Intention of Creating Shylock

Intention of creating Shylock

I feel that Shakespeare created Shylock with the intention of attracting the Elizabethan's attention while at the same time, to evoke sympathy for the Jews.

In the past, anti-semitism was rife. The Jews were considered as the inferior race by the Christians and were widely discriminated and insulted. In the book, the Jew, Shylock, was portrayed as a villain, like what the Elizabethans viewed them to be in those days.

In Act 4 Scene 1, when Portia tried to convince him to show mercy towards Antonio, he refused to do so. He replies blatantly by saying:

My deeds upon my head. I crave the law,
The penalty, and forfeit of my bond.

To the Elizabethans watching the film, this would capture their attention as it was exactly what they thought the Jews were like. Therefore, by creating Shylock, Shakespeare was injecting a sense of realism into the play so that it was applicable to that era. And only by doing so, the Elizabethans would then be attracted to the film.

At the same time, he also tried to evoke a sense of pity for the Jews. In Act 1 Scene 3, he ranted about how he was discriminated against by the Christians, but more specifically, Antonio. He said:

Signor Antonio, many a time and oft
In the Rialto you have rated me
About my moneys and my usances.
Still have I borne it with a patient shrug,
For sufferance is the badge of all our tribe.
You can call me misbeliever, cutthroat dog,
And spet upon my Jewish gaberdine ----
And all for use of that which is mine own.
Well then, it now appears you need my help.
Go to then! You come to me and you say,
“Shylock, we would have moneys.” You say so! ---
You, that did void your rheum upon my beard
And foot me as you spurn a stranger cur
Over your threshold! Moneys is your suit.
What should I say to you? Should I not say,
“Hath a dog money? Is it possible
A cur lend three thousand ducats?” Or
Shall I bend low and in a bondman’s key
With bated breath and whispering humbleness
Say this:
“Fair sir, you spet on me on Wednesday last;
You spurned me such a day; another time
You called me a ‘dog’ --- and for these courtesies
I’ll lend you thus much moneys?’

In this particular speech by Shylock, it was apparent that he was subjected to alot of discrimination. His daughter also ran away from him, and took away his valuables. In this story, there were many moments where the readers really sympathised with Shylock.

Therefore, I think that Shakespeare created Shylock to draw the Elizabethan’s attention and evoke sympathy for the Jews.

Can Justice and Mercy Coexist?

Can justice coexist with mercy?

Justice: the quality of being fair and just. Mercy: leniency and compassion shown towards the offender. In definition, these two are completely different. Therefore, many people think that justice cannot coexist with mercy. I do agree with them.

I would like to tackle the question by asking what is the purpose of the law? The law is to make sure that the people who commit crimes get their punishment so as to maintain peace and security in the country. Justice is the result of law where the offenders get their just punishment according to the severity of the crimes. Before a sentence is passed, the judge would have considered the mental state, the need for self–defence and the circumstances leading to the crime. This is part of being just.

Showing mercy is different, it is giving the person a second chance in life after he has committed a crime. It may be because he realized what he has done is wrong. If there was mercy in giving the punishment, then the law would lose its purpose. For example, if we give a lighter sentence to one culprit, then we have to do the same for all the rest. If this continues, no one will get a tough sentence because everyone will just apologise and say they regretted what they have done. There is no way to give a tougher sentence because people will argue that it is not fair that others get a lighter sentence and he gets a tougher one.

I would like to quote the case of Vui Kong to support the argument that mercy cannot coexist with mercy. Vui Kong was caught for drug trafficking in 2008 when he was 19 year old. He was sentenced to death. While Vui Kong was serving his jail sentence, he repented.

He used to be a wayward teen who cared for no one but himself. But testimonies from those who were closest to him, including prison guards and family members, indicated that Vui Kong has matured and realized his mistakes. He started to learn English and Chinese during his term in the prison. He also learnt to meditate and even became a Buddhist.

Vui Kong has said that if he was given a second chance, he would dedicate the rest of his life to helping young people like him to stay away from crime.

After reading about his story, Mr Andre Loh, a Singaporean, wrote a letter of plea to President SR Nathan to ask for mercy. Many Singaporeans also signed online petition not to hang him.

