Month: February 2017

‘To tell our own secrets is folly; to communicate those of others is treachery.’ Should we ever reveal the secrets of others?

In the words of the French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” This quotation from The Little Prince sheds light on one particular slant towards secrets: that they are meant to stay forever hidden, sequestered in the depths of our minds. However, no book comes without its critics. This seemingly innocuous quote makes the assumption that all of one’s hidden thoughts and unconveyed desires are benign and “serve as a moral compass”. The stark reality is that one’s intentions are rarely if ever so benevolent, but almost always tainted with the selfish and even injurious manifestations of the human condition. Those who choose to harbour such illicit desires or not benevolent intentions are certain to argue that secrets should never be revealed, for revealing such crucial snippets of information infringes on the right to privacy and harms the one whose secrets are exposed- them- giving rise to accusations of treachery and unfaithfulness. However, it is more important to consider that revealing such secrets allows us to glean invaluable learning outcomes, is justified, and can possibly save lives.

The first argument typically forwarded by those who feel that secrets are personal, private, and never to be revealed is that such an act would be a blatant violation of one’s right to privacy. Privacy, which has now come to be seen as a basic right, is highly regarded as it is needed to retain confidential information, and by keeping such information out of the hands of others, one is ostensibly safer from their prying eyes. An oft-cited example would be Facebook, the social media megalith which syphons users’ priceless personal data to be sold to other companies. Yet another instance would be Google, the multi-billion dollar search engine that engages in similar practices, with over 1.5 billion users daily. In spite of their functionality, they have been greatly impugned for such covert stealing of data, which transgresses their users’ right to privacy. The strong flak faced by the Patriot Act implemented by the US after the 11 September 2001 attacks also echoes the public sentiment that secrets are never to be revealed, not even to the government. The invasive nature of these large public entities is one of the central arguments against the exposure of personal secrets, for under them one cannot feel secure having their information in the databases of hundreds of companies one has never even heard of.

Yet another attack on the exposure of secrets is that they invariably harm the one whose secrets are made accessible to others. This is typically because any leaked information quickly devolves into mere gossip as it spreads through the grapevine. The perhaps initially harmless bits of information could quickly turn into an ugly fiasco of groundless accusations. One such example would be the 2016 US elections, which were greatly besmirched by the spreading of personal secrets of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, with the gossip surrounding her ranging from incriminating tax audits to the simply ludicrous and non-existent Pizzagate scandal. Such is proof that the exposure of secrets will lead to the sullying of others’ reputations, for Hillary Clinton ultimately lost to the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. The profound and manifold implications the revealing of secrets has on others include the ruining of their public image, a significant harm which contributes to the notion that unconveyed information ought to remain that way forever.

On the other hand, it is indisputable that the sharing of others’ secrets can offer us invaluable insights, be it into the lives of others or of societies as a remarkable whole. This is particularly because unarticulated opinions and sentiments may sometimes reveal the white elephant in the room- egregious truths that need to be tackled but are sidestepped by virtually everyone. The uncovering of such secrets would then be of immense benefit, as they reveal volumes about the state of society amongst a milieu of other learning outcomes. Anne Frank, a young Jewish girl who died during the horrific Holocaust perpetrated by Hitler’s Nazi Germany, kept detailed accounts of her daily affairs and her insights into the vast persecution of minorities and the anti-Semitic attitudes then. All of this was journaled into her private diary, definitely a body of her opinions that would comprise hidden secrets amongst other things. Even decades after her passing, the insights she has written about the Holocaust regarding the horrors of war and the preservation of human rights are still taught in schools and remembered by millions of children. Secrets should thus be revealed as they have immeasurable value, being capable of enlightening us on core human values that form an integral part of our lives.

Moreover, the exposure of secrets has already become synonymous with justice, as no criminal justice system in any functioning society could possibly do without such a fundamental tool. The revealing of secrets, in this instance, would be particularly necessary in order for true justice to exist within societies. During lawsuits, the prosecution and especially witnesses are legally bound to reveal truthful information. Any deviation or non-cooperation warrants stiff penalties and punishments. Without a doubt, such an enumeration of incriminating data would be uncovering the secrets and misdeeds of the defendant. Regardless, without such testimony in court, no trialled criminals can truly be brought to justice, allowing them to escape with impunity. Societies will descend into chaos and anarchy in a world where secrets are never to be told to others because the legal justice system would lose its operational capacity in totality.

