“Comment is free but facts are sacred.” - Charles Prestwich Scott

So, here are the comments I have done this term:

1) MP Uses Handphone during National Anthem - Leonard

http://leonard-languageartsblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/mp-uses-handphone-during-national.html

2) Penny Low - Kenneth

http://lablogbypar.blogspot.com/2011/08/penny-low.html

3) BLOG-ception - Nathanael

http://loonathanaellablog.blogspot.com/2011/08/blog-ception.html

4) Computers, a modern marvel - Nicholas

http://nichtey.blogspot.com/2011/08/computers-modern-marvel.html

5) Is education fair? - Jiefeng

http://2i121.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-education-fair.html

6) Welcome to Singapore, Foreign Workers! - Raphael

http://twoeyeone.blogspot.com/2011/08/welcome-to-singapore-foreign-workers.html

7) Competitions - Gordon

http://twoeyeone-fifteen.blogspot.com/2011/08/competitions.html

8) My Thoughts on Special Programmes - Glenn

http://arts-language.blogspot.com/2011/08/my-thoughts-on-special-programmes.html

9) Vandalism - Wen Hong

http://language-artist.blogspot.com/2011/08/vandalism.html

10) American Judicial System, Mississippi State and Civil Rights Movement - Nathan

http://nathanang.blogspot.com/2011/06/american-judicial-system-mississippi.html

"'No comment' is a splendid expression. I am using it again and again." - Winston Churchill

The End

This is probably my last post, and is also a continuation of my previous post. In the previous post, I have talked about technology and the usage of a cell phone by MP Penny Low during the National Anthem in the National Day Parade. In this post, I shall be focussing more on competitions and education.

Competition

(http://twoeyeone-fifteen.blogspot.com/2011/08/competitions.html

http://twoeyeone.blogspot.com/2011/08/welcome-to-singapore-foreign-workers.html)

Competitions. When one thinks of them one may remember one's achievements, or perhaps one losses. Some may regard it as something simple, having excelled in competitions all their lives, or some may view it with uneasiness, remembering all the nervousness one goes through during a competition. These sort of competitions have many benefits - apparently, it helps people manage time, and stress. However, there is another form of competitions, let us say, competition for jobs with foreign talents. Many Singaporeans have felt that the government is allowing too much foreign talent into the country, diluting the Singapore identity, and more importantly, taking up jobs. I think that these people should stop complaining. I'm sure you know who these people are - that group of people who are against the government's every move, only seeing the bad things about the PAP and not appreciating what they have done for us. Those selfish people may think they are speaking as the voice of the people, but in truth, they are speaking up only because they want to reap some benefits. I think perhaps that the Temasek Review (http://www.temasekreview.com/) is also partly responsible for that, as under the "opinions" section, they try to brainwash people into their line of thinking, providing only facts and figures that support their stand. Anyway, to go back to the topic, I think that this competition with foreign talent has some benefits. Singaporeans are starting to get complacent, not having had a natural disaster which the news is reporting about every year, and barely affected by financial crises. This competition with foreign talent, will, in my opinion, result in Singaporean workers to work harder and try to improve themselves in order to prove to employers that although they may be more expensive to hire, their quality and standard of work is much better. Of course, competition is not always good, as, according to my belief, everything has benefits and demerits. When there is competition, one thing is certain - there will always be a winner, and there will always be a loser. And the sad truth is that the loser may not always deserve to be the loser, for example, that person has put in much effort, but the winner may just have been able to be better. I think that the best way for progress, is not merely through competition. Of course, we still have to have competition in order to develop each individual, but instead of looking at the achievements, at the merits of the person, perhaps the government could look at the efforts put in by the people. Or, another possibility is to make sure that there is no loser in the competition.

Of Education

(http://2i121.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-education-fair.html

http://arts-language.blogspot.com/2011/08/my-thoughts-on-special-programmes.html)

In Hwa Chong Institution, and in many schools, the End Of Year examinations are approaching. And with that on the horizon, there is also the special programmes to consider. The special programmes are a sort of streaming - students who are exceptionally gifted go to the Centre of Scholastic Excellence, those who are quite gifted take the Special Programmes as part of the Integrated Programme, and those who are not suited to this form of education go to the 'O' Levels stream. The Special Programmes, which are also part of the Centre of Scholastic Excellence, include the Humanities Programme, the Science and Mathematics Talent Programme, the Bicultural Studies Programme, and the Language Elective Programme. Due to the fact that those in the Integrated Programme get better opportunities then those in the normal academic stream, some people feel that the education system is unfair.

