After reading both articles on the different views on one’s freedom of speech, I have gained a deeper understanding on the authors’ perspective. In it, they had clearly explained to us about why they took that stand.
However, I feel that Singapore should adopt Zsofia Szilagyi’s view where there is more emphasis on responsibility instead of solely freedom. This is because in our small red dot, internal conflict is one of our great vulnerability if care is not taken. Here in Singapore live many people of different race, language and religion. One cannot afford to take an extremely firm stand on freedom and start doing things that they want. These things could be anything that range from things beneficial to them to things that are harmful to others. All these while, Singaporeans have been living in harmony because the people are responsible enough to spare a thought for others and accepting other race, language and religion. If total freedom takes over, those harmful actions done could be disastrous. Hurtful things said to others could lead to the rising of tension between races. The end result could be anything that you can imagine. An example of freedom of speech being abuse is the Utusan Melayu, a Malayan newspaper. At that point in time, it published an article that said bad things about the Singaporean Chinese and how the Singaporean Malays are not well taken care of when in fact it was not. This sparked off racial tension and before long the famous Singapore racial riot occurred. It affected many people’s daily lives. Furthermore, Singapore is a very small country. A riot of such scale really affects the whole nation. Unlike other big countries, such a riot might only occupy a small part of the country and thus will not be as badly affected as Singapore. From here we can see that Singapore is indeed very vulnerable to internal conflict which could be possibly caused by irresponsible freedom of speech. This is why I feel that for a multi-racial society like Singapore, the importance of being tactful and responsible certainly overwhelms the importance of freedom of speech.
No doubt I disagree to adopting freedom of expression as Singapore’s policy, it is sometimes essential for various aspects in Singapore’s society. In Mr. Peter Singer’s article, he said that this is important for democracy. With this, it helps in the sense that through freedom of expression, thoughts are conveyed across and helps to make a clear situation. Besides this, when views are expressed truthfully and openly, is allows this exchange in opinion to help improve a current situation. Views expressed for a positive purpose are beneficial so long as it is done in a tactful way. In this sense, the freedom of expression is quintessential for development and improvement.
Freedom of expression, if it is abuse, could end up drastic. Hence, it always has to be accompanied by responsibility. This power in freedom of expression allows us to do what we want. But what we had done, if not backed up by responsibility, is totally incoherent. Do you mean that if one day you are extremely frustrated with your chemistry teacher and went to set fire to the chemistry laboratory and then when questioned, deny that it was you who did it since it is “not your responsibility”? With greater power comes heavier responsibility. We have to be prepared to pay for the cost of our actions. So this is why we have to be tactful when expressing freely especially when dealing with sensitive issues so as not to cause problems. But if really want to comment a negative remark, be certain that it is brought through carefully like a discussion. It is your responsibility to ensure that it is conveyed through as a form of your thinking and not a challenge. Afterall, responsibility is a core value in life which is why I feel that Singapore should adopt Zsofia Szilagyi’s concept of responsibility over total liberty.
Monday, July 16, 2007
“The death penalty is murder and should be abolished. Do you agree?”
When one commits a crime, he or she will bound to be sentenced to a certain degree of punishment be it light ones like fine or heavy ones like jail imprisonment or worse death sentence. Talking about the death penalty or also called capital punishment, it brings back about the long old debate on whether the death penalty should be use as a punishment to criminals. “The death penalty is murder and should be abolished. Do you agree?” I disagree and feel that death penalty is not murder and it should not be abolished.
The death penalty is not murder because it is placed there for a reason, a good reason. It is a form of “education” but in the most forceful way. Sometimes an impact must be made in order to convey the message across. In this case it is the message of not to execute wrong-doings for example drug trafficking, murder and many more. The result of it is the life of another, so do not do it. If you do, you are attempting to rid the life of somebody else. And so how about helping you end your life since you could not even spare a thought for others whose life are taken away forcefully because of your wrong-doings. This message is a very important one; everybody has to know and needs to take it seriously. This is a life we are talking about now. If one cannot treasure the life of others, he or she has no right to have one. There is no point as he or she does not know the ultimate value of it. Furthermore, if he or she is left to live on, more innocent lives are at stake. Since the person had shown the ability to do it, he or she will do it again if the need arises. So the death penalty serves as a form of omitting criminals and thus protecting the welfare of citizens. In this form, it is the sacrificing of one that saves many. It is thus essential. With this getting rid of criminals, the society is left with responsible and civic-minded people where everyone can live harmoniously.