I have extracted the following paragraph from Mr Loh’s letter to Mr Nathan, “I am certain that Vui Kong, if given to mentorship under someone such as Mr Lim – who by the way has said he is willing to take Vui Kong under his wings – will be an invaluable asset to the Government’s strategy to curb the inflow of drugs into Singapore.”

In this case, the government stood firm. I agree with the outcome because we should always think before we act. Vui Kong knew what was the punishment for drug trafficking and if he still did it for the greed of money, he had to pay a price for it.

If we start to be lenient, people will act rashly. What is there to deter someone from doing wrong ? What will become of the society ?

Is Shakespeare biased in his portrayal of the main characters of MOV?

I do not think that Shakespeare is biased in the portrayal of the main characters. One example is Antonio. He portrayed Antonio as a good-natured, honest, and helpful person. However, he turned out to be racist and conducted many anti-Jewish acts on Shylock. Another example was Jessica, Shylock’s daughter. Although she was a Jew, she was surprisingly unbiased and nice.

Finally, while Shakespeare described Shylock as an evil Jew, he also wrote that he was constantly being discriminated by the Christians. This shows that Shakespeare is not biased in the portrayal of the main characters.

Raising a Global Child

Jim Rogers argues that bilingualism is crucial in today’s context where the world is interconnected. And to prepare a child for the 21st century, bilingualism is imperative. He reckons that Asia has the potential to be the world superpower, and because America, the current superpower, is in heavy debt, Asia stands a very high chance to take over that important role. He believes that to truly prepare his children for the future, he should expose them to the Chinese language and culture so that they can thrive in time to come.

I concur with his views on this issue.

In fact, there is evidence that in just ten years from now, well over half the world’s population of almost 8 billion people will live in Asia and by linear projections, China will be the largest Asian economy and second largest in the world after the United States by 2020.

China has a huge domestic market and to do business in China, MNCs need people who can speak Chinese and know how to do business in a Chinese cultural context. Knowing the language and the Chinese culture will give us an edge when competing for an important position. Knowing the Chinese culture will reduce cultural shock and help us understand the Chinese counterparts better.

English remains important because it is a business language among the non-English-speaking countries. MNCs use English and most internet websites are in English.

I would like to quote Mr Lee Kuan Yew to show why we must learn both languages. He said at the Speak Mandarin Campaign in 2009 that if Mandarin were our first language, Singaporeans would be of little use to China. They do not need more Mandarin speakers to add to their 1.3 billion. English gives us easy access to English-speaking societies and the developed world. Thus, Singaporeans bring value-add to China.

Mr Lee also pointed out that China wants to collaborate with us because through English, we are able to connect with the West. At the same time, our Mandarin is fluent enough to communicate with PRC Chinese on different topics and subjects.

In conclusion, I agree with Jim Roger’s view that bilingualism is the basics to raising a global child.

The Education System

Education is an essential part of any child’s growth. It also prepares the child for the outside world. But how has the education system fared? Janelle Lee wrote a Facebook note voicing her views about the current education system and has pointed out a few areas she is unhappy about. I concur with her.

I agree with her view that the education system in Singapore is very examination-based. Students are just expected to memorize and regurgitate the facts during examination. Sad to say but she is totally right to say that students do not need to know things that are not tested in the examination. To put it in simple words, we are not expected to critique the things that we learn.

Some may argue that things have improved with the introduction of integrated programme. IP schools like Hwa Chong Institution are already changing their syllabus to incorporate a lot more things outside the school curriculum. But the emphasis is still on examination and a large part of our grade is based on the examination results.

Furthermore, there are only 11 IP schools as compared to around 124 O-Level Schools. As you can see, about 92% of the cohort still has to take the O-Level examinations. For the non-IP school, nothing has changed. There is still a lot of drilling to prepare the students for the major examination.

Well, all that we do seem to go against the true spirit of education which should encourage the students to be curious and to keep asking “Why?”. I think our current education system tend to stifle our curiosity because we really do not have much time to think out of the box and to be creative. Every day, we are just rushing to finish our homework and to catch up with the syllabus.