However, I disagree. The purpose of streaming is so that students can learn at different paces, study at different speeds. Not everyone has the same learning style, some prefer a more hands-on approach, others, perhaps just reading from a textbook is enough. As a result, streaming caters to the different needs of a student, allowing those with higher capabilities to be sufficiently challenged, and for those of lower capabilities to have a chance to understand concepts. Streaming is an effective way of making full use of a student's potential. For example, those who are more skilled technically can go into Institutes of Technical Education, or polytechnics.

Also, what is more important? Passion or talent? A person may be particularly interested in a topic, but if they do not have the required skills, they are unlikely to do well in it. However, if a person has a lot of talent, but no passion, my only comment is that it is a pity. I think that if a person has a talent in a certain area, that person should try to cultivate an interest in that particular area, in order to make full use of one's skills. After all, who would you rather be, an average person or an outstanding one? Even if one says that this is not about one's personal benefit, let me put it another way. How can you be more useful to society, as an ordinary worker or a talented professional? If a person has passion but no talent, then I think that the person should also try to develop his talents in the area he is passionate in. After all, people who are passionate about a subject are not easy to come by, and passion is truly something very important, as it allows one to keep striving to improve, to learn more. Yet, without talent, what is one able to accomplish? Therefore, I think that passion and talent are both extremely important.

Denouement

What I'm going to do for this and the next blog post, is in my opinion, rather interesting. Probably being the last two posts I will be writing, and almost certainly the last two posts that will be read on this blog, I have decided to do something special. There are many events happening in the world - Thailand has its first female Premier, the SMRT train depot was broken into again and vandalised. Instead of looking at things through my own point of view, I have decided that I will carry out my last two blog posts as such: firstly, I will look at a blog post that has been posted by my classmate, comment on it, and further elaborate on my own points of view here. So, let it begin.

The Usage of a Cell Phone by MP Penny Low during the National Anthem in the National Day Celebrations

(http://leonard-languageartsblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/mp-uses-handphone-during-national.html

http://lablogbypar.blogspot.com/2011/08/penny-low.html)

So, apparently, an MP, Miss Penny Low, was photographed to have been using her cell phone during the national anthem during the national day celebrations. And apparently, she had said that she was going to a picture of the fireworks. I think that she should not have been using her cell phone, at least, not during the national anthem. What is the purpose of the National Anthem? In order to show one's patriotism to one's country. In fact, to be extremely strict, whenever one hears the National Anthem, one should stop one's activities and stand still as a sign of respect. However, more and more increasingly, people are becoming more relaxed during the National Anthem. One example would be in school, where students could be fooling around when the National Anthem is playing, or when they are supposed to recite the National Pledge. This is a sign of disrespect to the country, and reflects one's character and attitude. Even if one has a valid reason for wanting to use one's cell phone, for example, if one has an urgent business to conduct, which category taking pictures of fireworks is definitely excluded from, one should wait till the end of the anthem. After all, it lasts only slightly over one and a half minutes, and most urgent matters can wait for at least one and a half minutes. Furthermore, being an MP, Miss Penny Low should be a role model and should have been stricter with her behaviour. However, I think that some criticisms of her are exaggerated, and those people are just using this as an opportunity to criticise the PAP. Lastly, I would like to point out that the person who took the photo, was obviously not showing respect to the National Anthem as well.