It is in place as a form of deterrent. When people know that the consequence is that serious, they will think twice before acting it out. It instills fear in them. It prevents crime rate to a certain extent and act as a really useful tool to keep potential criminals at bay. Hence it protects the welfare of citizens indirectly. This is important as it is this unbearable consequence that helps maintain law and order. With these reasons, it showed that the death penalty should not be abolish since it is useful in the societal level.
I feel that the death penalty is just a form of killing as a means of protection. We cannot use “murder” because it is too strong a word to describe the killing involve. It is just the mere ending of one’s life, not the notion of wanting someone to die and leave in an ugly manner. This is why I feel that it is not murder and should not be abolished. If it is lifted, criminals may take advantage of it to do more of those dreadful acts and yet remain alive, posing a threat to the society. This is definitely undesirable. The death penalty itself is a heavy penalty, hence the execution of it must be thought through very clearly. I feel that humans are humans and they do make mistakes. I will try to give first-time criminals an opportunity to turn over a new leaf since this could be just a mistake that they made then. However, they are supposed to go through all sorts of rehabilitation to correct themselves so as to prevent and avoid possible mistakes that they could make again in the future. And if they repeat, I think it is time that their crimes should be brought to justice.
Death penalty is not murder and should not be abolished.
The death penalty is not murder because it is placed there for a reason, a good reason. It is a form of “education” but in the most forceful way. Sometimes an impact must be made in order to convey the message across. In this case it is the message of not to execute wrong-doings for example drug trafficking, murder and many more. The result of it is the life of another, so do not do it. If you do, you are attempting to rid the life of somebody else. And so how about helping you end your life since you could not even spare a thought for others whose life are taken away forcefully because of your wrong-doings. This message is a very important one; everybody has to know and needs to take it seriously. This is a life we are talking about now. If one cannot treasure the life of others, he or she has no right to have one. There is no point as he or she does not know the ultimate value of it. Furthermore, if he or she is left to live on, more innocent lives are at stake. Since the person had shown the ability to do it, he or she will do it again if the need arises. So the death penalty serves as a form of omitting criminals and thus protecting the welfare of citizens. In this form, it is the sacrificing of one that saves many. It is thus essential. With this getting rid of criminals, the society is left with responsible and civic-minded people where everyone can live harmoniously.
It is in place as a form of deterrent. When people know that the consequence is that serious, they will think twice before acting it out. It instills fear in them. It prevents crime rate to a certain extent and act as a really useful tool to keep potential criminals at bay. Hence it protects the welfare of citizens indirectly. This is important as it is this unbearable consequence that helps maintain law and order. With these reasons, it showed that the death penalty should not be abolish since it is useful in the societal level.
I feel that the death penalty is just a form of killing as a means of protection. We cannot use “murder” because it is too strong a word to describe the killing involve. It is just the mere ending of one’s life, not the notion of wanting someone to die and leave in an ugly manner. This is why I feel that it is not murder and should not be abolished. If it is lifted, criminals may take advantage of it to do more of those dreadful acts and yet remain alive, posing a threat to the society. This is definitely undesirable. The death penalty itself is a heavy penalty, hence the execution of it must be thought through very clearly. I feel that humans are humans and they do make mistakes. I will try to give first-time criminals an opportunity to turn over a new leaf since this could be just a mistake that they made then. However, they are supposed to go through all sorts of rehabilitation to correct themselves so as to prevent and avoid possible mistakes that they could make again in the future. And if they repeat, I think it is time that their crimes should be brought to justice.
Death penalty is not murder and should not be abolished.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Title: Merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is un/necessary
Censorship. What is censorship? According to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, censorship is the action or policy of removing parts which are considered offensive, politically unacceptable or a threat to the security from mediums like books etc. In the mass media, there are lots of things being censored. It may be for a good cause but there are, too, some disadvantages.