Perhaps the most cogent line of argumentation in favour of having people being cognizant of others’ secrets is how it might be essential to preserve human lives- not one, not hundreds, but thousands. Only by exposing critical information of others containing plans to inflict harm on vast populations can preventive action be taken in order to protect the people of a nation. This is particularly true in wartime situations and even terrorist attacks. The US has been known to perform enhanced interrogation techniques on captured terrorists in order to force them to reveal life-saving, time-sensitive information. Such measures have saved countless lives from the devastating blow of a terrorist attack. During World War 2, rebel groups comprising prisoners of war and civilians in Nazi-Germany captured countries were integral in helping Allied forces defeat the Axis powers, as the information these rebel groups purveyed provided the Allied forces with critical insights necessary to force Germany out of its invaded territories, thus ending the war far sooner and save the lives of millions who would otherwise have died catastrophically in the brutality of the war. Since the dissemination of such crucial information of others is so valuable for its power to end wars, save lives, and preserve human dignity, there are definitely instances when secrets have to be revealed.

Should the death penalty be used to punish violent criminals?

The death penalty’s validity has been debated by many countries for decades. Out of 150 countries, about 80 of them have abolished the death penalty, as these countries often share the sentiment that it is a violation of human rights. Yet others maintain the view that it is necessary for violent criminals, such as murderers, to be put to death, for the good of society. I believe that the death penalty should be used to punish violent criminals since the harm that they cause deserves a fitting punishment.

Firstly, violent criminals should be punished via the death penalty in order to serve as a form of deterrence. By sentencing such criminals to death, it is a demonstration of the consequences of committing the crimes they did and highlighting the severity of their crimes. Thus, it discourages people in a country from thinking of committing similar crimes, or from committing them in the first place, thus reducing the possibility of people becoming victims of violent crimes. Additionally, it serves as a warning to foreigners who are visiting countries that enforce the death penalty to not commit crimes punishable by death in those countries, reducing the probability of foreigners hurting others within those countries. For example, Kho Jabing, a Malaysian man who killed a coworker in Singapore in 2010, was hanged in 2016 despite his Malaysian lawyers pleading for a life sentence instead of execution. Hence, it can be seen as a warning to citizens of other countries to refrain from committing such crimes in Singapore, and as a form of deterrence. Therefore, the death penalty ought to be used for punishing violent criminals.

Secondly, the death penalty for violent criminals can be seen as a form of justice, for the victims of violent crimes, as well as their families. Violent crimes such as murder (attempted murder and actual murder) and rape can cause lasting psychological damage – on victims who survived the violent crimes, and on the families of both living and deceased victims, severely reducing their quality of life and violating their human rights. The death penalty’s usage to punish violent criminals will often be of comfort to living victims and victims’ families, giving them hope that the one who brought so much pain and suffering will not get away scot-free. Humans are often vengeful by nature, and there is a sense of gratification in seeing these criminals get their ‘deserved’ comeuppance. For instance, in the case of Jeffery Dahmer, who murdered and sexually assaulted the corpses of his victims – all of which were young males, aged 14 to 28 – he was not sentenced to death, but instead jailed for life, greatly upsetting the families of his victims. In my opinion, he should have been punished via the death penalty for his senseless acts of violence; his jail term did not do justice for his victims. Thus the death penalty should indeed be used to punish violent criminals.

Human rights advocates, however, often argue that the death penalty, even when used on violent criminals, is a violation of the rights of such criminals. Since they are human, they are entitled to human rights, and the death penalty violates Article 3 of the United Nations (UN) Declaration of Human Rights – the right to live. Additionally, while most methods of execution are designed to be as quick and painless as possible, executions can often be botched, such as in the August 2014 execution of Clayton Lockett, who shot and buried alive a 19-year-old girl (who eventually died) and raped her friend. Although he was to die via lethal injection, as sentenced by the court in the United States of America, he took 43 minutes to die as compared to the normal 2-3 minutes. This was because the first injection failed, while the second injection took over 16 tries due to the executioner being unable to insert the needle – which was the wrong size. As a result, Lockett suffered excruciating pain until death from the chemical coursing through his body, alongside the needle pricking him numerous times. This prolonging of his execution, albeit unintentional, was seen as a violation of Article 5 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, that no one should be tortured. Thus it is often argued that no matter how violent and terrible the crimes were, such criminals should not be executed due to human rights and the possibility of them suffering from botched or prolonged executions.