Technology and its Benefits

(http://loonathanaellablog.blogspot.com/2011/08/blog-ception.html

http://nichtey.blogspot.com/2011/08/computers-modern-marvel.html)

Another topic that was discussed was how technology is beneficial, be it from how computers have made the world better, to how blogs are able to develop a person. I think that, however, technology is not all about benefits - there are also quite a number of demerits as well. Firstly, however, I shall talk about the benefits. Apparently, blogs are able to allow one to think more critically and serves as an outlet for emotions, while at the same time, allow for academic discussion. Computers have made work much more efficient and also allowed for things to be more precise. Apparently, computer games can develop one's self-confidence. I agree with the benefits that they can provide, having maintained my own blog for two years. I feel that blogs are also a very good way of sharing different information and perspectives, as it is almost inevitable that two people will post on the same topic, and one can learn about the different perspectives out there. I think that a computer also has its benefits, as it allows work to be completed more quickly. With the computer, information is at one's finger tips - just go to a search engine, as compared to the past where one may have had to go to the library for information.

However, there are also certain disadvantages of technology. Not mentioning the cliché computer game addiction and distraction that computers provide, I feel that technology has made people much more lazier. In the past, where one had to work in order to learn something, and in order to do research, they had to go to the library, now, they can instead just search the internet. Or else, those even lazier ones would just post their questions on Yahoo! Answers, Wiki Answers, or other similar such sites. People now are not independent, but have to rely on the computer to complete even the simplest of tasks. If they do not know about something, or meet a certain difficulty, without thinking over the problem, they use the computer to find their answers. The computer has truly made humans lazier, not just physically but mentally as well.

Current Affairs: The Singapore Presidential Elections

The presidential elections have not been hosted since 1993, the people participating not hoping to take over the Parliament, but instead, hoping to be the Head of State. Having not have had an election for the presidency for 18 years, many people are probably unfamiliar about the role of the president; in fact, the candidates themselves have different stands as to the role the president is supposed to play as the figurehead of the country. All four candidates are confident of a chance of winning, as can be evident from their confirmation of running for the elections through a $48, 000 election deposit each, however, three will fail and only one will emerge champion. Who though? My personal favourite is actually Dr. Tan Cheng Bock, but perhaps, I should start with a summary of each candidate, as well as my thoughts on them.

Firstly, of course, we have the populist Tan Kin Lian. The point which he put forth to people about why he should be elected as president is because he would be the voice of the people of Singapore, and would debate with the Parliament over policies which affect the Singaporean public. He has also mentioned donating half his presidential salary to charity and other useful purposes, as he believes in public service. However, some have said that donating half of his salary to charity and other useful purposes is akin to buying votes - because the General Elections earlier this year has shown the unhappiness of Singaporeans about the current situation, he is offering them exactly what they want in order to become the president. The other candidates have also said that his being involved in government policies is being involved in day-to-day politics, something the Head of State should not be involved in. In fact, it is generally agreed among the other three candidates that the role of the president is to provide checks and balances on the Parliament which Singaporeans have elected this year. In my opinion, after following the elections quite closely for the past three days, I have to say I agree with them. The President should not be involved in the policy decision by the Parliament - the Parliament was formed because they had the ability to do so by themselves. Although the President can offer a warning to the Parliament over certain decisions, it should be justified and only when in cases when it is necessary, for example, if something similar to the Graduate's Mother's Scheme was put forth. I feel that Tan Kin Lian should not, just because in the General Elections the Singaporean public have said they wanted opposition in the Parliament, as a result use this in order to gain his supporters. I feel that this is not what the President should not be involved in, the President is meant to provide checks and balances and make sure that the nation is united as one, not to debate about everyday policies in Parliament. Therefore, I do not really support Mr. Tan Kin Lian.

Second, we have the dark horse candidate, Mr. Tan Jee Say. Having only just appeared in the political scene recently in the General Elections as part of the Singapore Democratic Party, not much is known about the abilities of Tan Jee Say. Tan Jee Say has adopted a more neutral standpoint, saying that if he should become president, he would not only provide checks and balances, but would also speak up about things he has strong views about, such as the death penalty. He has also used evidence about his rebellious side when he was a student in order to promote himself as an independent person. Having the least supporters of the four - only about 100 turned up to support him on Nomination Day - he is the least expected to win. I feel that his neutrality could be a point in his favour, however, I think that he has extremely little experience in politics and thus, may not be such a good candidate. Also during nomination day, a number of his supporters heckled Dr. Tony Tan when he was giving his election speech, and when asked why he didn't manage his supporters, Tan Jee Say said something along the lines that he couldn't control them as a crowd may sometimes get too excited. Some criticisms have risen over this, with people saying that if he is unable to manage a group of approximately 100 people, how would he be able to manage a nation?

Next on the list is Dr. Tony Tan, the one who is the most experienced and qualified. Dr. Tony Tan is promoting his experience as his main advantage, saying that dark clouds are looming over Singapore's economy, and there has to be a steady hand to manage the country's reserves. He says that he, having the most experience in such matters, is the most capable as the President. However, some people have criticised him as being too familiar with the People's Action Party, which could result in him being passive towards the policies that the Parliament put forth. I rather agree with this view. Although I am not one of those people who just want opposition and disapprove of what the PAP does, I feel that the President has to be independent of the Parliament, and Dr. Tony Tan, having such close ties with the PAP, may not be able to accomplish that.

Lastly, Dr. Tan Cheng Bock. The reason I support Dr. Tan Cheng Bock is that he is suitably neutral, as what he aims to do is to provide checks and balances on the Parliament, yet at the same time, has some experience in the political world. Even though he has been criticised for the fact that he does not have much financial experience and thus, should not be put in charge of the financial reserves, I disagree. Although safeguarding the reserves is of course, one of the President's role, what is more important is to appear as a figurehead for the nation and provide checks and balances on the Parliament. There will surely be some people who are experienced in such financial matters and Dr. Tan Cheng Bock could always learn from them; a lack of financial experience is not enough to warrant that he should not be the president of Singapore.

After hearing my views, I hope that you will make an informed decision on Polling Day. Thank You.

Current Affairs: Murdoch's murdered media

Many would probably have heard about how the reporters of British tabloid News of The World have engaged in the phone-hacking of various members of the public, resulting in public outcry which ultimately resulted in the downfall of the newspaper. Though it was quite well-known to the public beforehand that the publication hacked the phones of royals and celebrities before - they would not have obtained confidential information otherwise - but the difference this time was that they hacked the phones of ordinary people - the relatives of a 13 year-old murder victim, relatives of dead soldiers - which resulted in the anger the public felt. After all, if the tabloid was willing to hack the phones of ordinary people, what was to stop them from hacking their own phones? As a result, the scandal-monger was now the object of scandal.

What I think is that the News of The World should not have engaged in phone-hacking in the first place. Though the English public may feel that privacy is a sacrifice that celebrities and royals have to make for their extravagant lifestyles, I disagree. Of course, being a famous person would almost definitely mean that one's life is almost never private - there is always the paparazzi - but that does not warrant for their phones to be hacked. When the paparazzi is after someone, they are looking at what a person does in public. They do not follow them to their homes and see what they do in there. However, when they hack into a phone, they are infringing the person's privacy. They look at exchanges between a person and others, which can sometimes be intensely personal, as compared to what the two people may do when in public sight. I think that royals and celebrities have a right to their privacy. Royals are the figurehead of a country - to be honest, I do not even know who the British Prime Minister is - and should therefore be shown respect. Imagine if another country reads about all the scandalous affairs regarding the figurehead. What would they think of the people there? Celebrities should also deserve some privacy. Though some may say that it is a sacrifice they must make for their salaries and extravagant lifestyles, I disagree. A Chief Executive Officer in the private sector may earn millions and have an extravagant lifestyle, but does that mean his privacy should be invaded? Is his privacy even ever invaded? No. Of course, those people may say then, that privacy is a sacrifice for a celebrities fame. Yet, the reason why these actors, singers, directors and all the range of celebrities, are famous, is because they have talent. Should one's privacy be threatened because one is talented in a certain area? Having said all these, I think you know my stand on the hacking of the phones of the public.

Of course, this does not mean that royals and celebrities should therefore be allowed to have scandalous affairs, but sometimes, it cannot be helped. What more of the general public? Obviously they would be unable to prevent the traumatic events which shoot them up to fame. Some may say that the point of a tabloid is to gain sensational news, and that due to Britain's laws that what the Press prints must have evidence to back it up, the only way for News of The World to keep up its business was to hack into the phones of celebrities and royals. I agree that tabloids have to keep up their business, however, I think that they should use other methods of obtaining sensational news rather then infringing the privacy of an individual. A tabloid provides entertainment value to the public, and they of course would not want to see the collapse of their source of gossip, that is, of course, unless the tabloid happens to commit a great offence against the,. I think that if tabloids truly wanted to find out more information, they could do it through interviews. Although the information revealed may not be as sensational, however, I am sure that the tabloids are able to twist people's words and use it to their advantage.

I think that what this event has taught us is how much the public values their privacy, and to a certain extent, the hypocrisy of the public. It has also showed us how, with the advancement of technology, new ways are always being found to gain access to more information. It has also showed us that we cannot trust technology, as something else more technologically advanced may be able to hack in to it, and from this, what I think is the most important takeaway, is that while technology has improved the lives of many people, it has decreased the morality of many others.

Essay: This I believe

What do I believe in? Many things. Many people believe in many things, some people, selfish, just believe in material objects and possessions which will benefit them more, however, some other people may believe in systems which they hope would bring about a better world, such as liberty and communism. Yet, some people believe in values and qualities, and believe that these qualities are what will make the world better, if only people started embodying these qualities. These people do not dream up of big ambitions, but instead, seek to embody these qualities themselves in order to serve the world better and make the world a better place. I belong in the third category.

I believe in responsibility. I believe that everyone should fulfil one's duty and do it well. One should not give excuses and try to shy away from one's duty merely because it may be hard. I believe that everyone has a duty to the world, be it in realistic terms, from the garbage cleaner to the software developer, who should do their jobs well in order to make the world a better place, or in idealistic terms, where everyone should serve people out of their working place, from simple things such as giving up one's seat in public transport to helping out the community through voluntary work, or donating money for charity. Do I practice responsibility? I believe I do. I complete work that is assigned to me, and also serve my duty to the community and society. Do other people embody this quality? Sadly, I have to say no. Too many people in the world all try to find ways to benefit themselves, and what is the easiest way to do that? It is to push one's duty to other people so that one has a reduced workload and can have a higher quality of life. How is this responsibility? If one is assigned work to do, one should do it, as it was assigned in the belief that one would complete the work. If everyone were to neglect their duty and not be responsible, what would society turn into?

I also believe in excellence. I believe that when doing one’s duty and carrying out one’s responsibility, one should always try to achieve the best that they can, even if it means more work. I believe that one should always be able so sign one’s work with pride. Excellence to me is also progress, as when one is continuously trying to excel in something, one is also at the same time progressing. However, when I talk about excellence and progress, I do not merely mean individual progress, and individual excellence. I believe that everyone should help each other succeed, and together, as a whole, as one body, move forward and progress and excel. Let us say, for example, a class. When handing up their homework and assignments, a student should, in my opinion, always hand up the best piece of work they can achieve, and not the bare minimal so that they can use the extra time to do leisure activities, such as playing computer games. Also, although there may be some students who are outcasts, though the intensity of being outcast varies from class to class, I think that the students in the class should still help the outcast when he needs help. Students stronger at a subject should help students weaker at a subject. In this way, the class can progress as a whole, and excel as one. Do I practice excellence? I must admit, not always. I try to create the best piece of work I can, but sometimes, it is truly frustrating when in trying to create an excellent piece of work, everything starts failing, and with this frustration, I am occasionally not motivated to put in my entire best. I will also help other people so that an entire body can progress as one. Though I may not voluntarily do it, however, if I am assigned to a group, even with members I dislike, I would still do my duty and try to create the best possible work with them.

Lastly, I believe in respect. In the modern world it is today, where there is a much greater freedom for speech, people are starting to get complacent and even start splitting hairs with their superiors. For example, children nowadays are more likely to argue and disobey their parents; the evidence is present in many articles written either by the children, or by other people. It is evident that people are becoming more rebellious and are making use of their freedom to try and get everything done their way. Of course, freedom of speech is not a bad thing, and sometimes, a different perspective is welcome. However, it depends on how it is phrased. Nowadays, people are showing lesser respect to others. For example, a child may argue with his parents, however, he should always remain respectful and not let his emotions get the better of him. I think a part of respect comes from empathy. If one empathises with the audience who they are talking to, and keep in mind his perspectives and feelings, I think that a person would be more likely to show respect. I think another aspect of respect is also knowing when one is wrong, and admitting it. Nowadays, people view their image as something extremely important, and feel that by admitting their wrong, they would be showing weakness, and thus stubbornly refuse to do what they know is right, in order to protect their reputation. If instead, a person graciously admits that he was wrong, there would be lesser frustration in the world.