A good point about censorship is that it restricts the showing of disturbing and offensive things. In films, revealing or gory scenes may be cut off or the covering up of images if they are too explicit. Vulgarities could be overwritten too. This prevents children from getting bad influence and not be traumatize when things which are too disgusting are shown to them right in their face. Things like nudity and gory images should be made known to them gradually. Here, censorship plays a major role by not letting them see and know it so directly. It should only be made known to them when they are mature enough to accept the fact. It is at when they know how to differentiate what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad. It is thus necessary as a form of precaution and protection to the little innocent ones, removing things which could pose a threat to their security and peace of mind and not let them be disturbed due to the media’s cause.
Another plus point about censorship is that it covers up negative remarks on people, things or events. It is not really right for the media to show these negative remarks as it might cause political or social instability even though there is such a thing called “Freedom of Expression”. People sometimes use this irresponsibly, that’s why the media has to step in. By not showing these negative remarks, it is beneficial as it does not rouse the public’s emotion to be negative about it, thus, preventing undesired effects foe example, strike. Media actually uses the power of censorship to control the people. They keep the bad and show the good, hence protecting the welfare of the people. If negative remarks on different race, religion, politics and many other sensitive issues were shown, conflicts may arise within the society. Members of the public may develop bias opinions due to media’s influence and the well-being of the people will be at stake. Hence censorship actually indirectly ensures the society’s security by showing only the desirable, covering the undesirable. But this act actually is also the demerits of it.
For the media, by wanting to show the good, they might in the end hide the truth through their censorship. A very good example is the Iraq war. Are the US-British troops really there to hunt down the nuclear weapons as well as to liberate the Iraqis like what the media had said or are they there just for the oil? In this case the media is indeed irresponsible. They were telling us that the troops were going for a heroic battle when partially it is because of the oil supply in Iraq. If censorship goes to the extent of telling us the good instead of the truth, then there really is no need for censorship. It is the latest news update that we want from the media. If the truth is being covered up, then it defeats the purpose of a media. The censorship will thus be unnecessary as it only brings down the popularity of the whole media itself. Producers will thus make a lost. However this does not apply to all but only to a specific few profit-motivated producers in the media.
To conclude, I feel that a responsible media is one that uses the power of censorship appropriately. That is the covering of the bad, showing of the good but not to the extent of hiding the truth.
Censorship. What is censorship? According to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, censorship is the action or policy of removing parts which are considered offensive, politically unacceptable or a threat to the security from mediums like books etc. In the mass media, there are lots of things being censored. It may be for a good cause but there are, too, some disadvantages.
A good point about censorship is that it restricts the showing of disturbing and offensive things. In films, revealing or gory scenes may be cut off or the covering up of images if they are too explicit. Vulgarities could be overwritten too. This prevents children from getting bad influence and not be traumatize when things which are too disgusting are shown to them right in their face. Things like nudity and gory images should be made known to them gradually. Here, censorship plays a major role by not letting them see and know it so directly. It should only be made known to them when they are mature enough to accept the fact. It is at when they know how to differentiate what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad. It is thus necessary as a form of precaution and protection to the little innocent ones, removing things which could pose a threat to their security and peace of mind and not let them be disturbed due to the media’s cause.
Another plus point about censorship is that it covers up negative remarks on people, things or events. It is not really right for the media to show these negative remarks as it might cause political or social instability even though there is such a thing called “Freedom of Expression”. People sometimes use this irresponsibly, that’s why the media has to step in. By not showing these negative remarks, it is beneficial as it does not rouse the public’s emotion to be negative about it, thus, preventing undesired effects foe example, strike. Media actually uses the power of censorship to control the people. They keep the bad and show the good, hence protecting the welfare of the people. If negative remarks on different race, religion, politics and many other sensitive issues were shown, conflicts may arise within the society. Members of the public may develop bias opinions due to media’s influence and the well-being of the people will be at stake. Hence censorship actually indirectly ensures the society’s security by showing only the desirable, covering the undesirable. But this act actually is also the demerits of it.
For the media, by wanting to show the good, they might in the end hide the truth through their censorship. A very good example is the Iraq war. Are the US-British troops really there to hunt down the nuclear weapons as well as to liberate the Iraqis like what the media had said or are they there just for the oil? In this case the media is indeed irresponsible. They were telling us that the troops were going for a heroic battle when partially it is because of the oil supply in Iraq. If censorship goes to the extent of telling us the good instead of the truth, then there really is no need for censorship. It is the latest news update that we want from the media. If the truth is being covered up, then it defeats the purpose of a media. The censorship will thus be unnecessary as it only brings down the popularity of the whole media itself. Producers will thus make a lost. However this does not apply to all but only to a specific few profit-motivated producers in the media.
