May 2017 — Gp Lah!

A plethora of information is making people less wise. Comment.

In our world today, where we claim to be enjoying the fruits of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, many of us would be better off without it. We are indeed blessed with the ease of access to more information, with the developments and improvements in scientific research coupled with technology that makes it even more convenient for us. However, have we become critical thinkers? Do we really make wise decisions? The privilege to access the plethora of information out there has ironically undermined our capacity to be wise, to be critical and to be knowledgeable.

Optimists may argue that man is more informed compared to the past because we now have access to technology, such as smartphones, tablets and the internet. Indeed, in developed countries like Singapore and the United States, an average person owns at least one functioning smartphone, and households own at least one computer with access to the internet. With that, it is true that man has increased accessibility to information as compared to the past, where one had to go to places such as the library and endure the tedious process of doing research, gathering and synthesizing information from different books. Now, one is able to skip that laborious process, with just a few taps on the smartphone. Also, the quality of education has increased due to this ease of obtaining information. Time is saved by teachers and students and more learning is done, in terms of curriculum planning as well as ensuring that information given to students is correct. Students are also able to be engaged in fruitful discussions, with the hindrance of flipping through dozens of books removed, allowing more learning and application to take place. Therefore, one could argue that technology has cleared the way for us to be individuals that are more informed.

However, this view that technology has made us more informed because of the ease of access to information, is one that is naïve and ignorant. We should inspect the reality of the situation, not just the ideal. It is precise because of the ease to access to information, that a culture of dependency and over-reliance is born. With the increase in ease of access to information, we have missed the joy of learning and understanding. It no longer takes us any effort to clarify information that we are unsure of, the fact that we no longer need to dig out relevant information from books and encyclopedias has made us lazy and uninterested. We no longer delve into information, merely believing what we read on the internet, without any real thought or consideration, hindering our capacity as humans to be critical thinkers. For a classic example, we can look no further than Singapore. International research of students across the globe has concluded that Singapore students, although great scorers in examinations lack the inclination to ask questions. Singapore has one of the world’s highest smartphone infiltration rates, it is no coincidence that our students are not critical thinkers and curious learners, as the natural response to a difficult question would be to “Google it”. Therefore, technology has undermined Man’s capacity to be informed.

Many may also argue that Man should be more informed, because of the improvements in science and research that allowed updating and correcting of information, which will result in a man being exposed to a wider range and more precise information. Indeed, social and physical sciences have evolved over the years, giving researchers the ability to make conclusions that are more accurate. Traditional myths and legends can be corrected through experiments that have more sophisticated equipment than before, improving the quality of information that man has access to. For example, in the study of global warming, many may assume that it is purely due to anthropogenic factors such as industrialization that led to climate change. But with the improvements in scientific technology, Geographers are able to deduce that the Earth is going through a natural phase of warming, and it is because of industrialization that worsened its effects. Therefore, man should be more informed indeed, with access to more accurate information.

However, what is the use of accurate information, if Man do not make use of it wisely? In today’s world, we live with a mindset where we let our feelings rule our decisions. We no longer give consideration to what is true and what is not, a phenomenon known as the “post-truth era”. With the access to more information, the effects of the “post-truth era” is exacerbated. We are baited by information that appeals to our emotions, regardless of its validity and legitimacy. This is evident in Singapore where the government has to set up a state-run website, “Factually”, to clarify falsehoods that have misled Singaporeans. A more classic example would be in Britain, where majority of citizens voted for Britain to be out of the European Union, known as “Brexit”. The ironic thing is however, that most citizens do not have a clue about the European Union, as “What is the European Union?” became among the top searches made on Google. Therefore, in an age where we let our emotions rule our heads, no amount of information can make us informed individuals.

Ignorance is a part of Man’s original state of mind, and it is in our nature that we are not informed. However, ironically, it is the increased convenience to access information, and the amount of information itself, that makes us less able to be informed. According to the professors at the University of Colorado, in the Leeds School of Business, they concluded that the sense of understanding is contagious. In the experiment they conducted, these professors fabricated a theory about a “glowing rock”, to two groups of people. They told the first group that scientists have yet to come to a concrete conclusion of the theory on these “glowing rocks”, and these people showed no understanding of the theory at all. However, they told the second group otherwise, that is theory has been tested and proven by scientists over many years, and their response indicated that they seemingly understood what the theory on these “glowing rocks” was about. Knowledge is built upon the understandings made from observations by many individuals, and by himself, one is not able to create knowledge alone. But with the wide range of information available today, Man is more likely to establish the false sense of understanding. Therefore, more information does not make Man more informed. In fact, it increases the chances for us to be misled.

