VidS, Author at Gp Lah! — Page 39 of 43

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.

How effectively is diversity managed in your society?

In my society of Singapore, it would seem that diversity is embraced. The idea is enshrined in our national pledge, to be “one united people, regardless of race, language or religion”. This was vital to a nation of immigrants from all over the world, looking for a place to call their own and to develop a sense of national and cultural unity amongst the myriad of varying ethnicities. Indeed, Singapore has reached a commendable level of respecting and embracing diversity. However, this essay argues that there is still much to be desired as the nation strives towards maintaining and improving its level of social cohesion and avoiding conflict and dissatisfaction.

Singapore adopts a meritocratic approach to its society. As one of the five key principles of the nation, it would seem to suggest that diversity arising from race, gender, sexuality or age would not matter to one’s worth in society. The ideal of equal opportunity has been touted by many a politician, claiming that there is no discrimination, particularly in terms of race. Indeed, this often true in practice, as the nation strives towards creating job opportunities for all and ensuring that anti-discriminatory measures are in place. Diversity in the workforce is being promoted by the government through the encouragement of including elderly and disabled workers. Though economically motivated, these initiatives make a large impact on these workers’ lives, showing that the fiercely competitive and fast-paced workforce appreciates and includes them as well.

However, Singapore does not totally succeed in creating equal opportunities. Known for its demanding education system and highly competitive workforce, Singapore struggles to ensure that a sense of “classicism” does not form. Meritocracy allowed our forefathers to embrace good work ethics that propelled them into well-paying jobs regardless of their station in life. However, generations later, this same system has allowed an inherent disadvantage to the less well-off. While those working in well-paying sectors such as medicine and law are able to provide the best tutors, studying environment and even nutrition through financial support, those in less well-paying jobs may not be able to provide as much for the next generation. In a meritocratic system, this has created an unfairness that provides the children of the wealthy with an advantage. In a system that ranks students based on academic ability, wealthier students may have to struggle less to achieve the same stellar results any other student may have to slog for. This tends to result in enclaves, where wealthy students acquaint themselves with each other in ‘elite schools’ and form communities that seem impenetrable to those in neighbourhood schools. This inherent weakness in the meritocratic system Singapore employs thus creates a class divide that affects academics and future job opportunities. As a result, diversity in class may be poorly handled, as those with wealthy families more easily follow their parents to the upper echelons of society.

Still, it is respectable how Singapore has handled diversity through multiculturalism. This formation of a “mosaic” of different faces and religions amongst Singaporeans is touted by some in a patriotic passion. Indeed, Singapore’s policy of multiculturalism has allowed to remain largely conflict-free since independence. Following the violence and chaos of the Maria Hertogh riots in its early years, the nation has since learnt that race and religion have been and will continue to be of great sensitivity. On a practical level, the government achieves its brand of multiculturalism through the full integration in public school and housing. They claim that this creates opportunities for interaction that promotes the respect and embracing of other cultures. Indeed, this should be lauded, especially in contrast to the types of conflict that arise in the region. Our close neighbour, Malaysia, has struggled with dissatisfaction from the Chinese and Indian community surrounding the preferential treatment of Malays by the state. Meanwhile, ethnic Malays also resent that they seem to be excluded from the well-paying sectors the Chinese and Indian seem to dominate. Countries like Thailand also struggle with minorities that live far away from the centre of the nation’s activities in the cities, and grow up hardly interacting with it. Instead, Singapore’s equal treatment of all races and celebration of ethnic differences allows the most serious racial offense in years to be a couple of social media posts ignorantly complaining and attributing their personal hassles to the practices of the other races. These sentiments are also swiftly denounced by the nation.

