April 2017 — Gp Lah!

Is ambition always good?

Ambition, in its purest form, is the desire for success and the driver for individuals, organisations, and governments alike in achieving excellence. Ambition holds no limits and no one is spared from its intoxicating allure. The desire to become successful, the yearning for the betterment of others. These are all ambition common to us, humans. Ambition in itself is neither good or bad, but the effects are. While it does drive people to work harder, it could also cause people to suffer. It drives societies forward but in its wake, ruthlessness is also born in order to achieve the desired outcome. While I agree that ambition is good for the most part, I would not say that it has always been good as in some instances, ambition serves as a detriment rather than a force for good.

To individuals, ambition has always been defined as the hunger to succeed to attain the future one envisage. Ambition festers in the soul of the average person wanting to be something more than himself – to give himself either verification of his existence or to strive to reach the very limits of excellence. It has given us many greats of our time, from Muhammad Ali in boxing to Lionel Messi in football. These athletes exemplified how ambition can be the force for good individually as their ambition help them to pull themselves out of dark times and propelled them into the forefront of success. Lionel Messi was born with a gene that prevented him from growing taller, which could have ended his sporting career as it was a perceived norm for players to be of a certain height to be effective in playing football. His ambition to prove his doubters wrong and the ambition to achieve greatness despite the setback launched him to the pinnacle of excellence of sports, where he is now regarded as one of the greatest ever to have graced football. This goes to show that ambition is good as it pushes one to overcome his own setback, regardless of what it is, and is the catalyst for individual success as not only did Messi become what he set out to be, he also broke the perceived norm that athletes need to be tall. He paved the way for many others who may not be tall to equally have a chance in sports by serving as their inspiration. Hence it can be seen that ambition is good for individuals, and even those around them as it is the driver for people to achieve excellence.

Ambition in organisations too can be a great force for good not just for the firm but for their customers too. Ambition, when placed in this context, could be seen as the desire to conquer industries or challenge existing powerhouses or to stay at the top of the food chain for incumbents. For instance, Apple was founded on the very desire to break into a market dominated by giants such as IBM. Steve Jobs had infected the company with his ambition of making Apple great by challenging IBM’s stranglehold on the personal computer industry. This manifested in Apple coming up with the Apple 1 as a direct competitor to IBM’s computers at the time at a reasonable price point to attract customers away from IBM. In this instance, the ambition was a force for good for the organisation as its hunger to break into the market gave it the ability to innovate and come up with products that customers want, giving it a foothold in the industry. Even now, that same ambition lingers in the company which helps it to post-high levels of profits and make it one of the world’s most valuable companies. The benefits of ambition by the organisation is not just confined to within the company but also ripples down to the consumers too. People are given a greater variety of products to choose from, all at a lower price due to competition hence are much more satisfied. Hence this shows that the ambition of organisations is good as it benefits both the organisation and the masses.

Ambition is also good as it is a vital ingredient for governments to succeed. This ambition takes shape in the form of the state wanting to better the wellbeing of her people and brings about economic prosperity. A great example would be that of Singapore and her founding father Lee Kuan Yew. It is hard to imagine nowadays that Singapore was a developing country a mere fifty years ago without the skyscrapers and the multinational companies on her shores. This would not have been possible had it not been for the ambition of the late Mr Lee and his government to transform the country. Conventional governments would have pandered to national pride to grow their support in anticipation of their next election, but Mr Lee’s government’s focus was to ride the wave of meritocracy to bring about economic prosperity to the country. We could have kept our resentment towards the Japanese close to our hearts, or continued sobbing over Malaysia’s decision to kick us out of Malaysia, but it was because of our ambition and our desire to survive that we did not let our emotions get the better of us and instead stayed objective. The government warmed relations with Japan which allowed for huge capital inflows into the country to build the nation. We showed no hostility towards Malaysia and in return, they sold us potable water for survival. This is all due to the ambition of the government to survive and succeed and now we reap the rewards centuries later while our government continues to have that same level of ambition to help us stay relevant in the world today. Hence ambition is good for governments as it helps them to stay objective and bring out prosperity to her people.