In a nutshell, it is ideal that more information has made Man wiser, more critical and more knowledgeable, but in reality, things are not so simple. There are many out there who abuse this platform to spread false information, which makes it unreliable, and it is in human nature to be gullible. It is my hope that Man will be able to approach information more critically, and through that, truly enjoy the fruits of being more informed.

The young are valued more than the aged today. Discuss this in relation to your society.

The young are not valued more than the aged in Singapore.

Recent developments in Singapore’s strategies to encourage parenthood, celebrate the achievements of young Singaporeans while providing them with greater opportunities to do so in different areas seem to reflect that the government is diverting more attention, time and capital to the young. However, it would be unfair to claim the Singapore government values the young more than they value the aged. In fact, it has always aimed for a clear-sighted balance to ensure that the nation is a home where the young have exciting opportunities and bright futures and where the old lives their silver years with grace and dignity. Beyond the government’s efforts however, the society can also play an even larger part in supporting elderly individuals such as through positive employment practices and work cultures and eliminating stereotypes. It is not true that the young are valued more than the old in Singapore.

Over the past few years, the Singapore government has developed various elderly-friendly facilities and infrastructure. This is in line with the government’s focus on developing an inclusive society where Singapore would be a place where all Singaporeans, regardless of age, can call home. The integration of elderly-friendly facilities like anti-slip tiles and bathroom railings in the homes of the aged are initiatives undertaken by the Housing Development Board. Also, in order for more seniors to age gracefully within the community and remain close to their loved ones, the Ministry of Health has revamped various neighbourhood areas like Toa Payoh and Bedok so as to locate aged care and support facilities in these areas. These initiatives show that the government is committed to ensuring that the aged can still enjoy quality living.

In tandem with the above, the young are not left out as well. The continued development of educational and sports facilities shows the government’s keen intention to nurture the interests and talents of the younger generation. Programmes like Young Change Makers and SHINE Festival are just a few of the many initiatives planned by the National Youth Council to engage young Singaporeans. The multitude of programmes and initiatives for the young and the old shows that it is myopic to compare the value placed on both groups.

In some instances, there is preferential treatment of the young compared to the aged. This is due to the belief that the aged are less productive, lack innovative ideas and are prone to fall sick. As such, some firms prefer to recruit young workers. Nevertheless, the Singapore government sees the aged as assets in the workplace and has taken steps to change institutional structures to support older workers. For example, it has subsidised the wage bills of companies that they hire older workers through Special Employment Credit and continuously enhances its Retirement and Re-employment Act to help eligible elderly employees stay in the workforce for a longer period of time. Many local companies have been encouraged by the Ministry of Manpower to modify job specifications and operations or redesigning the work for older employees. The perception that the society favours the young more than the aged is thus a flawed one.

The practical nature of Singapore society and the constant desire to further our socio-economic development would lead some to assume that the government tends to invest more in developing the potential of young citizens. But the truth of the matter is that the Singapore government has focused on ensuring that the older workers remain employable and are well taken care of. In fact, it is precisely our practicality that drives the government to see the value in every member in the workforce regardless of their age due to limited manpower. The young are not valued more than the aged in Singapore.

Can violence ever be justified?

A perineal question that has haunted civilisation for several millennia is one that concerns the justification of war. Aristotle’s quotation, though contentious, gives any reader good food for thought. By claiming that “we make war so that we may live in peace”, Aristotle implies that war, and thus violence, is justifiable due to its noble cause of sustaining a period of relative stability and harmony. It is commonplace in today’s modern society that violence is frequently abhorred; violence itself refers to extreme physical or mental harm inflicted upon another group, consequently leading to anguish or the fear of death. Aristotle implies that there is a possibility in which violence can lead to peace. However, is this implied message by such a revered philosopher begs the question of can violence ever be justified? In my opinion, violence is indeed justifiable under certain circumstances. In fact, it is more justifiable than ever as we consider the state of our modern paradigm; nevertheless, such borders for the justification of violence are limited.

