide untruthful news. Ultimately, what media sources are demanding for is higher profit.