CHAI MING YUNG(KEW080004)

Go down

CHAI MING YUNG(KEW080004)

Post  CHAI MING YUNG(KEW080004) on Tue 19 Jan 2010, 1:38 am

Assignment 1: comment on an article

The article is copy from http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/16/nation/5487269&sec=nation
Before I start to comment on the article, I found some guidelines on how to analysis an article critically.
Here are the two website I read through before start doing this assignment.
1) http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/ct-identifying-targets.cfm
2) http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill26.htm

Since this article is taken from The Star, which is Malaysia's most widely-read English-language daily and Sunday newspapers, I believe we can trust the information such as author, date of publication and publisher, are real.
This is the information about The Star which can adopted from http://thestar.com.my/info/thestar.asp
Next, we go into content analysis part. The author is addressing the information to public audience since every one of us can easily buy or read it through online source. The information covered opinion from a person, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz.

The information appeared is not well- researched, especially when he use his own experience when giving opinion (“I have been to a church in Sabah and I know that the Kadazans and Ibans refer to God as Allah. The Muslims there are used to it. That is their custom, let it be. ). Although he makes assumption based on the culture of West Malaysia and East Malaysia that they have different view on the issue, and it is reasonable but I believe we should have more studies about them and statistics should be prepared before giving out an opinion. Is it really true, like the minister said that the Muslim from East Malaysia used to it or the Muslim from West Malaysia can not accept? I believe we cannot ignore the presence of the small amount of particular ethnics, whether they are in which part of Malaysia.

Furthermore, the language used in the article is free of emotion-arousing words. The minister is trying to express his opinion in a more open minded way where people can have peaceful discussion and try to solve the misunderstanding in a proper way. The publication organized logically, the main points are clearly presented as it matches the title of the article and the text is easy to read. In this way, reader will not confuse about what they are reading, however the reader still need to think critically as it is only based on one person opinion.

The arguments of the minister is not well constructed, example: Although he agreed that the word “Allah” had been long used in Christianity way before Islam existed, Nazri said: “That’s why I say it is all right in Sabah and Sarawak but culturally, you cannot apply it in a place where Allah has always been Islam’s God.” From the statement above, we can see that there are arguments in the sentence, examples: A reader will come across something like “Sabah and Sarawak still have a number of Muslim and Peninsular Malaysia also has a number of Christian followers, right? We cannot ignore the existence of them. ”
The way of how the minister expresses his opinion “you cannot apply it in a place where Allah has always been Islam’s God.” can be improved as this sentence has a command tone. This will make the sentence become less questionable as it not allowed further discussion on the topic.

“He also noted that states with the Sultan as the head of state and religion already had enactments barring or banning the use of words such as “Allah”, “Kaabah”, “baitulal”, and “solat” by other religions.
In Penang, Malacca, Federal Territories, Sabah and Sarawak, the word “Allah” could be used, legally speaking, but then the Government could still impose a ban under the Printing Presses and Publications Act, he said.”
From the above statement, if we think critically, is it right for us to ban the use of the words? Or we could speak the particular word but cannot publish it, as the minister has said? Before we take any action, we need to consider the consequences.

A critical thinker will routinely ask himself or herself questions such as these about the subject of the thinking task at hand:
o What is the purpose of my thinking?
o What precise question am I trying to answer?
o Within what point of view am I thinking?
o What information am I using?
o How am I interpreting that information?
o What concepts or ideas are central to my thinking?
o What conclusions am I coming to?
o What am I taking for granted, what assumptions am I making?
o If I accept the conclusions, what are the implications?
o What would the consequences be, if I put my thought into action?

Based on the above question, I try to answer and relate them with my assignment. First, the purpose of my thinking is to think how to solve this issue in a proper and peaceful way.

Questions like ”Is it only language problem? Is it really confusing people if it is continuing used? Is it going to have more and more similar cases where another particular group of people restrict the use of other terms? What will happen if this problem become a global nations’ problem when each of them trying to do the same thing? ”

My point of view is we should study this issue deeply, especially the countries outside there. The most important thing is we need to solve it using a civilized and peaceful way, can have a more open minded discussion among different religion. Physical attacks should be banned as our country has law where all the people need to obey. A judgement cannot be influenced or biased using violence way.

