Month: January 2016

‘A good leader should always be popular’. How far do you agree with this statement?

The concept of a well-like leader has probably never been concretely established such that everyone can agree with it. History has seen many leaders revolutionised the world with their set of beliefs, be it good or bad, and thus not everyone has the same perception of a leader. However, in more recent times, we have seen heads-of-state and premiers with their fair share of proponents and opponents around the world, therefore bringing up the question of whether good leaders should always be popular. Many believe that popular leaders are definitely better for our society but others do think that leadership is amoral in nature. While both sides of the contention have validity, I believe that a good leader should always be popular mainly due to the fact that their influence can transcend geographical boundaries.

Detractors of my stand argue that it is important to go back to the reasons why leaders are elected in the first place; to the governor to inspire a group of individuals to specific goals. Such opponents adopt the pragmatic view of leadership and believe that above all, good leaders ‘get the job done’ efficiently, and therefore it is inconsequential whether or not their people or colleagues admire them. By a simple definition of a leader, my opponents believe in leaders serving their purpose first, as people may support politicians who are true, bad. A converse of this, however, is the incumbent Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who with his strong anti-corruption and crime rhetoric, is making headlines. Famously nicknamed ‘The Punisher’, Duterte has been slammed by leaders around the world for his extra-judicial killings. However, from another viewpoint, he is a hero in the eyes of a local contingent for his low tolerance of corruption, which would see the Philippines progress as a country. While his actions are condoned by many, people do believe that he is moving his country in the right direction. To the pragmatics, doing right is better than what is popular.

This claim is no doubt valid and does show a reflection of the beliefs of a practical audience. However, I opine that doing what is right is not the only purpose of a leader. Being ruthless even for a supposedly good cause, like how Duterte does, has its repercussions. Such aggressive approaches can lead to hostility and political uproar initiated by the public. This was evident in Libya in 2011, during which a political rebellion led to the end of the reign of Muammar Gaddafi. From this, we learn that gaining the approval of the people is important, and support is crucial. Rodrigo Duterte is at large due to the fact that he is well-supported but may see an end similar to Gaddafi is he angers his people as well. With popularity, comes power.

Astute leaders should be popular as the combination of good leadership and the public vote has the potential to unify a society. Good leaders are, of course, venerated by many across the planet, but popular leaders have the power of influencing their people as well. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is arguably one of the most renowned and favourite world leaders of many today. In the wake of neighbouring head-of-state Donald Trump’s stance against Muslims, Trudeau has publicly announced his respect and acceptance of immigrants of different ethnicities. At the same time, he was seen dancing along to Indian music and giving intellectual discussions, making him a favourite and a common topic of discussion amongst Canadians. This goes to show how a popular leader can get his country buzzing about politics and life under his leadership. In a so-called ‘angry place’, good and popular leaders are the beacon of light that motivates millions around the world to believe that the world can be a happy place. They bring in a new air of positivity that stimulates optimism and the best in individuals. While there are many examples of good leaders, the people’s leaders leave more profound impacts on the world, as illustrated by former actor-turned USA President Ronald Reagan who chose to be positive while dealing with the threat of the USSR.

From a socio-economic perspective, good leaders ought to be popular in their quest of seeking cooperation with other countries and governing bodies. A popular leader firstly gains the support of the country, making his or her nation stronger through social cohesion. Secondly, a leader who can make a positive mark around the world prompts other countries to seek partnerships. Thus, the influence of a popular leader has worldwide can lead to greater economic cooperation. Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew is respected by many for the robust fortress he moulded Singapore into, which has seen great economic growth in the country. His popularity in Singapore made him a potential ally to many other countries like China. Thus, there is a solid advantage for a good leader to be popular in that, in a world of distrust and rapid globalisation, economic benefits can be reaped.

Additionally, popular leaders make the foundation of a strong political society that is immune to internal conflict. As popular leaders resonate with their people and share their voice, they can help solidify the political foundations in their country, giving her people contentment and no reason to rebel. Nations such as Bashar Al Assad’s Syria and, back in time, Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya have been on the receiving end of the spectrum. It may take a new leader, in Syria’s case, to rid the nation of political insecurity and fear instilled in the people.

In a nutshell, there are several social, political and economic reasons for a great leader to be in sync with his or her people’s beliefs. However, it is paramount for leaders to be popular for the right reasons as the inspirational Martin Luther King and the draconian Josef Stalin have shown. In line with Jeremy Bentham’s belief of consequentialism, it is essential for the leaders of today to possess the blend of doing what is right for the greater good, hearing and acting on the public’s concern and of course being the moral compass for the world to follow.

Do you agree that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation?

The United States of America is the shining beacon and bastion of liberal democracy and has successfully exported this very ideology to most countries around the world who chose freedom of expression instead of oppression as their way of governance. The freedom of expression is said to propel a country to its heyday through the progress of all aspects of the country, be it political, social, cultural and technological aspects. This is because it gives people the opportunity to share opinions, think out of the box and work towards the progress of a nation. This is evidenced by how civilised and well-perceived countries are when they subscribe to freedom of expression, like the US and the Scandinavian countries. However, underneath the veneer of its merits, some incidents that have come to the fore recently strengthens the validity of this notion that the freedom of expression actually hinders the progress of a nation. Nonetheless, I beg to differ. It does not hinder the progress of a nation, so long as it is regulated.

Freedom of expression does not hinder a nation’s progress because it brings about a more vibrant culture by rehabbing a country’s cultural scene. As cultures provide a country with a sense of identity and its citizens, a sense of belonging, freedom of expression serves as a vehicle to forge these important traits at a time when the westernisation of countries have started to amalgamate cultures into a homogenous one. It allows for artists and creative people to illustrate or express the country’s’ roots, way of life and thinking without prosecution. This is crucial for a country to make cultural progress because possessing a vibrant culture strengthens the social fabric of a country and fills them with pride and motivation to help the country progress. For example, the freedom of expression has enabled the publishing of literature like ‘Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry’ and ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ which reflects on America’s wretched past on racial inequality. These works allow citizens to better understand their country’s roots and learn from mistakes of the past so that they become responsible citizens. On the other hand, if a country curbs freedom of expression, it will most certainly hinder its progress, as seen from the consequences of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, where the teachings of renowned scholars, religions and people who preach them have been purged. This resulted in the majority of the population, unable to generate significant cultural progress because they have been indoctrinated and have not been given the freedom to express the right to practice proper moral values. Despite its rich cultural heritage, the Cultural Revolution brought about by draconian restrictions on the freedom of expression has had China regressed culturally. America however, has matured into becoming a more civilized society with a vibrant culture, proof that the freedom of expression leaders to the progress of a nation.

I do not agree that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation because of engenders technological innovation and progress. It lets innovations thrive because new concepts and schools of thought can be created for the betterment of countries. Taking these concepts further is the improvement in technology to solve the world’s problems and safeguard nations. It is only through the freedom of expression can scientists save lives with stem cell research and the 3-D printing of organs because they are backed by no boundaries to experiment. Through these experiments, new ideas and improvements could be made. Scientists can also solve hunger by creating GM food, which genetically alters the genes to make crops more resistant to diseases. This increases crop yield such that it is hoped that it could meet the quickly escalating demand for food as the world population is projected to hit 9 billion by 2050. Furthermore, the freedom of expression also gives rise to a nation’s military progress, allowing it to safeguard its borders. A country’s productivity, infrastructure and various interests can only be protected if there is a competent military to deter aggressors. Freedom of expression lets engineers developed advanced military technologies like stealth, cruise missiles, drones and laser weapons never before accomplished. These advanced technologies allow for a military to gain unparalleled situational awareness on the battlefield through information sharing and therefore, more potent warfighting capabilities. Not only will military technologies increase survivability, but it can also protect a nation’s borders through deterrence. All this progress can only be achieved if the freedom of expression was in place to bring about, and not hinder, progress.

The freedom of expression does not hinder the progress of a nation because it ensures that the political situation is uncorrupted and that the government can be kept in checking such that it serves its citizens well. It forms the bedrock of a country’s progress. By having a free press, leaders who commit wrongdoings can be held accountable as seen by the impeachment of South Korean President Park Geun Hye, whose confidant’s meddling with state affairs has seen her political career unravelling into shambles. This is only possible and the freedom of expression creates windows of opportunity to do research and dig deep for information to expose wrongdoings. By exposing corrupt leaders can new, more righteous ones be elected. The country can then progress politically. Freedom of expression does not hinder a nation’s progress insofar that citizens can provide feedback and air with their discontentment through dialogues and online forums. Governors and diplomats, are after all, also human and will make mistakes. Some governments may be blindsided to certain issues and when this happens, it is a citizen’s responsibility to express his opinions so that their governments can correct policies to allow a nation’s progress.