In order for violence to be justified, its overt and aggressive disposition has to be administered within pre-determined guidelines. Laws regulate the borders of violence and ensure that every action has a reason for it to have taken place. For instance, murder is allowed as a form of defence; manslaughter itself administers a lighter punishment when compared to first-degree murder. Such situations are due to the fact that certain forms of violence are considered more justifiable than others. The United Nations (UN) itself has regulations concerning the practices of war. For instances, non-combatants should not be attacked; if they were attacked without any specific reason, the war would not have been justified.

However, there are certain circumstances in which violence may be justified despite it being against pre-determined guidelines. Such situations are typical in Orwellian societies in which individualism is ‘prohibited’ and conformists are moulded. In the former USSR, Stalin did not allow any form of opposition against his government. Under his authoritative, repressive rule, millions of Russians were slaughtered. They were not even allowed to defend their own rights; they were being watched very carefully. The cult of Stalin was extremely dominant such that any form of violence against his leaders or soldiers was unjustifiable. However, any form of violence by his army was justified. Such a point proves the fact that certain forms of violence, despite being permitted, may be unjustified based on their intentions; similarly, certain forms of violence, despite being illegal, may be justified. In the former USSR, the violence depicted by civilians as a form of defence was considered opposition and was not tolerated; sudden death was ensured- purgery thrived. Thus, the law is only limited in justifying the boundaries of violence to ensure its justification.

Besides legislation and jurisdiction, ethics also plays a crucial role in explaining the justification of war. More often than not, the enemy is dehumanised. He is looked upon as inferior and undeserving of life. However, people with such mindsets have failed to consider the fact that everyone is made equal. We have no mutual right to claim superiority over others. We live in an interconnected, globalised world in which we are heavily interdependent on other countries in ensuring the standards of our quality of life. Dehumanisation has been a huge problem that our human race has experienced. In the 1940s, leading up to World War 2, Hitler gave the orders for racial and religious cleansing, especially through his quiet, yet overt, the policy of anti-Semitism in which he wanted to build his Third Reich only consisting of the Aryan race. The Aryans were apparently superior; other races were dehumanised both physically and mentally. Such violence depicted by the Germans was uncivilised, inhumane and unjustified.

Ethics and law tend to work hand in hand. If laws were pre-determined conscientiously, they would have been created based on ethics, values beliefs and rights. Laws are pre-determined for the betterment and success of the country. When we discuss ethics, we should not merely consider the well-being of victims. We should consider the well-being of those who participate in the violence as well as observers of the violence. It was noted that only 15 per cent of American soldiers actually fired during World War 2, according to a survey carried out by S.A. Marshall. Such astonishing figures were due to ethics and trauma. The soldiers realised that they had the power to take away the life of others. However, they also realised that the triggering of their weapons went against their moral values. Ethics and moral values clearly played a major role in determining the success of the Americans in the war. Nevertheless, it could be concluded that violence carried out by such individuals would be justified since they possessed a moral compass that helped them differentiate right from wrong.

However, under such a circumstance, the law did not work hand in hand with ethics. The military, catching wind of such astounding statistics, changed its laws; they realised that the moral compass of soldiers was too detrimental to the success of the United States of America (USA) in its military pursuits. The military began dehumanising the enemy and implementing laws such that non-firers would be punished. There was also a change in the form of combat. Long-distance combat was preferred over mid-range combat; psychologically, this assisted in the dehumanisation of the enemy. Such alterations to the laws and strategies were deemed successful. In the Korean War, 55% of the soldiers fired. In the Vietnam War, that statistics became 85%. However, were these alterations ethical? Soldiers were made to fire by making them go against their personal beliefs and values. In the long term, such implementations resulted in increased psychiatric disorders as well as trauma illnesses further proving the absence of the ability to justify violence through the penetration of ethics.

According to Hobson, a respectable psychologist, the man was made to be aggressive. He would fight selfishly to ensure what he got. It was the innate characteristic of man to become violent once he did not satisfy his selfish demands. However, Jean Rousseau states that man is mature and civilised such that violence and aggressiveness are only provoked under certain conditions and is atypical of the character and behaviour of man. Indeed, both school of thoughts conflict and contradict each other. However, as man has evolved, we have tended to move towards Rousseau’s perception of the innate behaviour of man. We have become mature enough to understand and appreciate the implications of our aggressive nature and have attempted to reduce all levels of violence. However, claiming that man is mature enough to understand violence, Rousseau intricately implies that violence is justifiable based on the fact that man appreciates the implications of his actions.

Many times, violence is justified based on its intentions. As Aristotle implied, war is present for peace in the future. This may not be the only noble cause for violence. Ernesto Che Guevara, a famous Argentinean medical student, participated in violence for a noble cause. Touring South America alongside his friend, Alberto, he appreciated the sufferings of those around him having been exposed to live outside his elitist comfort zone. Consequently, he pledged to fight for the rights of such people as revolutionaries; his intentions were noble- to unite the people of the divided Americas. Indeed, such violence is justifiable. Abraham Lincoln’s involvement in the American civil war was justifiable as well; his intention was to abolish slavery in America. In today’s modern paradigm, as Rousseau clearly stated, man is mature enough to understand his actions. Today, many acts of violence have positive intentions thus making them justifiable.

However, just like any other theories, Rousseau’s claim has its incontrovertible anomalies and limitations. It clearly cannot explain everyday crimes from bullying all the way to murder. Within families, spouse violence is ever increasing consequently leading to exponentially growing divorce rates. Has Hobson been proven right? Whatever the case is, the number of unjustified acts of violence continues to increase alongside the number of justified acts of violence. We are experiencing a new problem. Violence, although abhorred, is increasing uncontrollably. The root cause of such an insatiable trend is the ubiquitous presence of the media that penetrates through the lives of many individuals. Such omnipresence has resulted in a homogenous culture and a loss of traditional, local culture. Consequently, the moral compasses of many youths have been eroded. They find it a challenge to differentiate the right from the wrong. Action-packed scenes from various movies have inculcated into them undesirable traits. Both the erosion of moral compasses and the inculcation of undesirable traits have resulted in the media playing a pivotal role in the disapproval of violence.

In conclusion, I believe that there have been instances in which violence ranging from the societal all the way to the international perspective has been justified. However, the problem is not whether violence is justifiable or not. We are facing a larger problem- the increasing trend of violent activity and behaviour. Thus, the aim of society should not be to attempt to justify violence. It should be to reduce violence. Only then can we focus on the justification of violence. It is obvious that laws have not been stringent enough to discourage violence; the presence of jurisdiction is merely to justify violence. Hence, we should move away from our conventional thinking concerning the justification of war and think about attempting to reduce violence for the betterment of our societies which are so innately interlinked. Only then can we claim that we are mature enough to move on to controlling our animal instincts of ‘random violence’.

Should the police have unlimited powers when dealing with crime?

In the new movie “Public Enemies”, Johnny Depp plays John Dillinger, the 1930s bank robber and killer who gets hunted down and shot by the newly formed FBI. This seemingly suggests that the government department that was established to maintain order as well as to enforce the law is given a very large amount of authority in the process of law enforcement. However, this is true only to a certain extent because, in reality, the police force does not have such a large amount of power to wield as they wish, and for good reason. Although some argue that the police do not have sufficient authority and that the police force should be given more liberty when faced with powerful criminals like the criminal syndicates, it is inevitable that if given too much of a free rein, the individual members in the police force might be tempted to abuse this power, or even become licensed assassins as they might become as irrational and brutal as convicts in their attempt to resolve a crime.
Indeed, the law enforcers ought to have a greater authority whilst upholding the law, especially in the face of powerful criminals like the crime syndicates. In places like Russia, Japan, Italy, Mexico and China, where the Russian Mafiya, the Japanese Yakuza, the Italian Mafia, Mexican Drug Cartels and the Chinese Triads are considered the five most powerful criminal syndicates according to the Foreign Policy online 2008, it is essential for the police force to have the necessary authority to apprehend them and bring these criminals to justice. This is especially so when these criminal organizations have the ability to reach out to gangsters worldwide. This can be seen in the example whereby wherever there is a Chinatown in the world, the Triad’s tentacles would have reached there to tap into ties – giving them an unprecedented huge network of opportunities to expand their criminal network. With such a huge reach over the many petty criminals worldwide, there is a massive potential for large-scale global crimes to take place. Therefore to prevent this, it is crucial that the police force should be able to match up to, or even hold greater powers that these huge criminal syndicates have so as to able to keep these syndicates in check or to eradicate them entirely.