I am using article from The Star. My concept or idea is we should study the issue deeply, solve it using legal ways, and if possible, we need to investigate who is the person that raises the issue and the motive of the particular people. So far there are no conclusion is being made as the investigation is still in the process. However, in my opinion, this is the technical problem related to the language used. As what I said before, is it only a simple language problem? We should try to find out.
Before I end my assignment, let see example made below which based on my assumption where I assume it is only technical language problem.

If one day, all the words such as “god” in different language is restricted to particular parties all over the world, if, someone ask “Who is Allah?”Can we manage to answer using English where at that time the term, “god” may also be used by another parties only. If we imagine, not only malay language,but the term in all other languages is having the same case..

Assignment 2:comment on a speech via youtube


The Reagan Legacy: The End of Cold War

The video is copy from the link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Aary9Utcgo

“I want a peace through strength, not a peace through a piece of paper.” This was said by the 40th President of the United States (1981-1989) when he decided that they are not just stand by anymore. He describes the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" during a speech, supported anti-Communist movements worldwide and spent his first term forgoing the strategy of detente by ordering a massive military build up in an arms race with the USSR.

After exchanging several letter, Reagan negotiated with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, culminating in the INF Treaty and the decrease of both countries' nuclear arsenals.

President Reagan hopes a world without nuclear can exist but later on it is fail during a meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland when USSR wan United States to give up its SDI (Reagan’s Space-based missile defence system).

About 14 month later, the incident came to a turning point where the INF Treaty has signed and Cold War was ended without a major war. Below is the complete speech delivered from the above video, by President Reagan.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1985/111485d.htm

From this incident we can see that President Reagan is a critical thinker. The decision made during that time is either they end the war using violence way or end it peacefully. As a critical thinker, he needs to take into the consequences of all the action he going to take. A wrong decision or a misunderstanding during a speech or a meeting will give a completely different result.

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” This indicates that President Reagan has thinks critically and definitely understands that a nuclear war will only bring disaster to human kind, no matter who have won the war.

“People of both our nations love sports. If we must compete, let it be on the playing fields and not the battlefields. In science and technology, we could launch new joint space ventures and establish joint medical research projects. In communications, we'd like to see more appearances in the other's mass media by representatives of both our countries. If Soviet spokesmen are free to appear on American television, to be published and read in the American press, shouldn't the Soviet people have the same right to see, hear, and read what we Americans have to say? Such proposals will not bridge our differences, but people-to-people contacts can build genuine constituencies for peace in both countries. After all, people don't start wars, governments do.”

I strongly agree with “people don’t start wars, governments do” where a decision made by a government will affect his citizen, even put their lives in danger. A government decision made should include the opinion of the people in the country itself.

“While it would be naive to think a single summit can establish a permanent peace, this conference can begin a dialog for peace. So, we look to the future with optimism, and we go to Geneva with confidence. “

As a critical thinker, the president plans his action carefully, and tries to bring it to a positive way, step by step. This is important when we deal with an issue that we cannot solve it in a short time as this may lead to unwanted result.

As a conclusion, I strongly believe that we can solve an issue in a peaceful way, and war will only bring up more and more anger and result in more wars in the future.
avatar
CHAI MING YUNG(KEW080004)

Posts : 11
Join date : 2010-01-11
Age : 30
Location : Miri

View user profile http://alvinchai1101.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: CHAI MING YUNG(KEW080004)

Post  Cheah Meng Kit KEW080006 on Tue 19 Jan 2010, 10:09 am

I am using article from The Star. My concept or idea is we should study the issue deeply, solve it using legal ways, and if possible, we need to investigate who is the person that raises the issue and the motive of the particular people.


I think this is the good way to solve this issue.
avatar
Cheah Meng Kit KEW080006

Posts : 95
Join date : 2010-01-11
Age : 30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CHAI MING YUNG(KEW080004)

Post  Leong Jia Wei KEW080013 on Thu 21 Jan 2010, 4:05 pm

http://news.malaysia.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3799402
I don't suppose this is the solution right? Mad

people don't start wars, governments do.
Agreed.
avatar
Leong Jia Wei KEW080013

Posts : 94
Join date : 2010-01-11
Age : 30
Location : Ipoh, Perak.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CHAI MING YUNG(KEW080004)

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum