Virginia Tech - Why the massacre?

Source: The Straits Times

Link to article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6564653.stm

British Broadcasting Corporation

Summary:
The article is about Cho Seung-hui’s massacre of 32 of his fellow college mates and teachers as well as possible reasons on why such a horrendous act could have taken place.

Comments:
Cho Seung-hui was described by many as a loner who seldom talked at all, choosing to spend his time downloading music instead of socialising with his classmates.

Nothing much however, was done to correct Cho’s behaviour. And one day, during the early hours of April the 16th, Cho went on a rampage on the Virginia Tech campus, leaving 33 people dead, and many more severely injured.

Till today, many questions still remain about what caused this bloodbath. Many have blamed gun ownership laws. However, many also fail to look at what could have been done to prevent such a manifestation of anger and hate.

Based on the sufficient warnings that something very wrong was happening inside Cho, from him identifying himself as “question mark”, to the gory plays he wrote, many of which involved arsenals of weapons, I feel that the Virginia Tech administration could have done more to help Cho overcome the conflict brewing within him.

Indeed Cho was sent for counselling by a professor, although I guess he went for it a little too late, since by that time, the anger in him had probably already manifested to an unstoppable level. Aslo, as the professor had walked Cho to the counsellor in full view of the public, counselling might have even done more harm than good to Cho since it might lead to him being labelled as a “problem kid”, which might result in more people detesting him.

The action taken by the professor to tutor Cho one on one is also comparable to that of teachers making students stay behind for extra lessons, something very evident in the Singaporean school system, which has overwhelming consequences when it comes to the way the student, is treated in class and out of school.

As a student, I observed that such a student would be branded as an outcast, leading to behaviour similar to that of Cho, the only difference being that of the scale of such conduct.

I would no doubt be treating such a person in the same manner as well. If I feel that the “problem” student is behaving in an immature way, I would probably give up after failing in attempts to make contact with him. This would result in the student segregating himself from the rest of the student community, which might lead to the materialization of harm to self and harm to those around the student.

Perhaps, schools here in Singapore can learn from this incident and find alternative solutions to dealing with such students instead of pointing out their flaws in front of everyone.

Observations on how teachers in school deal with cases of self-harm have also led me to conclude that most teachers are only capable of dealing with academia.

Schools should thus train teachers to spot troubled students, offer them preventive advice and do whatever they can to ensure easy accessibility for students to counsellors, including giving some room for privacy and allocating the counselling room away from public view.

(499 words) – Excluding the summary

Thailand set to make Buddhism the state religion

Source: The Straits Times

Link to article:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/24/africa/thai.php

By Seth Mydans

International Herald Tribute

Summary:
The article is about the Thai military backed government caving in to pressure from monks in the country and their decision supporting the enshrinement of Buddhism as a state religion, the various reasons for doing so and the implications behind such a decision.

Comments:
On the 25th of April, traffic in Thailand was brought to a standstill when Buddhist monks marched to the Parliament demanding that the government enshrine Buddhism as a state religion.

The monks were unhappy that their religion was coming “under fire” from insurgents in the Thai south, with many devote Buddhists being subjected to shootings and beheadings by Muslim extremists.

They felt that enshrining Buddhism would send a strong signal to the Muslim insurgents that the Buddhists had won the battle in the south and that the government had all along considered Islam as an “alien religion”.

As over 90% of the populace are Buddhists, it would only make perfect sense to enshrine Buddhism as a national religion. Although this would instil a greater sense of nationalism amongst the population, I disagree with this trend of thought.

Though enshrining Buddhism as a national religion might result in the heightening of the conflict in the Thai south, I later realised that it had greater repercussions on Thailand and the South East Asian region.

One might remember that not too long ago, provinces in the Thai south had proposed to the Thai government for autonomy or a break away. Governmental response was swift, and more soldiers were sent into the south.

Then, the message sent to the people in the south was hazy, with the government, in a bid to reconcile them, seeking council with various community leaders.

And now, as government officials agree with a proposed plan to enshrine Buddhism as a national religion, one can see the writing on the wall.

If I were a Muslim living in the south of Thailand, that would be a signal that indeed, the only choice left is that of supporting the insurgency in their quest for independence.

Independence for the provinces in the Thai South though might result in the further straining of ties between Thailand and her neighbours, namely Malaysia and Singapore. These countries would be put in a very difficult position if such a situation arises.

Although Islam is the official religion in Malaysia and one might think that Malaysia would be inclined to take the side of the militancy, I think otherwise.

If I were the foreign minister of Malaysia or Singapore, I would not wish to offend the citizens in my country nor my close economic partner and thus would prefer to sit on the fence. Meddling in other people’s business might only lead to the destruction of the social fabric of my country.

However, as I am only a third party observer whom has had no real contact with the people involved in the conflict, I feel that I am in no position to comment, since I would not have an accurate perspective on the actual feelings of the people on the ground.

The conflict in the south also has a long history which I am not very familiar with and thus will not be able to fully understand the actions of the various parties involved.

(498 words) – Excluding the summary