However, one bears in mind the Singapore Recollections, “let us not take for granted that we have will always be”. While the nation has enjoyed relative peace, destabilizing entities such as ISIS have great impact on our majority Chinese nation in a community of Muslim-dominated states. Growing tensions surrounding religious extremism has cause for Singapore to reevaluate its effectiveness in handling diversity. Although multiculturalism purports cohabitation amongst different ethnicities, one questions if it truly upholds the embracing of differences as much as it does mere tolerance. A society where races can coexist but are not required to intermingle can be a brewing storm. The lack of the need to examine our differences and to face tough issues surrounding them may have made Singapore complacent towards its peace in diversity, A culture of casual racism has been largely swept under the rug, with a mindset of “going along to get along”, particularly in our youth, may be sources of friction with growing Islamophobia globally. To ensure further effectiveness in managing diversity, Singapore must be prepared to identify and address contention and suspicion between different ethnicities in order to prevent societal fissures in an era of uncertainty instead of merely alluding to it or ignoring it.

Finally, one of the biggest critiques against Singapore’s management of diversity remains its handling of alternative voices. Due to its particularly paternalistic ruling style, the government tends to censor much of the views it deems immoral or inappropriate. Though this has been argued as a means to cater to a largely conservative society, many liberal voices have taken issue with it. Most prominently, the criminalisation of gay relationships is perceived as oppressive and against a culture of diversity to the growing Pink Dot movement. There has also been growing discontent over a lack of positive portrayals of physical and mental disabilities outside of charity shows, which, even then, tend to portray these communities as weak or pitiful. In contrast to racism, sexism, Islamophobia or classism, this type of discrimination tends to hold more ground for the existing stigma , as they are largely perceived as “abnormalities” or “unnatural” by governments or the media. Thus, Singapore’s relatively poor representation towards LGBTQA and disabled persons is a source of much discontent as their diversity is not given its opportunity to be positively represented and instead this promoted an attitude of ignorance towards them on the part of the government and state-owned media.

Thus, although this essay regards Singapore’s management of diversity as largely effective, it is not blind to many flaws that tend to be inherent to its style of government or principles. In an age of growing concerns over individual rights and diversity, Singapore may face challenges in maintaining its control over diversity and the peace we currently enjoy. A sense of identity in the community is vital to ensure Singaporeans enjoy the level of peace and prosperity it strives to achieve.

‘The media today has no interest in telling the truth.’ Do you agree?

The scores of fake news circulating the internet on various social media websites and forums such as Facebook, Twitter and Reddit during the 2016 American presidential election are a sobering reminder to us that perhaps it is time to start questioning the veracity of the news that our venerated news outlets churn out each day. Headlines such as “Ted Cruz caught in yet another scandal” and “Sanders condemned of slander” were widely seen across the Internet; yet when one clicked on the link to view the “latest scoop”, the story turned out to be fabricated and sometimes utterly fictional. Before the advent of new media, the vast majority often believed that the press delivered the truth and nothing but the truth. And a few decades ago, most traditional news outlets were actually reputable and reliable. That is a far cry from what the media industry is today. The issue definitely begs the question of whether the media today is even the slightest it interested in delivering the truth anymore. Personally, I believe that amidst all the complaints of fake news and “alternative facts”, the media has no interest in telling the truth

To begin with, believe the media today is often deliberate in delivering the truth to the public because of the fear of being caught and condemned if it doe otherwise. The invention of the Internet in the 90s gave individuals who owned a technological device the opportunity to get their news from various sources, trawl through all the facts presented about an issue and gain access to a trove of information about current affairs. Since the early to mid-2000s, when the Internet was further developed and more information could be circulated on it, people began to perform fact checks on various traditional and new media news sources to ensure that whatever they reported was reliable and factual. Thus began the rise of the online vigilante, who lurks on the Internet and has the power to mobilise hundreds or even thousands of netizens to criticize a media platform for its poor and inaccurate reporting when need be. For instance, when the renowned news company the British Broadcasting Corporation(BBC) inaccurately reported on the Palestinian conflict, online vigilantes and other netizens were quick to notice the biased news headline and cause an uproar on social media websites such as Twitter and Reddit. The BBC swiftly took down the article and replaced it with one with a more neutral standpoint. This indubitable bruised the BBC’s reputation and credibility and shook the faith of many of the BBC’s loyal listeners. Many media corporations fear the same or a worse consequence the BBC suffered due to the inaccurate reporting, and thus it is this fear that makes them ever so deliberate in getting the truth out to the masses.