Essay: Shakespeare's Life and Times

Firstly, I have to admit, this is not really an essay, I will not be following any specific guidelines and will merely be sharing some information about Shakespeare's life and times, as well as my take on them. I shall be covering six sections briefly - whether Shakespeare is the true author of his works, the politics during the Elizabethan era, the customs and lifestyles then, the setting of Venice, the religion then as well as Shakespeare's theatre. After that, I will be sharing my thoughts on how this all contributes to one of his works, The Merchant of Venice.

So, how can Shakespeare not be the true author of his works? Well, Shakespeare had humble origins and much of his life is not known. Since he had received little education, it seemed unlikely that he could be the composer of his sonnets, a poem which is rather complex to write well due to its strict structure and form, as well as be the playwright of his plays. Furthermore, many of the court dealings which is displayed in his works could not have been known by a non-nobleman and someone who was not a court insider, therefore, it was unlikely he could have had access to such knowledge.

Queen Elizabeth I, the Queen of England at that time, was extremely religious and was also known as the Virgin Queen. During her time, international relations were generally good, as she continued the trade policies of countries, and was also well known for being thrifty. However, there were some religious conflicts with Spain, resulting in Spain sending out their Armada to attack England. Queen Elizabeth I was also a patron of Shakespeare's works and usually had Shakespeare put up special performances in her court.

Compared to modern day, knowledge at that time about many scientific things were extremely limited, therefore, their lifestyle was not extremely pleasant. Hygiene was extremely poor - human waste was dumped from windows on to the streets below. This encouraged the spread of diseases and due to the lack of medical knowledge, these diseases were often not cured.

The setting of Venice for the Merchant of Venice was probably due to the fact that it was a major trading port and the centre of commerce. Being a cosmopolitan place, it suited the motif of money very well. Furthermore, this was one of the few places where Jews were accepted by the country, though not so by the society, which as a result, is a suitable setting for the play.

The dominant religion at that time was Roman Catholic, while Judaism was a minority religion and viewed as inferior. The Christian community at that time commonly abused the Jews, and treated them as inferior. Jews were also expelled from certain countries, and were also not allowed to take on certain jobs. The reason for such animosity was due to the difference in believes of Judaism and Christianity, and the Christians view the Jews as the killer of their messiah.

Plays at that time were performed in a roofless courtyard, which could house around two thousand and five hundred people. It had no curtains, and the plays were performed in the open courtyard, therefore, the characters had to describe the setting in their speech, because there was no background scenery, and the audience had to depend on the characters speech to know where the characters were. Acting was also not considered an honourable job, as a result, only males were allowed to act.

So, how do all these factors contribute to the Merchant of Venice? Well, something that is extremely evident is the fact that the characters all describe what is happening, because, as mentioned before, there was no scenery or set. Also, Venice is a commercial setting, and one of the motifs in play is money, which suits its purpose extremely well. Venice also serves as a contrast to the more romantic Belmont, as the relationships there are mostly transactional, and everything is carried out with business-like authority. The Jewish community was also commonly abused, and having no fear that there would be Jews among the English audience, as they would already have been expelled, Shakespeare makes use of this fact to make Shylock an antagonist which the audience then, comprising of people from all classes, would dislike. Also, as Portia is representative of Queen Elizabeth I in the play, she was made to be especially good in order to in a way praise Queen Elizabeth I.

As can be seen, what affects a play is not just what the writer wants to create, but also on the traditions, lifestyles and customs then. Therefore, these can be factors that can be considered in the future when looking at a play.