Nevertheless, I hold my view that violent criminals should be punished by the death penalty since these criminals forfeited their human rights when they hurt others in their crimes. In the case of murderers, for example, since the murderers have taken the lives of others, violating the victims’ human rights in the process, they no longer have the right to be human in the first place. In a June 2016 survey in Singapore, conducted on 1,160 Singaporeans, over 80% approved the use of the death penalty, citing reasons such as the fact that those who commit violent crimes have given up their humanity as a key factor to them showing approval for the death penalty. Even with the possibility of the execution being accidentally prolonged due to mistake, it could be said that this is ‘karma’, since they have hurt others and made them suffer, their own deaths should be painful as well. Hence, violent criminals should be punished via the death penalty for their inhumane actions even (and especially) if they suffer during the execution process.

It has also been argued that the death penalty gives no opportunity for these violent criminals to atone for their crimes, as it takes their lives away – if they were still living, they would be able to repent (if they were truly remorseful). Humans, having the ability to show mercy and compassion, should do so as often as possible, and using the death penalty, no matter how ‘justifiable’ due to the severity of the crimes, could possibly be considered ‘evil’.

While the argument that the taking away of the opportunity for atonement is true, it is also highly unlikely that someone who committed a violent crime would be remorseful – in many cases, their intent to inflict harm was present and thus they would not regret committing the crime. The death penalty can also be considered a ‘necessary evil’, in order to maintain the peace of a society. Since good governments have the responsibility to do what is right and beneficial for the country, using the death penalty to punish violent criminals would be necessary for the good of the majority. Hence I believe that the death penalty should be used to punish violent criminals.

Not all violent crimes, in reality, are punishable by death. For instance, some sex crimes and domestic abuse are considered violent crimes, yet those convicted are not punished via the death penalty. As of now, the death penalty is often used on violent criminals only when their actions caused deaths, and even so, they may only get life sentences. All in all, I hope that it will be more recognised that the death penalty should be used to punish violent criminals and that it will be extended to crimes where severe violence has been carried out and the victims are still alive.

‘Being a politician today is more difficult than ever.’ What is your view?

In democratic societies, a politician is the appointed representative of citizens through the electoral process. Politicians hold an important and pivotal role in the society by voicing out citizens’ thoughts and demands to the country, hence their jobs are often regarded as herculean tasks. However, it is argued that being a politician is no longer a challenging task since they can easily garner support from the citizens through the introduction of populist policies. Nevertheless, it is an erroneous assumption that all will be enticed by such policies – instead, more citizens are well-informed and educated, making politician’s jobs more difficult in terms of meeting the higher demands of citizens. Furthermore, in the modern-day context where the world is hyperconnected, politicians need to deal with economic vulnerabilities, diplomatic relationships and the rising threat of terrorism so as to justify their political legitimacy. Therefore, being a politician today is more difficult than ever.

Some posit that being a politician may not be a very challenging task compared to the past, due to the emergence of populism in recent years. Populist policies refer to the set of ‘popular’ policies, which sound attractive yet may not be the ‘right’ set of policies for the country, such as simply reducing the personal income tax without a reduction in government expenditure. Still, it can be seen that more of the populist leaders are supported by the citizens, enabling them to garner support easily from the masses and secure their position as people’s representatives. A notable example could be the new president of the United States, Donald Trump, who pledged to build a wall between the borders of Mexico and the United States. His promises are unrealistic, yet people who were discontented with Mexicans working in the United States and losing their jobs supported him during the presidential elections. Hence, regardless of the implementation of the populist policies, the rise of populism makes it easier for politicians to gain mass support and secure their political position, thus making it seem as if being a politician today is no longer very difficult.