Some cynics will disagree with my stand and argue that the media today lacks any interest in telling the truth because the media has been known for delivering sensationalistic news instead of the cold hard facts. These critics will assert that the rise of the internet has resulted in new media outlets, namely social media platforms, profiting more than traditional media outlets due to greater accessibility and social media being a cheaper alternative. The decrease in revenue of traditional news sources over the years has caused many of them to resort to, as some call it, the most disgusting and low-grade news reporting: sensationalistic news reporting. Sensationalistic media outlets such as Vice and the Sun have the same ethos: “If it bleeds, it leads; if it roars, it scores”. These media outlets rarely deliver the truth, rather, they exploit real news by exaggerating stories, adding extra juicy information and most often highlighting only the violent, raunchy and eye-popping bits. For example, the Breitbart News, one of the most biased and sensationalistic media corporations, cooked up a story of thousands of Muslims burning a church and chanting “Allahu Akbar” on the streets on New Year’s day in Dortmund, Germany. They gravely exaggerate the news and delivered only what their viewers wanted to read, instead of delivering the truth of the matter. Hence, some cynics will argue that the media today has no interest in telling the truth.

Although I concede that many media outlets have adopted sensationalistic reporting to boost viewership, I believe that the vast majority of media outlets still believe in delivering the truth because ultimately, the truth is what will make them reputable and recognized globally. Everybody wants to know the truth behind an issue, some say the facts of a matter are a valuable commodity. And I believe that there is truth in this saying. A multitude of media corporations such as the BBC and The New York Times still engage in investigating journalism and shun sensationalistic reporting because everyone, even those who partake in sensationalistic news, still wants a place where they can find the facts of a matter and the truth of an event that has occurred. This desire to differentiate fact from fiction keeps many media corporations up and running. Furthermore, delivering the truth will propel media companies onto the global stage and garner them recognition and respect instead of infamy like sensationalistic media corporations.

In conclusion, I believe that the media today still holds an interest in telling the truth. Ultimately, we all have to be discerning and be cautious of what we read.

Do you agree that the problems of poverty can only get worse in the current climate?

Many people have thought that globalization will bring about the end of poverty, as countries and people gets richer. While this is certainly true for many countries, such as Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, there are many countries that are still in poverty even though we are currently still in the age of globalization. In fact, I think that the problems faced by those in poverty will escalate further, as the poorer countries are manipulated by the richer countries, the current global financial crisis that affects everyone and the widening relative income gap between citizens in a country. In this essay, I would be focusing more on poverty in poor countries.

The problems of poverty can only get worse in the current climate because of the manipulation of the poorer countries by the richer countries. With globalization, many countries become wealthier due to the improvements brought about by technological advances and trading. The rich countries have outsourced their labour to overseas countries to reduce their cost of production and hence increase their profits. Some of these countries which the rich countries have outsourced for labour are China, India and also the continent of Africa. The people often worked long and hard, and they are paid meagre wages. Children exploitation occurs as a result of parents roping in their children to help to contribute to the family income. Child labour is hence common in India and Africa. Instead of being educated, these children are forced to work and they are denied the opportunities to improve their quality of lives as they do possess the academic qualifications to pursue a suitable career. This causes a never-ending cycle of poverty as they are unable to break out of their poverty. In addition, many rich countries have exported their goods to these poor countries. Many times, the goods are heavily subsidized by their government, and therefore the rich countries are able to export their goods at a low price to other countries. It would seem beneficial to those foreigners, as they are able to purchase cheap goods. However, the producers of the same goods in those poor countries would suffer as they are unable to compete with the cheap imports from the richer countries, and this would result in a huge amount of losses, and hence aggravate the condition of their poverty.