The Merchant of Venice: Characters

There are quite a number of characters in The Merchant of Venice, each of them significant to the play in one way or another. After all, if Shakespeare started creating plays with useless characters in them, included only to drag out the play, then he would not be considered as a great playwright and his plays would not be studied. Thus, in the first section of this blog post, I shall be discussing on the significance of characters in The Merchant of Venice.

Certain characters may represent certain people in Great Britain at that time, or else, certain characters may be significant to the play in order to provide a stronger image of the main characters. For example, Launcelot Gobbo and Old Gobbo. They do not contribute to the progress of the play, however, they create a stronger image about the cruelty and stinginess of Shylock. Firstly, Old Gobbo's scene with Launcelot Gobbo is meant to establish that Launcelot is a good person at heart, and not some greedy and complaining person. At the same time, the conversation also shows how Shylock treats his servants, and the bad treatment of Launcelot by Shylock, as well as Shylock's unwillingness to give his servant anything but the bare minimal, contributes to Shylock's negative image, making the audience dislike Shylock more. Jessica's significance in the play is also similar to that of Launcelot - to show that Shylock must be really bad, for his own daughter to run away from him. The fact that he seems to care more about his stolen possessions than his daughter also contributes to his stingy, miserly and greedy image.

Salerio and Solanio are not just two Venetians, they actually represent the Venetian Christian community as a whole, which is why their characteristics and attributes, even their name, is extremely similar. They are just ordinary Christian Venetians, and their purpose is to show how the society and community at Venice support Antonio, showing Antonio's influence, while at the same time, their insults towards Shylock show how the entire Christian community at Venice are against Shylock, which can serve two purposes - one, to show how pitiful he is, which results in his hate building up, and two, to show how bad Shylock must be in order to for the Venetian society to cast him out.

Portia, also my favourite character, is meant to represent the Queen of England at that time. They are both women with power in a man's world, and due to her many desirable qualities, was in a way meant to praise Queen Elizabeth I, the Queen of England then. The reason why Portia is my favourite character is due to her intelligence and nobility. She was intelligent enough to find a flaw in Shylock's claim to Antonio's pound of flesh, and had even laid down traps beforehand in order to not only protect Antonio, but also reduce Shylock to a state where he would be powerless to try something similar again. The cunning of her makes people feel a sense of delight as they watch the antagonist get tricked and finally defeated. Also, she is rather noble, from the fact that she is willing to protect Antonio's life even though she did not know who he was, only that he was a good friend of Bassanio. It was dangerous for women to travel alone in those days, yet she did so in order to help a stranger. Although some people say that she is a hypocrite, preaching about mercy but in the end reducing Shylock to be absolutely powerless and have almost everything stripped from him, I disagree. For an attempted murder, Shylock actually got of quite lightly, still having the freedom to do whatever he wants, instead of, for example, life imprisonment. Furthermore, Portia had also prompted the Duke and Antonio to show Shylock some mercy, as they were the ones making the decision, therefore, it can be seen that Portia is not a hypocrite.

The character I dislike most (unfortunately, I cannot offer some other character with various arguments, as Shakespeare's portrayal of this character makes him rather disliked), is Shylock. Why Shylock? Well, obviously, Shylock is the has the most negative traits, due to the fact that his image must be so for the audience to know where to audience should invest their emotions in, including that he is stingy, domineering, unmerciful and cruel. His stinginess and domineering attitude is probably the lightest of these negative traits, and can be evident from how he treats both his jester, Launcelot, and his daughter, Jessica. His unmerciful and cruel side is extremely evident towards the end, where he seeks the life of Antonio, without wanting to show any mercy. Although this hate of Antonio and the other Christians was borne of the treatment that they had been showing him, however, it is still unjustified for him to try to seek Antonio's life. Shylock is also portrayed as a victim in the play, where he is abused by the Christians which lead him down the path of revenge. Another group of characters I rather dislike is the Venetians in general, comprising of not just Solanio and Salerio, but also Lorenzo, Gratiano and a side of Antonio. The reason is that they are extremely cruel in their treatment of Shylock, abusing him at every opportunity. Even at the end, they are unrepentant, as can be seen by the insults Antonio throws at Shylock even when he was about to die. This unjustified bullying of a person with a minority race may have appealed to an audience in the past, when their society accepted the racial prejudices as a social norm, but to a modern audience, it leaves one with distaste.