However, to merely say ambition is always good would be myopic as with all issues, there are two sides to the story and ambition is no exception. While ambition is a driver for a cause, it will inevitably result in sacrifices being made in other areas to achieve that cause. Going back to the example of Singapore, ambition drove the country to economic prosperity but it also led to the stifling of the local political scene. In order to push forth the government’s agenda and better the country, Singapore has effective been a one-party state since her inception. Resentment or opposition had been dealt with an iron fist by the founding fathers in the form of libel lawsuits or control of the freedom of speech. This was due to the ambition of creating economic prosperity and its trade-off for a small country like Singapore was the vibrancy of the local political scene. Investors desire stability and we duly delivered by covering our mouths with tape in exchange for money and shut the mouths of others who try to speak out and potentially jeopardise the inflow of capital. In this case, ambition has been a bane as it destroyed the opposition in our country and prevented the checks and balances of power. We were lucky in that the People’s Action Party ran a corruption-free government and did not seek to exploit the lack of an opposition to exercise their powers uncontrollably to enrich themselves. In the international scene, however, our model has legitimised the use of a one-party state to run a country due to our success as seen by Russian President Putin’s praise of Singapore and his alleged ambition to emulate our success. This will not bode well for Russians in general as his government is a kleptocracy and his ‘ambition’ is only used as a pretext to legitimise his abuse of power – something we may have contributed to due to our success with the system. Hence ambition, in this case, is not good as it entails trade-offs vital to keep a check of power while inadvertently may provide as a convenient excuse for others to achieve their ulterior motives.

Furthermore, individual and organisational ambition could be of detriment to society if the ambition is of malice. Ambition is a double-edged sword and it is wielder who ultimately decides whether is it used for good. The past has seen many who used ambition to leverage on their desire for excellence but history shows us that ambition has also been a tool for destruction. Memories of World War 2 still linger in the minds of the survivors while the sins committed by Hitler continues to haunt Germany even today. Hitler, in his time, was ambitious and wanted to save Germany from her economic freefall and her loss of pride. However, unlike the relatively more pacified approach Mr Lee employed with Singapore, Hitler chose to do the opposite and pursued that path of a warmonger to ‘cleanse Europe.’ From waging unnecessary wars to wanting to play the role of God via creating the pure Aryan, his ambition lied in all the wrong reasons. His ambition was clouded with hate and the people too – disillusioned by the shame the Allies brought to them – were galvanised by his ambition and inflicted suffering on the Jews to alleviate their own pain which led to the Kristallnacht before the floodgates opened. His ambition to cause harm on others took his actions even further such as building concentration camps to inflict maximum suffering on the Jews, stripping them of their dignity as humans and their right to live. This goes to show that ambition can be employed wrongly as well and compared to good ambition being the spark to eventual success, this form of ambition spreads like wildfire which will inevitably burn down all before it, leaving nothing behind. It brings civilisations down the path of self-destruction and is the premonition of death for many others unrelated to that society. Hence ambition in its ugliest form is the grim reaper for innocent lives and it being bad is a severe understatement.

In conclusion, ambition is neither wholly good or bad. It is just a means to an end and if used correctly, it creates wonders but if used wrongly, it destroys. To say that it is always good is to be delusional while claiming it is always bad is perhaps being too pessimistic. I am for one who believes in ambition being mostly good but is not oblivious to the nastier side of what it may bring about too. Hence while I find that ambition is largely good, it can be folly in other instances.

In what ways does a country both benefit and suffer from where it is situated?

A country’s geographical site is something that is of great significance, however, it can never be changed. A country has no way of deciding where she is located. Depending on beliefs, location is decided by a supreme being or sheer luck. Location can be an asset or a liability to a country depending on the exact nature of the location. Some countries have been submerged in water, others have been mired in war for years and some are located strategically along with trade travel hub. However, given the level of technology today, coupled with factors such as good governance, it is possible to mitigate the effects of poor location in certain situations.

A country with a good location would be a country that is not landlocked, is accessible to good trade routes and natural resources.

A country can gain from her location if she is in close proximity with other countries and they cooperate. This being the case helps to encourage trade and security cooperation which are two important factors that help to build and safeguard a country. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) and the European Union(EU) are international organizations that carry out the gains mentioned earlier. To illustrate, to bolster security measures, member countries of ASEAN signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, which spelt out the basic principles for their relations with one another and the conduct of the association’s programme for cooperation. In a similar manner, to maximise their influence on the international scene, on trade matters, EU members speak with one voice. In addition, EU members have removed all tariffs on trade when trading with fellow members, in order to boost trade. These examples demonstrate how countries can benefit from their location if they work hand in hand with the countries that are in close proximity.

