March 2016 — Gp Lah!

“Is freedom of expression always desirable?” Comment.

The freedom to express oneself freely is a fundamental human right enshrined under the United Nation’s declaration of human rights. Despite this, in certain countries such as Singapore, freedom of expression is not a fully guaranteed thing. This is because of the Singapore government’s view that freedom of expression would cause instability and be dangerous to Singapore. This has led to the debate about whether freedom of speech is always desirable or does it actually hinders the progress of a nation. I believe that freedom of expression is desirable to a large extent and is necessary for the progress of a nation.

Some critics argue that by having the freedom to express oneself freely, this gives the individual the ability to offend anyone they want. This could be potentially dangerous for a country as it has the ability to create rifts between different societal groups in the country which can cause instability. This can be seen in countries such as the United States where the freedom of expression is a well-protected right and certain remarks by individuals can cause instability in a nation. During Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, he insulted many groups of people such as women, Mexicans and Muslims. This caused much unhappiness in these groups of people and led to many anti-trump protests in cities such as Chicago and this threatened the stability of the nation. This effect is further compounded by today’s interconnected world where what one individual says can travel around the world in mere seconds. Offensive comments made my individuals now reach a larger target audience in a shorter period of time, allowing these statements to cause more offence, these critics thus believe that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation as it allows individuals to offend others at will, creating unhappiness in a different social group which can threaten the stability of a nation.

However, while I do believe that freedom of expression can sometimes cause instability in the nation, I believe that this instability is in the short-run and that in the long-run, freedom of expression can cause a nation to be more forward-thinking and progressive. Yes, freedom of expression can cause some people to be offended but this offence can be a good thing. Many of the things that we know today and the rights that we enjoy today is the product of someone having caused ‘offence’. When Galileo Galilei proposed that the earth revolved around the sun, this offended many Christians but it eventually made his country and the world more knowledge. When Nelson Mandela advocated for the rights of his fellow black people in Apartheid South Africa, he too offended many white people in the country but yet he eventually caused South Africa to be more diverse and progressive. The freedom of expression allows people to stand up and challenge the status quo and question societal norms and when the status quo is challenged, people would naturally feel offended but history has shown us that people being offended is not necessarily a bad thing but can actually be a good thing in the long run. Freedom of expression allows us to change society’s way of thinking, making a nation more forward-thinking and increase equality between different groups of people in the country. This helps to make a nation more progressive. Hence, freedom of expression is desirable for the progress of the country

Furthermore, the freedom of expression can create more effective governments and effective governance increases the progress of a nation. The freedom of expression allows people to voice their disapproval of the government and the policies they implement without the fear of prosecution. This allows the government to know what policies to implement and how to better govern the nation. If the people of a nation and not allowed to voice their disapproval of the government, the government no longer have a need to focus on what the people want but rather focus on what they want. The freedom of expression provides an effective check on power and also gives the government the incentives to meet the wants of the people as too much disapproval could lead to them being voted out in the next election. It is not coincidental in that the wealthiest countries in the world are those where people can express oneself freely such as in Norway and Germany while the poorest countries on earth such as Sudan and Somalia are countries where saying bad things about the government can land you in prison. This shows that freedom of expression is a good thing as it creates more effective governments which can cause a nation to progress forward economically. Hence, freedom of expression is desirable for the progress of a country as it creates effective governments that try to meet the needs of the people and this could cause a country to progress forward.

Last but not least, freedom of expression does not hinder the progress of the nation as it creates a more knowledgeable society. When comments made by people are not restricted, when films and books made by filmmakers and written by the author are not banned, this allows the citizens of the nation to be more privy to different cultures and ways of thinking. People are now exposed to different ways of thinking and have the ability to consider a different point of views. This allows people to become smarter and smarter people can increase the productivity of a nation, making the nation more economically well off. Hence freedom of expression is desirable and does not hinder the progress of a nation as it creates a more knowledgeable society.

In conclusion, freedom of expression does not hinder the progress of the nation as it makes a nation have more effective government and more knowledgeable people. It also makes a nation more forward-thinking and increases equality in the nation. Many countries nowadays have started to relax their freedom of expression laws. In the past, many critics of Singapore’s government were arrested but now people are least allowed to voice their disapproval of the government. Hopefully, this is a trend that will continue to increase as more freedom of expression increases the progress of the nation. As more nations continue to progress forward, this makes for a better world.