To conclude, I feel that a responsible media is one that uses the power of censorship appropriately. That is the covering of the bad, showing of the good but not to the extent of hiding the truth.
Friday, May 25, 2007
What have you learnt here about the media in the way they present what is perceived over what is real?
Topic: What have you learnt here about the media in the way they present what is perceived over what is real?
After reading the article “Spilling blood with oil in Iraq”, I come to realise and learn that the media does not always present the truth to the public. They show the perceived, not the real, which I think is a totally irresponsible and wrong thing to do. Media plays a major role in our daily life, be it through the newspapers, radio or television broadcast. We come across them daily, getting information of all sorts through these mediums. Hence, if we were to “come in contact” with it frequently, we will definitely be influenced regardless if it is in a positive or negative aspect. It will be better if we can benefit from it by knowing the correct and real information. However, this is not always the case. The media sometime give information that is not totally true. Information that they think not deem for the public is not shown. This is where I feel that they are irresponsible. The public has the right to know and the media should serve that purpose, not hide the truth. How can we call this keeping us informed when they are conveying us wrong information? That is why I have learnt that we cannot totally trust the media. They can choose what to show and what not to show, thus, disallowing us to see the bigger picture. As a result of this, the public’s perception becomes wrong. The media, in this sense, should be held responsible.
However not all reports are like that. It is only a few of them, where the topics are sensitive and major, that are in this way. If we were to be in their shoes, it actually shows a point and I have learnt about why they are doing this. Reports sometimes are exaggerated just to attract readers. This is for business purposes. The exaggerated news which are not real, are juicy and gossipy reports. It attracts readers. Thus from here, the producers will earn more for selling extra. Besides this, the media has the power to change the mindset of the people. They can portray the good as the bad and vice versa. Take the above mentioned article for example. The mass media was trying their best to show to the world that the war in Iraq is a heroic battle of liberating the Iraqis and the US-British troops are doing the right thing. Instead, reports have shown the troops’ attitude in this war which proves their motive to be otherwise. So actually, the media is trying to glorify them, influencing the public to have this same view. This shows the power of mass media.
To conclude, I suggest that we should really read widely to get a clearer picture of what is going on before setting our opinions. It keeps us from being too heavily influenced by the mass media.
After reading the article “Spilling blood with oil in Iraq”, I come to realise and learn that the media does not always present the truth to the public. They show the perceived, not the real, which I think is a totally irresponsible and wrong thing to do. Media plays a major role in our daily life, be it through the newspapers, radio or television broadcast. We come across them daily, getting information of all sorts through these mediums. Hence, if we were to “come in contact” with it frequently, we will definitely be influenced regardless if it is in a positive or negative aspect. It will be better if we can benefit from it by knowing the correct and real information. However, this is not always the case. The media sometime give information that is not totally true. Information that they think not deem for the public is not shown. This is where I feel that they are irresponsible. The public has the right to know and the media should serve that purpose, not hide the truth. How can we call this keeping us informed when they are conveying us wrong information? That is why I have learnt that we cannot totally trust the media. They can choose what to show and what not to show, thus, disallowing us to see the bigger picture. As a result of this, the public’s perception becomes wrong. The media, in this sense, should be held responsible.
However not all reports are like that. It is only a few of them, where the topics are sensitive and major, that are in this way. If we were to be in their shoes, it actually shows a point and I have learnt about why they are doing this. Reports sometimes are exaggerated just to attract readers. This is for business purposes. The exaggerated news which are not real, are juicy and gossipy reports. It attracts readers. Thus from here, the producers will earn more for selling extra. Besides this, the media has the power to change the mindset of the people. They can portray the good as the bad and vice versa. Take the above mentioned article for example. The mass media was trying their best to show to the world that the war in Iraq is a heroic battle of liberating the Iraqis and the US-British troops are doing the right thing. Instead, reports have shown the troops’ attitude in this war which proves their motive to be otherwise. So actually, the media is trying to glorify them, influencing the public to have this same view. This shows the power of mass media.