Indeed, the law enforcers ought to have a greater authority whilst upholding the law, especially in the face of powerful criminals like the crime syndicates. In places like Russia, Japan, Italy, Mexico and China, where the Russian Mafiya, the Japanese Yakuza, the Italian Mafia, Mexican Drug Cartels and the Chinese Triads are considered the five most powerful criminal syndicates according to the Foreign Policy online 2008, it is essential for the police force to have the necessary authority to apprehend them and bring these criminals to justice. This is especially so when these criminal organizations have the ability to reach out to gangsters worldwide. This can be seen in the example whereby wherever there is a Chinatown in the world, the Triad’s tentacles would have reached there to tap into ties – giving them an unprecedented huge network of opportunities to expand their criminal network. With such a huge reach over the many petty criminals worldwide, there is a massive potential for large-scale global crimes to take place. Therefore to prevent this, it is crucial that the police force should be able to match up to, or even hold greater powers that these huge criminal syndicates have so as to able to keep these syndicates in check or to eradicate them entirely.

Some also argue that the police ought to be given more liberty when pursuing petty lawbreakers as they believe that the police do not have enough power to uphold the law. Police power is highly circumscribed by law and departmental policies and they have very little power or control over the situations they are in or the people they encounter. They also cannot use force the vast majority of the time, and when they do, they are subjected to an enormous amount of scrutiny. In the Gallup Poll, an institution that is seen to have too little power is the local police “in your community” (31%). In addition, the poll results show that the oft-cited fear of the power of the police-type units of the federal state, state, and local governments is not as widespread as might be supposed. In fact, at the state and local levels, the prevailing sentiment is clearly that police forces either have the right amount of power or should have even more.

However, the above claim should be refuted since if given too much of a free rein, some members of the police force might be tempted to abuse it to help the criminals get away scot-free in order to reap some rewards. In fact, there have been many cases of police officers abusing their power and accepting bribes from criminals. One case in point is where a number of Colombian police officers were arrested for accepting bribes and returning seized drug to a trafficking group. Furthermore, in Tel Aviv, the second-largest city in Israel, details emerged in April this year of an elaborate criminal scheme to turn police officers into informants on behalf of lawbreakers. The officers were accused of accepting cash bribes to tip off a “serious criminal” who runs brothels and passing on intelligence in ways which are reminiscent of double agents depicted in the Hollywood film The Departed. In a situation where the police were given the right to apprehend law-breakers in order to prevent crime, they abused this right for their own personal gain. In a separate incident, Chicago Police have been accused of using pepper spray without provocation on black people celebrating Obama’s victory on election night and also of kicking in doors and running into people’s houses. They never explained what was going on and simply left when they were done with whatever they were doing. This suggests that the policemen involved in this unfortunate and seemingly racist incident simply rode on the fact that they were in the uniform and took advantage of the authority that the uniform gives them in order to carry out unexplained acts of harassment on the target citizens. Since power can be so easily made use of, it is then unwise to entrust unlimited powers to the police.

In addition, the police might become licensed assassins if they are given too much power as they might become as irrational and brutal as convicts in their attempt to resolve a crime. In the UK TV program “Worst Police Shootouts”, viewers were shocked rigid by the gratuitous legalised murder fest that ensued. Five or six cases were shown, each of which ended in the ‘perpetrator’ being shot, usually to death. In one video, a middle-aged lady ran out of her house on a suburban street, obviously in some kind of distress, waving a short kitchen knife. The two attending cops panicked and shot her when she ran towards one of them, panicked and shot her, thinking that she was about to attack them. All the other cases featured followed much the same pattern. Should these cases be considered as ‘legalised murders’ then? Maybe, if the killings were entirely accidental, but if the police use their given authority to behave as they wish while patrolling or chasing criminals, then many more innocent people will be injured or killed in their reckless line of duty. Therefore, since many police force members have already harmed so many people with the current level of authority that they have, it is definitely imprudent assign even greater powers for the police to wield.

To conclude, as Karl Wilhelm Von Humboldt once said, “If it were possible to make an accurate calculation of the evils which police regulations occasion, and of those which they prevent, the number of the former would, in all cases, exceed that of the latter.” It thus can be said that with the current level of power that the police possess, it is already being abused or used in the wrong way. Therefore, the notion that the police should be given more power should not be encouraged as it may result in disastrous results.