Should freedom of speech be protected no matter the cost?

Singapore has always been criticised for the lack of freedom of speech, being notorious for its many instances of punishing citizens who have expressed openly some opinions that others may find displeasing. To have freedom of speech is to be able to express one’s own opinions and viewpoints, no matter how offensive, at one’s own will without facing any lawful consequences. To protect freedom of speech would be to uphold and to advocate it. Some possible consequences or the cost of protecting freedom of speech include potential conflicts and disharmony between the parties involved – the perpetrator and the victim, some that may even escalate to physical violence. Freedom of speech should be protected to uphold basic human rights, but in racially and religiously diverse societies, the cost may outweigh the benefits of restricted speech. Additionally, with interconnectivity and technological advances, there is a risk of greater backlash. In my view, freedom of speech should not be completely protected.

Freedom of speech should be protected and advocated to preserve and uphold human rights, which should come first in terms of importance above all else. As in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as drawn up by the United Nations, every individual should have the right to express their views and opinions. It should be respected that every individual is entitled to their own views and opinions and to freely communicate them. Considering that freedom of speech is a basic human right, it should definitely be of utmost importance, despite the potential impact or cost these views and opinions may bring. Many people, especially those in the West, advocate freedom of speech. In the Charlie Hebdo shooting incident in 2015 where journalists were killed in an act of vengeance by Al-Qaeda terrorists over the publishing of a comic containing offensive material that could hurt the Muslim community, family and friends had shown support for the protection of freedom of speech. This was significant as in the phrase “Je Suis Charlie” or “I Am Charlie” where many stood in solidarity with the French magazine and emphasised their support for freedom of speech despite the cost – the numerous lives lost as a result of the terrorists’ resentment of the journalists. As evident from this incident, many are of the opinion that the basic human right of freedom of speech should be upheld above all else, despite the costs in the aftermath.

In racially and religiously diverse societies, however, it may be too costly to grant absolute freedom of speech to all individuals. In societies made up of many individuals of different cultures, ethnicities and even nationalities, the offensive opinions of some may hurt the feelings of the victims or others that may disagree with the opinion. This may bring about conflict between the groups involved, resulting in disharmony among the people. This would be extremely harmful when larger groups of people are involved, such as the large racial majority of a certain society. In order to maintain harmony in an extremely diverse society, Singapore’s law includes the Sedition Act that allows individuals who release potentially offensive and sensitive material that may harm the feelings of certain groups or individuals to be charged and dealt with by the court. This Act has been subjected to criticism globally especially by groups and organisations that support the freedom of speech. Amos Yee, a 17-year-old teenager who had sparked debate for his offensive videos insulting Christianity and the nation’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, has been facing charges under the Sedition Act. The imprisonment of Amos Yee had gained international attention, where organisations like Amnesty International criticised the country’s lack of freedom of speech, and even students in Hong Kong had protested and demanded his release. The cost of freedom of speech is deemed to be too much for the Singapore government, citing disharmony among the people to be a major detrimental consequence. The success of the restriction of freedom of speech is as evident in the low number of racially or religiously-driven crime, and the ability of the people to live together in harmony despite their differences. This is significant as in other countries, Islamophobia is rampant, while in Singapore, racism is relatively minimal. Islamophobia in other countries such as the United States has brought about great displeasure and disharmony among the people of diverse groups, with many terrorist attacks being motivated by their differences as brought to light by openly expressed racism and discrimination. As such, the costs may be too overbearing, making the restriction of freedom of speech more crucial.