Alas, events of recent times have juxtaposed with my stand that the freedom of expression does not hinder the progress of a nation, especially in a social aspect. The massacre at Charlie Hebdo, where Al-Qaeda terrorists struck the offices of a satirical cartoon magazine who drew derogatory depictions of Prophet Muhammad, and the Muslim ban in which Donald Trump has imposed has given rise to a surge in Muslim discrimination across America. These are just two instances in which freedom of expression leads to social regression because it testifies to the abuse of this freedom bestowed on the populous. Vilifying and cracking jokes about religion will tear the ever-widening social fabric that has held liberal democratic counties for years apart with its relentless wave of immigrants assimilating into these nations. These incidents hitherto unseen before will cause racial vitriol, disunity in society and potentially, social, economic and political instability. Terrorist organizations like the Islamic State could up the ante by ramping up propaganda to victimize disenchanted Muslims to join to fight as martyrs. These exploitations have manifested themselves with the rise of lone-wolf terrorist attacks around the world. Far-reaching implications like these will undermine the security of nations. As a result, people living in liberal democracies will soon sell down the river, the social principles they have stood by for so long.

Though it may be true that the freedom of expression can at times hinder the progress of nations, betraying principles like these will do greater harm than good. Look at how far nations which have espoused the freedom of expression have come. It is through these freedoms can positive changes be realised. It is through these freedoms can citizens, the building blocks of society, have a say in how to govern their country and not instead be politically apathetic. It is through the freedom of expression can the ideas of society be shared, mistakes are corrected and progress is achieved.

To end off, I do not believe that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation. In fact, it makes a nation’s collective experience more colourful by experiencing the best of times and the darkest of hours. That said, we must never forget that we are the masters of our own destiny. We can influence, direct and control our environment, to allow humankind to progress as one. To do so, it is of paramount importance that liberal democratic countries regulate the potential negative effects that may accompany the use of freedom of expression, especially with regards to sensitive racial and religious matters, so that these nations can progress towards their future utopia.

‘In spite of more information, man is not more informed.’ comment.

In today’s world, information is everywhere. Be it in schools, online, on television, on social media and even on posters placed on subway stations and toilets. However, how many of this information serves the purpose of enriching us with the knowledge to nurture our emotional and psychological wellbeing? It is hard to believe that an advertisement placed inside a subway telling us that Marigold milk is the best and healthiest milk choice out there in the market or Burger King’s two dollars ninety-five cents nuggets are the best value meal you can get out of fast-food restaurants is going to be potentially informing us with useful and purposeful information. Some may argue that the vast amount of outlets currently available for man to seek and obtain information makes man more informed as they are presented with countless opportunities to garner useful information. However, I beg to differ as even though there are numerous amounts of ways and outlets for man to retrieve information, plenty of the information provided from these outlets are unreliable or too shallow to truly make man more informed. Hence, I believe that in spite of the plenty amount of information available, man is not more informed.

To start off, the absence of parameters to define media discourse has undermined the quality of information. Media companies are highly profit-driven and would thus play up and dwell on the sensational, tantalizing news that they know will sell. This can be on car accidents, murders, sexual assault or controversial scandals. Media companies only report on such sensational news simply because they are interesting, not because they are important. In the 20 months between September 2012 and March 2014, Fox News aired an astounding 1,098 evening and primetime segments dedicated to the Benghazi attacks. Despite there being no basis, Fox News and other outlets claimed that the Obama administration knew that the terrorists had planned the attacks 10 days in advance. CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell criticised Fox News and the media at large for habituating scandalising the Benghazi attacks with incomplete or unsupported claims. In fact, Fox News often used the Benghazi attacks as a shorthand, as a symbol of a lying corrupt, tyrannical and possibly murderous Obama white house. Hence the information that is fed to man today through the media may not even be based on solid facts and we run the risks of being influenced by false information provided from the media. In fact, according to the World Health Organization, 28,000 people who die daily can actually have their deaths prevented if basic care was provided to them. Yet we hardly see the media reporting on such pressing issues, on how little we give and how we are avoiding important issues happening around the world. When the media does report on such issues like foreign aid, they often tend to paint the image that we are giving substantially and in proportion to our means to people in need. Therefore, the media is actually providing us with an excess of information that deludes us and causes us to be actually more ignorant instead of more informed with the issues happening around us. Therefore, even though the media can give us so much information. man would still not be more informed.