Besides being manipulated by richer countries, there may be some countries that are unwilling to embrace globalization and technology. These countries may feel that globalization and those technological advances are harmful to their society, and they would prefer to continue with their own way of life than to accept the changes brought about by globalization. In my opinion, countries that are unwilling to accept globalization could be because they fear that with globalization, it would become “Americanization” and their countries would lose their own identity. It is not surprising to see that countries envision globalization to be “Americanization” as America has been at the front line of technological advancements. Fearing of losing their own identity, these countries may end up worsening the problems of poverty in their countries because they would lose out to the other countries which have accepted and embraced globalization as part of their way of lives. With globalization, communication and transport have become faster, goods of higher quality are being produced at larger amounts and in shorter times, and hence trade volumes between countries increase tremendously. Without globalization, countries’ efficiency and output would be of low quality and takes a long time to produce. This will then worsen the problems of poverty in those countries as the people’s quality of lives did not improve at all.

This situation would only occur if countries are unwilling to adopt globalization into their lives. However, in this present time, it is rather unlikely that any country will fully reject globalization altogether. The only difference is that the extent of globalization varies from countries to countries. The world is much more interconnected now with each other; via the internet and the trades with each other, and countries affect each other in more than one way. If poor countries open up their economies more and specialize in what they have a comparative advantage in, these countries welfare will improve for the better. It might not happen in the short run, but in the long run, there will be some rewards for these countries, in terms of skills, labour or revenue gained. Therefore it is not entirely possible that the problems of poverty can only get worse in the current climate, as long as people are willing to see things from a different perspective and change their lifestyles. There are also many foreign aids from other countries to poor countries in present-day lately. These aids usually arrive with the aim of liberating children from labour and grant them education opportunities, providing the people with basic necessities and also for the adults’ chances to find jobs. Hence, there might be a chance that the problems of poverty can improve in the present climate.

Poverty can also be defined as relative poverty when individuals within a society are compared to each other, and relative poverty usually refers to citizens of the lower-end of that society’s income group. In this current climate, with the global financial crisis, the recession has hit many countries, including Japan and Singapore. Many individuals become unemployed and hence add to the problems of relative poverty in their society. In addition to the benefits, globalization has also brought about many problems as well. This is due to the fact that mostly those who are able to afford technological advances are those who truly benefit, while those who are unable to do so are crowded out. Hence, the income gap between the relatively richer and the relatively poorer widens. If this trend continues, there would be more people who will be relatively poorer and this increase the problems of poverty.

‘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.

‘Economic growth should be prioritised over environmental efforts in today’s world.’ Do you agree?

The world has enough for everyone’s needs, but not enough for everyone’s greed.” In light of the fact that nations are increasingly pursuing wealth by compromising the environment’s health, Gandhi’s quote reflects how an endless desire for economic development is simply unsustainable. With the rising number of natural disasters and environmental catastrophes in recent years, there has been a growing debate on whether choosing greater economic development to improve standards of living over environmental conservation is a choice that is still justifiable. Proponents of prioritising environmental conservation argue that reckless economic development unfairly places vulnerable nations at risk of environmental disasters and that urgent action needs to be taken to reduce the future impact of environmental catastrophes such as global warming. However, others believe that economic growth is necessary to raise the standard of living in developing nations, even at the expense of the environment, and that the environment can only be protected with revenue from economic progress. Hence, although the immediate benefits of economic growth may seem to outweigh its long-term harms, it should not be prioritised over environmental conservation due to the undue harm of reckless economic development and the urgency to solve environmental issues before they cause irreversible damage.