Especially with globalisation where people of different cultures are often being brought together, being sensitive to one another’s differences would be crucial to the harmony of society. In countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, the society is made up of people of many different ethnicities, making mutual respect more significant and important. Freedom of speech may potentially harm the peace of the country. Additionally, with the extensive use of the Internet and social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, people tend to express their opinions online. Such opinions may have a great reach as anyone with access to the Internet despite being on the other side of the globe would be able to view and respond to such opinions both positively and negatively. The cost is that there may not be only domestic conflict, but also an international conflict that may be potentially destructive to political harmony and peace among countries. Hence the restriction of freedom of speech is crucial. While the costs of freedom of speech may be hefty, it should not be completely restricted. People should be entitled to their opinions, but to verbalise them especially if they are sensitive could be harmful. There are of course benefits to the freedom of speech such as offering alternative viewpoints that may well be absent especially in authoritarian regimes. In my opinion, however, the freedom of being able to have a peace of mind and to feel respected in society triumphs over freedom of speech as freedom of speech can often twist views and opinions to become offensive, making misunderstandings extremely common. With certain restrictions placed on speech freedom, there will be greater peace and unity for all. Freedom of speech hence should be protected only to a small extent due to the great consequences and impact it may bring.

The popularity of a leader is necessary. How far do you agree?

In the wake of 2016’s Trump’s road to the Presidency of the United States, many are now left questioning whether a good leader should always be popular as populism has shown us that popularity can result in decisions that are likely to be deemed as unwise in the future. Whether or not a leader is deemed to be good should be measured by their popularity but by the actions the individual display and his or her own conduct. Hence, I am a strong believer the popularity of a leader is necessary and do not agree with the statement.

Opponents of my view would argue that popularity reflects the will of the people and the leader is thus considered good because he is their voice. They even exclaim that a good leader needs to be popular to push forth their agenda against dissent from other sections of society. In the case of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his popularity allowed him to stand firm against the backdrop of an ever-increasing dissent towards migrants and even push through with his desire to welcome more migrants into Canada. Of course, the fact that his father was also a former Prime Minister surely also helped elevate his position against opponents calling for a more conservative approach to their immigration policy after witnessing the backlash in other western countries as a result of a lax immigration policy. Yet his popularity with the masses not only ensured his policy is not jeopardised but it also reflects the warm welcoming attitude of Canadians towards migrants. In this aspect, he is a clear example of a popular good leader as his actions are not affected by xenophobia and also represents the will of the people who elected his party into power. Henceforth one can see why these opponents would argue that a good leader should always be popular.

However, Trudeau is a rare case of a popular good leader in the world today as populism tends to pick candidates that much differ from the definition of good, let alone a leader. While a good leader may have been popular at the start, changing sentiments during the leader’s time in power may result in their popularity dipping. Yet it would be unfair to brand them as poor leaders simply because they were not as popular as before. When former US President Obama came into power, he was very popular among the majority of Americans, even among Republicans, as he was the first black President which symbolised a new era where politics is not dominated by white males. During his governance however, he enacted bills such as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and blocked the construction of the Keystone Pipeline XL. His decisions made him fall out with certain members of society as many did not like the idea of having to pay more premiums on insurance due to the ACA and subsequently led to his popularity diminishing from those who, otherwise, would have paid less on insurance. Even though this act was not popular, it has helped to insure many Americans, so much so that by the end of his Presidency the number of uninsured Americans were at its lowest ever in history, at around 7%. He also saved the American economy from the brink of collapse in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis by increasing government spending and thus national debt, something many fiscal conservatives such as Bill O’Reilly detested and lost popularity within these segments. His actions may not have appreciated by the rich who would have been able to weather through the storm but it helped millions of Americans to get back into the workforce. He is, in this case, undoubtedly a good leader as the forsaken his popularity in exchange for policies that helped the people. The effects of his decisions may not have been appreciated then but surely in the future we would look back and say he has done well. In fact, the recent rejection of ‘Trumpcare’ by Republicans themselves shows that they understand how beneficial the ACA is to their voters. Hence a good leader need not always be popular as some of their decisions to do the right thing will inevitably rile up certain segments of society despite these decisions being done in the best interest of the people.