Secondly, even though a majority of man are able to obtain basic education that serves to enrich man with useful knowledge and skills, it does not necessarily mean that man is able to apply the knowledge learnt in a real-life context. Education serves as a tool that enables people to broaden their perspectives and understand things that are happening around them. However, the reality is that most schools today bombard students with bucket loads of content and knowledge, expecting them to ingest them and spew it out during examinations. What students pick up are answering techniques and skills required for them to ace their examinations. Therefore, they are learning how they can apply the tons of knowledge that they learnt to answer examination questions. However, does this guarantee that they will also be able to learn how to answer real-life problems when they occur? The answer is most probably no as the real skills that students actually pick up in their education is the ability to memorise knowledge and the ability to answer questions on paper. To further substantiate my point, according to the United States (US) Bureau of labour statistics, only 26.1% of young people aged 16-19 and 18.7% of those aged 20-24 have volunteered to do volunteer work. Students who have received basic education have more or less been exposed to the growing need to help the needy and they would know how much impact they can make on the lives of people if they choose to lend out a helping hand. However, this point has obviously not been ingested by these students according to the low percentage of young people willing to volunteer. This is a real-life problem that despite being more educated to know the answer to solve the problem on paper, is not solved in real life. Hence, even though man is receiving more and more information through the means of education, they are not able to fully utilise this information to apply to real-life situations, making man not more informed.

Critics may argue that man can be more informed through the means of social media due to its extensive reach. An example they would state is the viral ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge’s aim is to raise awareness about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Over 2 million people on YouTube were tagged in ALS Ice Bucket Challenge videos on YouTube and the campaign was very successful in raising awareness among the public about ALS and it also raised a gargantuan sum of 220 million dollars for the ALS Associations. Thus, proving that the increase in social media platforms has provided more information for man that can make them more informed about previously uncommonly known diseases and issues existing around the world.

While it is true that new media can be a powerful tool to spread information to the general public about current affairs and issues around the world that require our attention, media can also enable individuals to abuse their rights and use social media as a tool to instigate hatred and sow discord among people, societies and nations by posting controversial comments and posts which only have the purpose of evoking tensions among people. For example, The Real Singapore (TRS) website was asked to shut down as it published content that was objectionable in the field of public interest, public order and national harmony. The Media Development Authority (MDA) also added that TRS had fabricated articles and inserted falsehoods into their articles that were either plagiarised or sent in from contributors in order to make the articles more inflammatory. This goes to show that despite the gargantuan amounts of information that new media provides us with, the information may either be fake or have no basis. Such information provided only make man grow hatred for each other and arouses tensions among people and serves no purpose in actually making us more informed and knowledgeable about the world around us. Man is not more enriched and is not able to better understand the world around them. Hence, despite the growing amount of information given to us, man is not more informed.

In conclusion, even though more information is made readily available to man, it is the quality of the information and the way we use the information that makes man more informed. The greater quantity of information provided does not necessarily make man more informed. It is high time we start refining the information we make available to the public in a way that allows the general public to be enriched and enlightened from the high-quality knowledge. This can enable man to be more informed and also potentially start making positive changes to the world with this newly found information.

Do you agree with the view that, eventually, technology will always solve the problems it creates?

A glimpse into human civilization a century ago will reveal a stark difference in the way we lived then and now. Technology – scientific technology, communication technology, transportation technology, media technology, nanotechnology etc, has permeated every aspect of our lives inevitably due to the rapid enhancement and modernization in the science. Technology has been widely claimed for the disastrous impacts on the public health, ethical issues, environment as well as social issues. The pivotal concern is whether technology can solve the problems it creates. In my opinion, at the present condition, technology can solve the problems but not all the time. Nonetheless, I strongly agree with the view that technology can eventually alleviate the problems it poses with the help of Man in centuries to come.