However, just as close proximity can help a country, it can also bring about the harm such as increased tensions and even conflict. Such is the case of the boundary disputes between India and China. India and China have yet to resolve their dispute over large land areas such as Aksai Chin, a territory that China seized during the Sino-Indian War in 1962. In addition, close proximity due to the location of countries can bring about conflict over natural resources that are shared. A more recent example is the building of as many as 55 dams along the course of the Mekong river flowing through Indochina. This is especially damaging as the river meanders from China through Myanmar, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia. Thus, the lives of millions of people, not only those in Indochina, depend on it. This problem which will not be corrected in the near future has led to an increase in social and political tension between the lower Mekong countries and those in Indochina. This is an apt example of how close proximity arising from countries’ location can result in the sharing of natural resources and the subsequent increase in problems that the countries have to face.

Moving on, a country’s location determines the climate that the country experiences and the magnitude and frequency of natural disasters. Such factors are vital in determining if a country gains or loses. An example of a country that has prospered due to its good climate is Brazil. Climate suitable for agriculture has enabled Brazil’s agriculture sector to grow steadily over the past decade, positioning itself among the most dynamic sectors of the economy. Certainly, the growth is also fueled by the increase in the use of high technologies such as software to maximise the use of fertilizers and pesticides. However, the climate still plays an irreplaceable role in the agriculture sector. This is because, without a suitable climate, crops cannot prosper or survive even if large amounts of fertilizers are used. Hence this case shows how a country can gain from her good climate due to her good location.

In contrast, a country can suffer due to the geography and climate of the country. Problems include natural disasters or islands becoming submerged underwater and these problems can arise due to the location of the country. As the climate continues to warm, entire islands are sinking below rising waters due to melting glaciers. At least 18 islands have been submerged underwater. This problem is a result of the location of these islands. It is because these islands are located in low lying areas which is why the change in climate has resulted in them being submerged. This has brought about harm as whole communities have to be relocated, bringing about the advent of climate refugees. In addition, this has also caused much land to be no longer suitable for agriculture. This example shows the magnitude and how the location of a country can bring harm and loss.

On a separate note, it is important to note that while the location is significant, in this day and age, it is possible for good governance coupled with technology to mitigate the effects of a bad location. Landlocked countries such as Switzerland and San Marino are among the most stable and prosperous countries in the world. This shows that the most unfavourable geographical locations can be made prosperous by good policy. Apart from this, technology can also make geography irrelevant. Technology has enhanced communication and thus shrunk distances. Bangalore has become the software capital of India, with Hyderabad a close second. Both are land-locked, but satellite communications enable them to link up with cities anywhere in the world at low cost.

Location remains an important determinant of whether a country gains or loses. However, it has been shown that technology with good governance can conquer location. Hence while the location is vital, perhaps the gains and losses a country experiences also depends on the resolve of the people to use things available to their advantage and make their country prosperous.

To what extent does education meet the needs of your society?

Education has been present in our society for hundreds of years. However, it was only in the 18th century, after the industrial revolution that there was mass education. The purpose of education has evolved over the years from one that produces philosophers and prophets to one that imparts skills and knowledge to people so that they are able to meet the need of the society. The needs of society- peace, economic growth, stability and social welfare- are never stagnant, they are ever-evolving. While the highly regulated education system in Singapore has produced desirable results over the past fifty years, it has been slow to adapt to the changing needs of modern Singapore. The dawn of the fourth industrial revolution will very well render obsolete the rather stagnant system we use today. The nineteenth-century education system we use today will be unlikely to meet the changing needs of Singapore’s economic, social and political landscape.

Firstly, over the past fifty-years of self-governance, education in Singapore has been able to produce a well- educated population to face a rapidly globalising world. In the early 1990s, after Singapore’s independence, the goal of the city-state was to become a globalised country with a strong, vibrant economy with strong bilateral ties with countries around the globe. There was a problem- a lack of an educated population that is able to carry out routine work in factories and other sectors of the economy. To ensure that the island produces individuals with such skills, public schools were quickly built and the educated population rose exponentially, thereby satisfying the demand for workers. Without a doubt, the system was able to churn out highly educated workers to supplement the developing economy back then. By the early 2000s, Singapore has grown to become a sprawling metropolis, attracting large multinational corporations (MNCs) to its shores. Here’s the caveat, with the influx of MNCs, the economy is evolving from one that focuses on manufacturing to one that is diverse and require creativity. 21st century Singapore not only requires graduates, but also creative intellects who are innovative. The systematic education system that emphasises rote learning developed over the past fifty years has oppressed creativity and exploration. The system is, however, slow to change and right now, it is unable to meet changing societal needs. At Deputy Prime Minister Mr Tharman’s speech at Singapore Management University’s education fair this year, he emphasised the need for radical reforms in the education system. It may be irrevocable that education has met economic needs over the past 50 years, however, without change, it may be unable to fulfil society’s needs over the next 50 years.