To conclude, I suggest that we should really read widely to get a clearer picture of what is going on before setting our opinions. It keeps us from being too heavily influenced by the mass media.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Release of O'level results:
From the article, we can see that upon the release of this year’s O’level results, twelve of the twenty-five students with nine A1s come from outside Singapore. This shows that foreigners here are indeed scoring well and achieving good grades. They are excelling in their studies. Ask any students and they will say or have a mindset that says that those foreign students, especially some Chinese students, do exceptionally well in their academics. Most of the time, they will have straight A’s for their exams.
Why is this so? The English standard of Chinese students when they just arrive in Singapore is relatively poor. To be able to hold a basic conversation with some of them is actually a great feat what more calling them to read and write. The language medium of any paper is English. Perhaps for various subjects, language does not play a big role. But it more or less affects the level of comprehension of questions for the various subjects. Thus it also can affect their answers. The worst of all is the English paper. Yet they still did well. Perhaps most of them being a few years older have a better grasps of various concepts with only the different language terms to overcome. That is why they start doing well in the various subjects after they had adapted to their new environment.
However, I feel that most importantly, it is their perseverance that matters. They give in all that they have for the English papers. They put in a lot of hard work just to score well. Judging the fact that they left their homeland to have education here, by scoring well will be the best thing that makes this trip here a worthwhile one.
This is needless to say the push factor which had motivated them to do so well. Some Singaporeans on the other hand does not seem to have such a strong drive in them. Having a good education system and sufficient facilities, it made them more laid back. Thus, they are not as motivated. Perhaps if they are willing to push themselves a little bit more, there might be a higher percentage of local students getting nine A1s. Nevertheless, these foreign students had indeed done well in their O’levels and they really deserve their credit.
Why is this so? The English standard of Chinese students when they just arrive in Singapore is relatively poor. To be able to hold a basic conversation with some of them is actually a great feat what more calling them to read and write. The language medium of any paper is English. Perhaps for various subjects, language does not play a big role. But it more or less affects the level of comprehension of questions for the various subjects. Thus it also can affect their answers. The worst of all is the English paper. Yet they still did well. Perhaps most of them being a few years older have a better grasps of various concepts with only the different language terms to overcome. That is why they start doing well in the various subjects after they had adapted to their new environment.
However, I feel that most importantly, it is their perseverance that matters. They give in all that they have for the English papers. They put in a lot of hard work just to score well. Judging the fact that they left their homeland to have education here, by scoring well will be the best thing that makes this trip here a worthwhile one.
This is needless to say the push factor which had motivated them to do so well. Some Singaporeans on the other hand does not seem to have such a strong drive in them. Having a good education system and sufficient facilities, it made them more laid back. Thus, they are not as motivated. Perhaps if they are willing to push themselves a little bit more, there might be a higher percentage of local students getting nine A1s. Nevertheless, these foreign students had indeed done well in their O’levels and they really deserve their credit.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Youth crime
Blog 2
After reading the article, I am rather relieved to know that the youth crime rate had dropped by 30% of last year. From this we can know that there were indeed improvements made as compared to the previous years. It shows us that Singapore is indeed a safe country. No doubt there are crimes, but it is just a slight minority of Singaporeans, thus it is still safe. In the article, it also states that there was actually a drop in crime rate last year as compared to the previous years’ rising crime rate. I feel that it is partially due to the police efforts to reach out directly to parents of youth loitering late at night.
By doing this, it keeps the parents more informed of their children’s action. With more awareness, they can thus play a role in monitoring them and help curb youth crimes. Children will usually go astray if not controlled and taken care of properly, leading to them committing crimes which could ruin their life. Initially I thought that what police did was not going to work because I had the impression that such juvenile delinquents do not really obey their parents. However, seeing the report from the article, it shows a result that is otherwise, proofing the power of parental influence. Not only at home, even in school, the principal emphasizes on discipline. Usually before the holidays, the principals will give a speech and remind us not to commit crimes. Their constant reminders sometimes might not be really registered in our mind, but at least I feel, it is more or less useful in helping to prevent youth crimes by telling us the right from the wrong.