Technology poses an increasing threat to public health due to the development in scientific technology which allows Genetically Modified (GM) food to be produced in recent years. HM food which is also named ‘Frankenfood’ has caused the spread of antibiotic resistance in the body, according to a recent study in Newcastle University. The consumers of GM food are more prone to illnesses as their antibiotic resistance gets stronger with excessive consumption of such food. This can lead to increased health risks such as stomach and colon cancer, according to Dr Stanley Ewen, a consultant histopathologist at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.

However, with modern technology in medical science, cancer is no longer as fatal. The patients who are found to have cancerous cells in their body do have to face death. Take for instance; lung cancer which was previously incurable is now made curable with enhanced technological surgery or radiation therapy. Despite the arguable fact that GM food can cause cancer, cancer is increasingly less feared due to the high success of being healed from such a ‘deadly’ disease.

Besides the trouble in public health, technology has perverted the ethical code. Genetic Engineering technology produced Dolly, a female sheep that was created in 1996. Many religious groups like the Catholics and Muslims raised concerns that it was a wholly unnatural process of asexual reproduction. They assert that it was against the ethics and moral values as we are human being, thus we should not ‘play’ God by intercepting God in the process of life and death. This issue has been furiously debated as cloning was considered to corrupt our morals.

Yet, it was largely rebutted that it was a mere exaggeration of ethical issues. Who is to say that it is not God’s will that we clone ourselves? The religious groups assume that they know God existence and intention. Even today, there is not even a single scripture to that support anti-cloning. Therefore, the argument that technology has subverted ethical issues is not justified in the first place for it to say that technology has harmed our ethics.

Opponents of technology posit that it has created severe environmental degradation in recent years. The swift betterment in communication technology like the internet and transportation technology like faster planes has increased industrialization processes that cause increased pollution in the air, land as well as water. In places like China, this is a severe problem especially for the individual who stays near the industry. These pollutions have directly and indirectly affected the human race as well as the flora and fauna. Air pollution has caused respiratory problems and breathing difficulties that can cause lung cancer due to the excessive toxic gases releases from the industries. Land pollution causes the soil in the region to be poisonous that cause fruits and vegetables grown in the region to be hazardous for consumption. Water pollution that is very common in Third world countries like Nigeria and Somalia can cause birth defects and skin problems. As such, the environment has been sacrificed with the use of technology for economic progress.

However, opponents of technology have failed to realize the aspect of green technology that is developed recently ad advocated strongly through the media. Green technology is the use of environmentally friendly technology that uses the minimum amount of energy, produced minimum waste and produce the same or even better products. These products such as hydrogen car and ‘green’ light bulbs have been increasingly evident in first world countries like Singapore. Moreover, some buildings are made green too like City Square Mall in Singapore. These efforts of green technology and government have pushed down the level of pollution significantly as it uses minimum fossil fuel. With the presence of this technology, it is thus able to tackle the problem that it causes.

Last but not the least, technology has been arguing to have brutalized the social aspects of the individual, especially in developed countries like the US and Singapore where they can access communication technology easily. Communication technology has insulted the word ‘society’ itself that comes from ‘socialisation’ – the idea of interaction and communication. With the advent of inventions such as the internet with Youtube, MSN Messenger, Facebook and Twitter, we are now communing with a lifeless collection of microchips, not each other.

However, proponents of such technology agree unequivocally that communication technology has in fact increased the ability and opportunity of people to communicate. In the past where there was the absence of these ‘lifeless’ microchips, people have to travel far and waste numerous precious time just to socialise with their friends. Yet, nowadays, people can even socialise with many friends on the net with few clicks away. This technology has allowed people to have a greater social boundary as well as saves time on travelling. Therefore, technology can solve the problems of socializing that many of the people in the past faced.

Upon closer scrutiny, technology has increasingly been able to solve the problems it creates in spite of challenges. Nevertheless, up to the ninth year of the third millennium, it has been pervasively claimed that technology fail to solve the problems it creates upon the religious matter. However, I strongly believe that it is the matter of time that technology coupled with Man brain to explain the conflicts between them as seen from the increasing trend that technology solves problems that was unsolvable in the past.