In the same vein, education in Singapore has taught Singaporeans the importance of racial harmony, ensuring peace and stability within the cosmopolitan state. Singapore in the 1960s was plagued with racial and religious tensions. Social discord was commonplace, and riots among, different ethnic groups were not uncommon. The Maria Hertogh and 1969 racial riot between Chinese and Malays led to curfews and tensions within the tiny nation. There was a need to promote better understanding between different ethnic groups. The government tapped on education to do just that. Many public schools were set up by the government, providing a place for students of different ethnic groups to interact and learn together. Social Studies is mandatory where Singaporeans learn the importance of racial and religious harmony. The indoctrination of a need to interact with different races in youth created a population that is able to accept differences in the society. Notionally, education is able to achieve social harmony, an essential societal need in early Singapore, but not now, where many have already developed tolerance and acceptance of differences.

Nevertheless, while it is agreeable that education has satisfied the socioeconomic needs of Singapore over the past fifty years, it is flawed to think that it will transcend the next fifty years. The world is changing fast and our snail-paced education system is unlikely to meet the changing demands. Over the past five decades, education has not been able to solve a core problem in our society- equity. Income inequity has been a pressing problem for our government. This is especially so as our government has a moral obligation to ensure that all Singaporeans can achieve a decent standard of living and afford basic necessities in Singapore. Education, once touted as the great social leveller has failed miserably. Back in the early days, higher education was a privilege for only the wealthy. This was especially so as there were few educational pathways and institutes, where placements were limited and prices for education was expensive. Even with subsidies, higher education can cost over $8000 a year- a huge sum for low-income families. While there were scholarships aimed to develop outspoken youth, they were usually attained by students from better-off families. Furthermore, there were a disproportionate number of students from higher-income families compared to lower-income families. This causes the rich to receive higher education, while the poor are (mostly) devoid of the opportunity. It is quite evident as seen by our increasing Gini- Coefficient – which measures inequity – increases from about 0.38 in the 1960s to about 0.60 in 2016. It is, therefore, a testament that education failed to address the vital need of society – equity- and instead serves to aggravate it.

Additionally, the 21st century requires people with high adversity quotient to face the increasingly volatile and uncertain world, and this is something that education in Singapore cannot provide. Singapore’s notorious education which overemphasises academic results has neglected teaching students survival skills. Our complacency in relative peace for fifty years has bred generations of people who are unable to withstand hardship and adversity. Students are frequently being mollycoddled throughout at home and in school, they never have to face hardship or despair. They have become weak and unable to deal with failure. In schools, students cry after failing an exam, and they succumb to failure, unable to stand up again. In the face of a national crisis- such as a terrorist attack or a financial crisis, which are highly plausible- the majority will be unable to cope. In 2013, when haze due to forest fires in Indonesia made landfall, many were left clueless and unable to make sound choices. Instead of taking action to alleviate the situation, many keyboard warriors took to the net and flamed Indonesia. Only a handful were able to take the initiative to help those affected by the haze. Due to an inability to cope with adversity, when unity was needed most, people were broken. Once again, the bubble-wrapped education system had failed to deliver.

On that note, it may be true that education had solved or at least alleviated some of the socio-economic challenges faced by Singapore in the past, however it is unlikely to deliver for the next fifty years. Education in Singapore has failed to address the pertinent issue of inequity and a lack of resilience in Singaporeans. If education in Singapore is going to meet the needs of the volatile, uncertain and ambiguous twenty-first century, radical reforms must be made to the archaic system we use today.

“The world would be a better place if religion did not exist.” What is your view?

Karl Marx once said that religion is the “opium of the masses”. By saying this Marx questioned the function of religion in society. Even today there are many liberals that religion divides people. To a certain extent, it is true because religion has been a cause of conflict in many societies in the past and the present. This makes it evident why people think that the world would be a better place if religion did not exist. However, this is a myopic view of religion because, despite its negatives, the positives cannot be ignored. Therefore, the world would not be a better place without religion because religion provides people with the necessary comfort, acts as a moral guide and offers people hope in an increasingly chaotic world.

Liberals believe that religion is the root of conflict in many societies. They believe that if religion did not exist, people would have been spared from numerous wars, riots and conflicts. To a certain extent, this is true because people have always used religion as a tool to incite violence. An example of this can be the Crusader war which was fought between the Christians and the Muslims, with an aim to capture the sacred places from the Muslims and to right wrongs done against Christianity. Similarly, other wars like the Thirty Years’ War was also a result of religion. Even in the present times religion is responsible for many conflicts and acts of terrorism within society. Be it in the form of the 9/11 attacks, in the form of atrocities committed against Rohingya Muslims or Hindus being mistreated in Pakistan, religion is at the root of all these conflicts. It is evident from these points that religion is often used as a tool to incite violence and justify atrocities done against people. Thus, liberals believe that religion should not exist in the world because it is the cause of unnecessary conflict in society and does not align with modern beliefs.