The Merchant of Venice: Plot

The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare is a piece of text that I am studying this term, therefore, I would like to share some of my opinions on it.

The Merchant of Venice is about how Antonio, the title character, in order to lend money to his good friend Bassanio who wants to woo the rich widow Portia in Belmont, loans money from a Jewish moneylender Shylock, the antagonist of this play. Although Antonio and Shylock have some animosity between them , due to Antonio's disapproval and thus abuse of Shylock, they manage to strike a deal - if Antonio does not return the sum of money in three months, he has to grant Shylock a pound of flesh closes to his heart, effectively killing him. Shylock, being the cruel and greedy antagonist, has his daughter run away from him with a Christian, the religion which he hates, along with a portion of his wealth. Bassanio manages to woo Portia, but they learn that Antonio, due to his investments failing and unable to pay back the loan, is soon about to die at the hands of Shylock, the law unable to interfere. Bassanio rushes back to Venice but is unable to persuade Shylock to leave Antonio alone, even with the offer of three times the original amount of money, Bassanio having become richer through his marriage with Portia. Portia, disguised as a lawyer rushes to Venice and manages to save Antonio through a flaw in the bond, and soon, everyone is reunited and celebrating at Belmont.

Now, I shall be discussing a few of my favourite scenes. One of my favourite collection of scenes is probably the three casket scenes. The casket scenes were rather suspenseful, even though through the nature of the play being a comedy I had guessed the outcome, as one wonders why each of the casket is not the correct casket and how they relate to the inscriptions. The delivering of the messages of the significance of the caskets to the audience is also very effective, while meaningful at the same time. Each of the starting of the casket scenes purposefully creates a tense atmosphere, with the audience wondering about the outcome and how it will relate to the inscriptions. The outcomes and revelation of why each casket is a success or failure according to the messages of Portia's father are also rather easy to remember and thus carries their messages across effectively, for example, I'm sure that many who have read or watched the play before would remember the line "all that glisters is not gold". Of course, the messages of the silver and lead casket may not be as easy to remember, but that does not matter, because "all that glisters is not gold" is the main message. It tells us why Morocco fails, that is because he is vain and looks at appearances, and why Arragon fails as well, because his arrogance leads him to believe that he is the best, but he is soon made to realise that the egoistic viewing of oneself is not at all a desirable quality. Bassanio succeeds because he realises that appearances can be deceiving and is not fooled by the appearance of the caskets made of precious metals. This scene is extremely suitable to display the theme of deception, of appearance and reality, as appearances are what causes both Morocco and Arragon to in reality, fail.

Another favourite scene of mine is the court scene where Portia is disguised as a lawyer and has to destroy Shylock's claim to Antonio's pound of flesh in order to protect Antonio's life. The scene in the court manages to generate a large amount of suspense, where they show how Bassanio tries to plead with Shylock for mercy, and Shylock's unwillingness to stand down, fuelled by anger and hatred at all the unfair treatment by the Christian community. This makes the audience wonder how Portia would be able to defeat Shylock, as pleading with him for mercy, and offering him money definitely does not seem to do any good. When at the start Portia agrees with Shylock's claims, the audience feels almost shocked at Portia's apparent giving up of protecting Antonio, however it is soon realised that she is testing Shylock and in order to bring about a great downfall to him. Though some people question whether Portia's reducing of Shylock to a pitiable state is justified, it is the only way to prevent Shylock from trying to attempt something similar again. This scene is also very good at showing the theme of justice and mercy, where Shylock attempts to use the law to dish out justice to Antonio, refusing to show mercy. However, it backfires and the law is used to dish out justice to Shylock, but, in contrast, some mercy is shown to him.

I feel that The Merchant of Venice is a rather interesting piece of text, however, I feel that the long chunks of speech which do not contribute at all to the development of the play, typical of a Shakespearean comedy, is a factor which may put off many readers. Furthermore, it is meant to be watched as a play, not studied as a text, therefore it may not be as interesting as a piece of literature as compared to other texts such as To Kill A Mockingbird.