To me, the ideal education system is one that allows the students to ask unconventional questions, to explore things that they are curious to know rather than the textbook stuff. But is this possible at all? To be realistic, I am afraid not. We are living in this time where competition is stiff and only the fittest survive so it is hard to imagine that things will change and the pace will slow down to give the students more time to truly appreciate what we are learning.

In the world today, students enter good schools based on merits. A good school is a ticket to good education and good job with good pay eventually. Students cannot afford to do badly in major examinations. The stake is high and if the education system digresses to something else, the students may not perform just as well because they are spending less time on the things that are tested. This is not what we want either.

Lastly, the education system that Janelle wanted is good and will make sure the students learn more but we have to accept that this cannot happen in real life. If we want to stay in the competition, we have to follow the rule of the game and whether we like it or not, the fact is only the fittest survive.

Should water be treated as a commodity or human right?

Water is a basic necessity. The fact is humans need water to survive. Recently, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not mention water explicitly. This sparked off a debate on whether water should be treated as a human right or as a commodity

There is a vast difference if water is treated as a human right as opposed to being just a commodity. If water is a human right, people from around the world need not worry about the cost of water as they are entitled to it. However, if it is a commodity, the people in third world countries would not get clean water and some may even die.

In my opinion, water should be treated as a human right.

I am a strong advocate of human rights. I am appalled by the fact that there are many people out there without clean water to drink while those who can help are doing nothing about it. I feel that everyone should be entitled to this basic survival need and no one should be deprived just because they are poor and cannot afford to pay for it.

I am blessed to be in Singapore. I just feel some of us may not realize people in the third world country do not necessarily get what we have here. We get clean water from the tap and we know it is safe to drink. Every Singaporean can afford it because water is heavily subsidized by the government. However, the situation is quite different in the third world countries which do not have the technology know-how to treat dirty water to get clean water and at the same time, cannot afford to buy treated water because they are poor. To many, clean water is a luxury far beyond their reach.

A total of 1.3 million children under the age of six die each year from drinking infected water based on statistics released in 2004. It irks me to know that while we shower in clean water and drink bottled mineral water because some of us did not like the taste of the tap water, many people out there are drinking from the well and some even have no choice but to drink water they know is contaminated.

I strongly feel that the only way to solve this disparity issue is to make water a human right for everyone, the poor and the rich in the first world and third world countries.

Deep down, I do know that this is a far-fetched ideology which may sound good in theory and argument, but it will never be practiced in real life. There are too many unanswered questions to make it happen. The most basic question is who would pay to clean the water for the third world countries?

In conclusion, while I think water should be treated as human right, I accept the fact that it will not happen. I only hope that those who can afford will volunteer their help on humanitarian grounds when the need arises.

Should weekly day off for maids be legislated?

I strongly believe that maids are no different from anyone of us. Just like you and I, they need a day to relax and to explore the world outside for a change.

Although I am a strong advocate of human rights, I do not think that weekly days off should be legislated for all maid across the board.

The fact of the matter is if something happens to the maid, the employer is held responsible. For example, if the maid becomes pregnant, the employer would lose the security bond of $5,000. If the maid meets with an accident and is hospitalized, the employer has to pay for her medical expenses. And worse, if a maid absconds and cannot be found, the employer would lose half of their security deposit. Thus, if we allow maids to have day off, we must be sure they can be trusted to act responsibly. The maid must win the trust of her employer and this will take time.

We should try to balance the needs of the employer and the maid in this issue. The maids want day off to make friends. As it is, they are always hanging out with other maids at noon time and in the evening when they bring the kids down to the play ground, I do not think they are deprived of social needs.

The weekly day off is meant for they to rest and relax but we have heard of maids doing part-time work on their day off or employers who complained that their maids always come back from the outings more tired and listless. Also, what the employer dread the most is for the maid to make boyfriends on her off day and then create a string of other problems. But such problems have happened.

My stand is if the maid is new, it would be better for the maid to stay home. The compulsory day off once a week can be enforced for maids whose contracts are renewed. If the maid is good enough for the employer to extend her contract, it is time for her employer to grant her the day off that she deserves.

Having said that, some families with small children, elderly or disabled people have real needs for the maids to be around most of the time, for such cases, the law should allow the employers to buy the day off.