A good leader should also demonstrate valued qualities such as empathy and being determined, and popularity in this case would be relative to whoever is being asked an opinion of the leader. A local example would be that of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Yes, he is a figure worshipped back here as he is someone seen by many as the sole person who oversaw the rapid transformation of Singapore into the metropolis it is today. However, on the international stage opinions differ as to ensure the smooth transformation of the country, he and his party stifled political dissent and created a one-party state to rule over the masses. This is something frowned upon by many foreigners and critics overseas, especially in liberal western countries, as they value the freedom of speech. Although these critics may condemn his for such atrocities against the right to free speech, they cannot deny that he has been an effective leader as his iron-fist rule helped him to push forth is will for a corruption-free governing body while also one that seeks to include rather than exclude. The government he set up and ran focused on racial cohesion and the betterment of the lives of Singaporeans and made sure leaders are held accountable through being as transparent as possible. It is these qualities and policies that defined him as a good leader for not only was he responsible but also planned for a future without him in control and ensured successive leaders as equally good as he were, if not better. Thus, good leadership is not defined by popularity as it is the quintessential traits of integrity, empathy, and transparency – and the ability to turn words into action – that defines a good leader.

Finally, a good leader could be one which may not need to be popular at all. These are leaders a society needs rather than wants as they would push forth reforms that other would shy away from for it could jeopardise their careers. These are leaders that may go against certain conventions deeply embedded in society. For example, President Xi Jinping is one feared by many political elites for stamping out corruption in the Chinese Communist Party, something many officials benefitted from before he came into power. He further irritates the affluent in China by criticising their extravagant lifestyle. His governance is one which started out as highly unpopular for the incumbents in the politburo as many elites who benefitted from corruption were under close scrutiny. His strongman persona is one feared by the many other countries contesting in the South China Sea. This level of unpopularity does not mean his is a bad leader, rather the converse as he sought to stamp out corruption internally while externally pushed forth China’s national interest with unwavering might. He could be unpopular now with both outsiders and insiders alike but his actions surely benefitted China and is going to further benefit China in the future. Outsiders could potentially come to like him as he started many initiations such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank aimed to support the building of infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific region. Insiders will find that a less corrupt government is one which offers more opportunities that one can grab based on merit rather than based on connections. Hence through this example we can see that a good leader need not be one who is popular at all now.

In conclusion, although there are cases of good leaders being popular with the masses, these cases are far and few. This is simply because the desire to do good would inflict short term pain on those who have been wrong all this time and many would resist change, even if it is for the better. However, given time and greater understanding, I am sure we can come to appreciate just how good these leaders were and can disagree with the statement that ‘a good leader should always be popular’.

Is effective farming possible without science?

“Growing plants is both an art and a science”, commented late Californian horticulturist Davis Kennedy. I feel that this also applies to the farming of crops – plants that we grow for food. There are many aspects of agriculture. From the choice of crop, land and fertilizer to the manpower deployment or determination of the time to harvest – these are subsets of various disciplines, both technical and normative. It is rudimentary for any farmer worth his salt to be able to balance these aspects. Failure to do so would result in a less than ideal harvest. The effectiveness of farming is determined by the output harvested given a certain amount of input. In short, an effective farm employing effective farming techniques would be able to obtain a better harvest as compared to a less effective farm that uses less effective techniques. Of course, there are many forms of farming, ranging from growing crops to rearing fish and animals. There is even talk about farming in the context of accumulating contact information through the internet (phishing) or other means. However, this essay will put forth issues pertaining to subsistence farming, use of Genetically Modified (GM) crops and economies of scale. Also, we will be looking at the effectiveness of “effective” farming techniques and whether it is desirable to be “effective” in the first place.

Subsistence farming exists in many of the developing nations such as Indonesia and the Philippines. These farmers use traditional farming techniques that are passed down to them through their parents or older generations. Based on these skills, they go about planting crops for their own consumption, selling their surplus. Over the many years of experience toiling in their small farms, these farmers would devise their own modified techniques based on their experience, in order to improve their crop yield. Given the little education these farmers receive, their techniques do not have any scientific basis and are largely trial and error based. An article written in June 2005’s issue of the TIME magazine highlighted the plight of Sumatra subsistence farmers. Although the issue in the debate was the problem with “slash and burn” associated with subsistence farming, it has brought to light certain insights about the farmer’s lives that are relevant to this essay. It was noted in the article that many families start subsistence farming in their backyard which ranged between 10 to 500 square metres. They usually do so either because of poverty and hence the inability to buy food or simply because their parents have passed down the farm to them. Given the small size of these farms, it is not feasible to use elaborate machineries like combine harvesters or diesel-powered tractors. . Even if the farmers had wanted to do so, they usually lacked the financial means. Consequently, their production methods cannot be scaled up to be comparable to large commercial farms. Their inability to exploit large economies of scale hence results in these subsistent farms being less efficient. However, if we consider the fixed, minuscule size of the farms, it becomes evident that it is unfair to make such a comparison. Subsistence farmers primarily farm to provide food for their families and perhaps to make a small living out of selling the surpluses. Hence, farmers are able to maximize the capacity of their small plot of land in a manner that produces the most output given the constrained resources. Hence it can be said that these farming techniques, despite not having any scientific backing, are efficient.