However, such argument does not hold water and it is rather myopic to assume that all citizens are enticed by such populist policies – more citizens are educated and well-informed as the society progresses, which makes politicians’ jobs more demanding. As the general standard of living improves, thanks to the rising affluence, more citizens are discerning and are able to weigh the pros and cons of the policies politicians pledge. Hence, more citizens are able to make the right choices for the nation, as well as to have more demanding stance towards politicians. For example, in Singapore’s General Elections in 2011, the ruling party – the People’s Action Party – has received its lowest approval ratings of 66.6%, a 6.5% drop from the last election. Such huge drop in ratings represented how the educated Singaporeans felt unhappy with the party – the People’s Action Party was accused of having a sense of elitism and not catering to the needs of the ordinary citizens. This, after all, has affected the party’s political legitimacy, and the party had to regain the support by providing more humble measures, such as Singapore Conversations which enables Singapore citizens to be engaged in the policy-making process. Thus, being a politician today is a difficult task, and it is rather challenging than ever before due to the higher education level of the citizens.

In addition, it is more challenging to be a politician as they need to deal with the economic vulnerabilities associated with globalisation. The hyperconnected nature of the modern world resulted in greater possibilities of facing economic crises, such as the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 or the Eurozone Debt Crisis in 2009. Therefore, here is a greater need for politicians to address such economic issues and ensure the country is prepared for such situations so that they can still garner support from the citizens, unlike in the past where the countries had fewer possibilities of facing economic crises. For instance, Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe is implementing ‘Abenomics’ so as to tackle Japan’s deflation issue which persisted for the last two decades. If he is unable to solve this economic issue, it is likely that he is going to step down from his position, just as the past prime ministers, who stepped down due to their incompetencies. Thus, in this world of volatile economic situations where every country’s economy is interdependent of one another, politicians are indeed facing challenges in dealing with the economic crises.

Furthermore, politicians nowadays need to balance international and domestic affairs, which makes their jobs more difficult than ever. In this globalised world, it is important to maintain good relationships with other countries, but it is also absurd to solely focus on international relations as this may result in discontentment of the locals. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, was able to maintain relatively high approval ratings until she decided to adopt an open-door policy towards the migrants and accept the Syrian refugees. Even though her actions were lauded internationally, the locals were upset that they need to bear the high cost and societal problems associated with the influx of refugees. Another example would be the Japanese prime minister visiting Yasukuni Shrine, where the war criminals of the World War II are placed at. Even if his acts can please the Japanese citizens for honouring their war heroes, it provokes anti-Japanese sentiments in other countries such as South Korea and China. Thus, it is more difficult for politicians to either prioritise good international standing or support from their own citizens in this interconnected world.

Lastly, the rise of terrorism across the world makes it challenging for politicians as they need to protect citizens from greater terrorism threats. The rise of Islamic fundamentalists has resulted in rampant terrorist attacks taking place, which makes it difficult for the government to ensure the safety of its citizens. For instance, the latest terrorist attack at Ariana Grande’s concert in Manchester, United Kingdom shows that every civilian is prone to terrorist attack and that no place in the world is entirely safe from such threats. There is the greater task assigned to the government as this issue is difficult to tackle – simply preventing Islamic extremists or the supporters of the Islamic State from entering the country does not help when there is home-grown terrorism, where the people are self-radicalised and commit lone-wolf attacks, such as the Westminster attack by Khalid Masood. Such forms of terrorist attacks are almost impossible to detect. Thus, since the government has the duty to protect its own citizens from threats but it is becoming increasingly more difficult to do so in today’s globalised world, politicians face a more difficult task as ever before.

In conclusion, being a politician is indeed a herculean task as he needs to deal with more demands from his own citizens as well as those from other countries, signifying the importance of good leadership. However, citizens also hold an important role in choosing the right leaders who can combat such domestic and international issues. Therefore, people need to exercise their voting rights more wisely for the sake of the country’s brighter future – the practising of just responsibilities will ensure their rights to be protected.

We Worship the Young and Scorn the Old. What Is Your Opinion?