Many with liberal views also believe that religion should not exist because it conflicts with scientific ideas. Today many believe in science to the extent that science can be termed as a modern religion. Religion was previously used by many to explain natural phenomena and disasters like earthquakes, floods and famine. However, today many of these natural phenomena are explained by science and are no longer dependent on religious explanation. While religion gives explanations based on superstitions and faith. Science leads to objective truth. Critics of religion believe that religious beliefs if passed onto the next generation can hinder scientific developments. This is evident from the fact that religion even today hinders scientific progress where technologies like CRISPR are opposed by religious leaders and communities. In such cases, it becomes clear that denunciation of religion is necessary because it hinders logical and progressive thought. Therefore, the world without religion would be a better place as it would not clash with scientific ideas.

Opponents of religion also bring forth the fact that religion also influences political spheres. While in countries like the US and UK there is a distinction between the church and the state, it cannot be denied that religion does influence certain political agendas. For example, in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, many laws are created and implemented keeping in mind the religious beliefs of the people. It can be said that these countries violate human rights within their countries. In fact, some of the most oppressive countries in the world use religion to influence and control people. This was also seen in classical times when the clergy were given the role of being consultants to the monarchs which led to the oppression of the serfs in the past. Religion when transcends from personal belief to influence political beliefs can lead to corruption of government and oppression of people. Religious corruption needs to be avoided so as to maintain a healthy and harmonious society. This is absolutely not possible if religion is influencing laws and policies that can affect all the people within the society. Thus, the world be a better place if religion did not exist as it can lead to corrupt and oppressive governance.

However, despite the negative impacts of religion, one cannot avoid the myriad of benefits it brings to society. Scientific discoveries are necessary and there should be little to no hindrance in scientific progress. However, one cannot deny that religion acts as a balance between science and what is right for society. Through genetic engineering can prove as a boon for people with diseases like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s one cannot deny that it brings along a lot of ethical questions. After all, how can people justify bizarre transplants or the concept of designer babies? Religion acts as a restraint on scientific discoveries that can wreak havoc on humanity if left unregulated or unchecked. It can be said that religion helps to uphold moral and ethical values in society. Religion also acts as a moral compass for people who believe in religions as it is through religious teachings people know that stealing, lying or murdering is wrong. For example, in many religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam there are guidelines for becoming a good human being. Thus, religion acts as a moral compass for scientific discoveries as well as for people within the society and makes the world relatively a better place.

Religion does act as a dividing factor in today’s world. However, one cannot deny that it also brings people together. In secular societies, all communities and religions are respected and people come together to celebrate important religious events. In Singapore, the festival of Thaipusam and Diwali is witnessed and celebrated by all regardless of race or religion. Similarly, around the world, people celebrate Christmas and Easter and participate in activities like Carol singing and dressing up as Santa Claus. In this sense, it can be said that religion fosters a deep understanding of various customs and traditions among people. As a result, people also come closer and feel a sense of belonging within the societies. The majority of the religion also propagates peace and harmony within the society. It can thus be said that it is not religion that leads to violence but the religious leaders who misconstrue religious doctrines to serve their own agendas. Thus, it can be said that religion if properly understood and practised can lead to a harmonious society and make the world a better place.

Religion also meets the emotional and spiritual needs of an individual. In an extremely chaotic world where people are surrounded by negativity, religion acts as an anchor which gives people hope. There have been many anecdotes where people have felt the power of religion impacting their lives in positive ways. Many times, we hear of incidents where the dead came back to life after incessant prayers for people recovering from debilitating diseases. Religion gives people hope and mental peace. From the singing of religious hymns to chanting of aum or meditating people have always felt a tranquillity which they cannot achieve from any other activity. Religion is helpful in improving the well-being of people. It is the religion that has the power to answer metaphysical questions about existence, suffering and the afterlife. Thus, religion is an important coping mechanism for most people and helps in making the world a better place.

In conclusion, despite its shortcomings, the positive impact of religion cannot be undermined. Religion has proved to be an efficient moral guide to people and has given them hope in turbulent times. Religion has contributed to society in moral, emotional and spiritual terms. Removal of religion from society would lead to feelings of chaos, insecurity and excesses.