Arguably, subsistence farming does in a way use science, much to the farmers’ ignorance. Take for instance the use of animal waste as compost. Unmistakably, such fertilizers wouldn’t even exist without simple biological or chemical explanations. Many of the subsistent farmers are simply unaware that it is the insignificant bacteria present in the compost that makes all the difference. Neither are they bothered to find out since they are by no chance running a research facility. Thus, indirectly, subsistence farming still employs various scientific disciplines.

“Farming is all about economics”, commented Hugh Grant during a press conference about Monsanto’s latest “Roundup” seeds in 2004. As with any firm, the aim is to maximize profits. In other words, the objective of the firm is to operate in a manner such that the highest amount of revenue will be obtained by spending the lowest amount of money or resources. To many economists, this is a perfectly efficient scenario. Although such utopic conditions are rarely, if ever, fulfilled in real life, most large firms with the proper management do get close. Apart from the rudimentary scientific knowledge involved in the farming process, leadership is key. With the right leadership come the right decisions. Key decision-making processes greatly affect how a firm will perform. Likewise, the lack of proper direction and management translates to inefficiency which compromises the farm’s harvests and output. With a farm as large as Monsanto’s, we are looking at hundreds of square kilometres worth of agricultural area. Manpower comes in the hundreds or thousands. With such a vast scope for the management to handle, allocation of resources and deployment of manpower must be nothing less than optimal. Anything less and the consequence is simply the loss of productivity which would imply a loss in revenue due to poorer harvests. Therefore, when large farms are concerned, it is more than just science that ensures effective farming.

GM technology has all the hype of late. To some, it signifies pulling the starvation plug. To others, it is the epitome of disaster. Amidst intense debates in two opposing camps, GM Organisms or GMOs are touted by advocates to increase the quality and quantity of crops or reared animals. While there is scientific evidence of this positive outcome, critics of GMOs cite potential long term potential dangers of GMOs. Improvements in the quality of the crop, such as Golden Rice, which has beta carotene are said to solve problems in third world countries where vitamin A deficiency is a significant issue. Improvements in yield or quantify is evident in BT Corn, where corn is made to be pest resistant, thereby preventing crop damage from pests. This will therefore boost the yield of the crop, allowing the farmer to obtain a better harvest as opposed to normal corn, which will be wiped out by caterpillars. In either case, putting aside problems relating to GMOs, we can see that the use of GMOs can increase the productivity of a farm, thereby making farming effective. Hence, farming can be made more effective with the use of science.

After looking at issues relating to effective farming, it can be concluded that farming can only be effective through the use of science, or be made more efficient through scientific technology. However, we should be cautious not to be obsessed with science such that we examine it as the only factor affecting food supply. In the modern context, the government has a large role to play in ensuring the food supply. Stockpiling is practised in many countries for a variety of reasons. One of the main aims of such a policy is to ensure price stability for farmers since a good harvest leads to excess supply, which will cause prices to dip if left to market forces. The government acts to intervene by buying up the excess to maintain a price such that farmers’ incomes do not fall drastically. These stockpiles will then be put up for sale in a period of crop shortage, such as due to freak weather damaging crops, to prevent food prices from spiking. Sounds like a perfect plan? If only it were that simple. Effective farming would only increase the supply of crops which will force the government to siphon more of its budget for stockpiling. When too many stockpiles accumulate, the government will simply dispose of it as it would be the simplest solution. In summary, we should seek to question the objective of farming in the first place, rather than focusing on making Farming more and more effective. Effective farming may appear to be the ultimate solution to food problems. But in reality, with policies like stockpiling, effective farming through the use of science may cause society to be worse off than when less effective techniques were employed.