It is not deniable that today majority of attention is focused on the youth of society. Walk by any bus stop or open up any newspaper and there are young models printed all over the pages and billboard. The emphasis we place on the youth of our society is to an extent that we completely neglect the older generation of our society. There are several cases where the older generation is denied jobs or are discriminated against at the workplace. All this might prove that we scorn the old, however, it is important to remember that the older generations contribute to society in their own ways.

The youth are believed to be the future of our society and this is reflected in our fascination with the young people. It is important that the older generation is given the same importance and the emphasis is shifted from youth to youthfulness. However, this is not being practised in today’s society where people believe that the young are interesting and the older people should be done away with because they do not bring any novelty in the society. The mindset of people and society proves that we scorn the old, and create hindrance in the way of the older generation to prove their worth in society.

The media is also responsible for promoting these attitudes where the younger generation is given too much attention while none is given to the older generation. For instance in Singapore the leading newspaper The Straits Times has a whole page intended only for the youth while there are no such devoted pages for the older generation. One reason for this attention to the youth can be attributed to the fact that they are considered the future of society. On the other hand, the only news which features the older generation is their abandonment from their own homes or lack of job opportunities. This exactly reflects the conditions in our society and how we scorn the old. On the other hand, the younger generation is given significant importance while the old people are neglected completely.

In spite of this, believing that the older generation is only neglected is completely disingenuous and can lead us to biased views. It cannot be forgotten that media has to feature young and fresh faces in newspapers, TV and magazines because they lead to great profits. On a surface level, these issues portray the youth of society but if one looks closely then there are articles for the older generation sometimes which provide them with plans on how to save money after retirement. One of the reasons for not having a place in these features can also be because of their constant lifestyle which is not very newsworthy. But all this does not insinuate that the older generation is idle and inactive, and therefore completely disregarded by society, it’s just that they contribute to society in other ways and are occupied with activities that do not always feature in the media. For instance, in Australia, there are many activities conducted by the elderly and their pleasurable amity is enjoyed by all. The older generation has abundant knowledge about skills which are lost today like knitting, the younger generation turns to the older generation for learning these skills. Hence, it is not true that we scorn the old, many believe that they are a vital part of our society and are respected.

Though the youth is believed to be the future of society, they are still immature and need the guidance of the older generation. It is often seen that the youth often commit mistakes and sometimes even indulge in anti-social behaviour, this even leads to taint their image as the representatives of our society. The rash behaviour is often criticised by the older generation, these objections are often interpreted by the younger generation as finicky views which obstruct their liberty and preferences. However, the views of the old are not finicky as they speak from their experience and have passed through the stage of youth too. We scorn the old and do not respect their opinions. The older generation has a grain of truth in their concerns but their statements are not taken seriously by the youth today and their concern for the youth is interpreted as troublesome. Hence, older people have a lot of wisdom which if taken seriously by the youth can benefit them in a long term.

In spite of the popularity the youth have gained in society, it is irrefutable that the older generation has contributed to society immensely. Many countries have started to understand the benefits of the older generation and how their skills can be helpful to the youth. Many countries like Britain have policies that safeguard the rights of the elderly. While Singapore Airlines continues to hire young girls to boost its business, there is British Airways which still gives importance to experience and has a staff that has proven themselves these attendants are not young like the Singapore Girl but have more experience and knowledge than them. In times of emergency, the older attendants are considered to be a preferred choice because of their confident attitude and experience. Unfortunately, there are companies that remove their employees once they are not young anymore. Many replace the older generation’s wisdom with the young generation’s new ways in the companies. In this way, we scorn the old, even after their significant contribution to their workplace. It is important that the companies make policies which enable the young generation and the old to work together so that both can learn something from each other. However, many companies do not understand this and therefore not many policies like these exist. Hence, it is important that the old and the young generation are given a chance to work with each other as they both can bring different perspectives to the workplace.

In conclusion, it is important to understand that both the old and the new generations are given importance as both are a vital part of society. The younger generation should understand that the older generation has many pearls of wisdom and should take every opportunity to learn from them. It is also important that the older generation also takes into consideration the views of the young generation to keep up with the new generation and form a fresh and innovative perspective on things.