After reading the article, I am rather relieved to know that the youth crime rate had dropped by 30% of last year. From this we can know that there were indeed improvements made as compared to the previous years. It shows us that Singapore is indeed a safe country. No doubt there are crimes, but it is just a slight minority of Singaporeans, thus it is still safe. In the article, it also states that there was actually a drop in crime rate last year as compared to the previous years’ rising crime rate. I feel that it is partially due to the police efforts to reach out directly to parents of youth loitering late at night.
By doing this, it keeps the parents more informed of their children’s action. With more awareness, they can thus play a role in monitoring them and help curb youth crimes. Children will usually go astray if not controlled and taken care of properly, leading to them committing crimes which could ruin their life. Initially I thought that what police did was not going to work because I had the impression that such juvenile delinquents do not really obey their parents. However, seeing the report from the article, it shows a result that is otherwise, proofing the power of parental influence. Not only at home, even in school, the principal emphasizes on discipline. Usually before the holidays, the principals will give a speech and remind us not to commit crimes. Their constant reminders sometimes might not be really registered in our mind, but at least I feel, it is more or less useful in helping to prevent youth crimes by telling us the right from the wrong.
Family plays a critical role in a society. Do you agree?
MARVEl TAN
I agree that a family plays a critical role in a society. It is from a family where everything begins. Family is a base unit of a society. It is what constitutes to form a country. From a macro perspective, it shows the society’s identity. It tells us a lot of it from the way a family thinks, work, play and behave. Comparing a typical and traditional Asian family to a normal European family, both have a different way of doing things. Asian families are usually very conservative in their way of thinking. For various situations, they settle it according to beliefs and mindset based on strong morale values and in a conformist way, whereas for European families, they are more open minded on various issues, thinking that if it does not harm and hurt anyone or themselves, it will be fine. And so families in this case actually serve as an ambassador of a society. They are the ones that give outsiders a certain impression of a society, setting a reputation.
When zoom to see it from a micro perspective, it is a place where the imparting of knowledge occur. In a family, the parents educate their children, teaching them various values, guiding them towards adulthood. As the children are often with their parents, they are heavily influenced by them. Whatever the parents do, the children will follow suit. This is the point where it is important. The younger generation is the future of tomorrow. They must be guided properly so that they, with the necessary skills, will be able to bring the country to greater heights. The society and nation depends on them. Hence family plays major role and it is about the nurturing of good citizens and future leaders of the nation. If the family does not do its part properly, it will be more of a disadvantage to the nation in the future and the society will have a hard time progressing.
Family is a place where warmth can be felt. Members of a family will share love, care and concern to each other, felling his sense of attachment; their close relationship will be even more bonded. In this way they can feel the essence of living and be able to enjoy life to its fullest extent since humans have emotions. With such a positive atmosphere and united spirit, it will definitely do more good than harm to the society.
I agree that a family plays a critical role in a society. It is from a family where everything begins. Family is a base unit of a society. It is what constitutes to form a country. From a macro perspective, it shows the society’s identity. It tells us a lot of it from the way a family thinks, work, play and behave. Comparing a typical and traditional Asian family to a normal European family, both have a different way of doing things. Asian families are usually very conservative in their way of thinking. For various situations, they settle it according to beliefs and mindset based on strong morale values and in a conformist way, whereas for European families, they are more open minded on various issues, thinking that if it does not harm and hurt anyone or themselves, it will be fine. And so families in this case actually serve as an ambassador of a society. They are the ones that give outsiders a certain impression of a society, setting a reputation.
When zoom to see it from a micro perspective, it is a place where the imparting of knowledge occur. In a family, the parents educate their children, teaching them various values, guiding them towards adulthood. As the children are often with their parents, they are heavily influenced by them. Whatever the parents do, the children will follow suit. This is the point where it is important. The younger generation is the future of tomorrow. They must be guided properly so that they, with the necessary skills, will be able to bring the country to greater heights. The society and nation depends on them. Hence family plays major role and it is about the nurturing of good citizens and future leaders of the nation. If the family does not do its part properly, it will be more of a disadvantage to the nation in the future and the society will have a hard time progressing.
Family is a place where warmth can be felt. Members of a family will share love, care and concern to each other, felling his sense of attachment; their close relationship will be even more bonded. In this way they can feel the essence of living and be able to enjoy life to its fullest extent since humans have emotions. With such a positive atmosphere and united spirit, it will definitely do more good than harm to the society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)