Despite the pressing need to take steps to curb environmental devastation, proponents of economic development believe that the economy takes precedence over the environment due to the immediate need of developing nations to raise their citizens’ standard of living. Although developing countries may initially damage the environment when obtaining natural resources for economic growth, the revenue gained from doing so allows them to invest in the economy and reduces reliance on natural resources in the long run. Developing nations have a wealth of untapped resources, such as minerals and wood, which can generate income to provide their citizens with an adequate standard of living. Unfortunately, these resources are often locked away in forests and mountains, making it impossible to obtain them without causing damage to the environment. Hence, in order to extract these resources for the sake of economic development, developing nations cut down forests and excavate mines for goods to export. Although this may come at some cost to the environment, the immediate benefits of increased revenue, which improves the lives of impoverished citizens, outweighs the harm done. With more income, governments of developing countries can invest in sectors that help to improve their citizens’ lives, such as healthcare and education. Better living standards and education equip citizens with the ability to acquire better-paying employment, lifting themselves out of poor living conditions. This improves the economy, reducing developing nations’ reliance on extracting natural resources for economic growth. In today’s world, economic progress is important as it is the key to ensuring a nation’s continued success in the global economy. The falling prices of commodities and growing tertiary sectors mean that countries must move away from relying on raw materials as their key source of income. Causing some damage to the environment to lift millions out of poverty is an acceptable sacrifice, especially for a less developed nation whose citizens are struggling to make a living. This is seen in the case of Botswana, which focused on diamond mining to gain revenue, despite the harm it caused to the environment. The income was invested heavily in education and healthcare, lifting 40% of its population out of poverty. Thus, economic growth takes precedence over environmental protection as it alleviates the immediate problem of poverty in developing nations.

Furthermore, economic growth should take precedence over environmental conservation as environmental protection can only occur with economic advancement. Although economic growth may harm the environment, the increased revenue allows governments to purchase improved technology and to invest in research and development. Hence, economic growth provides nations with the funds needed to restore the environment. An improved economy gives governments more money to spend on environmental conservation, improving its ability to conserve the environment. Conversely, poorer nations have less funding, causing them to be less able to protect the environment. In today’s world, the field of research on environmental conservation is constantly growing, from new sustainable sources of energy to conserving endangered species. Economic growth provides developing nations with the funds to sponsor such research for their own country, acquiring technology to negate pollution. They also have the finances to invest in creating nature reserves for vulnerable species which may have lost their habitats due to economic development. An example of a nation that used economic growth to promote environmental conservation is Austria, where fund accumulated from economic development in the past allowed it to invest in the development of renewable sources of energy, such as nuclear plants, today. Hence, economic growth should be prioritised over environmental protection as it is a prerequisite for effective environmental conservation to occur.

However, although economic development may seem like a sustainable solution to all environmental issues, it should not be prioritised over environmental efforts as it unfairly places vulnerable nations at risk of environmental devastation. Not all nations are created equal, with some possessing much more economic clout than others. The beneficial effects of economic development are limited to a nation’s own populace, but its detrimental effects on the environment are often regional, affecting multiple nations around it. Pollution such as haze and industrial waste is able to transcend national borders, spreading to other nations through the air or shared waterways. A nation’s carbon footprint from industrialisation causes the Earth to grow warmer and sea levels to rise, placing vulnerable island nations at risk of sinking under the sea, despite the fact that they contribute to less than one percent of the world’s carbon output. It is not fair to these nations, which did not benefit from the economic development of the country producing pollution, to suffer from the ill effects of environmental devastation which they are powerless to stop. This is poignant in today’s increasingly interlinked world, where larger countries fail to be held to account for their actions even by international organisations like the United Nations. For instance, the US withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord despite its significant carbon footprint, making it unaccountable for the economic devastation its pollution causes. This responsibility allows more powerful nations to create pollution through economic growth without consequences. An example of pollution affecting other nations is the annual transboundary haze caused by Indonesia when it burns forests to create land for cash crops. The haze spreads to neighbouring nations such as Malaysia and Singapore, affecting the economies of these countries. Hence, economic growth should not be prioritised over environmental efforts as it unfairly places vulnerable nations at risk.

In addition, economic growth should not take precedence over environmental efforts as urgent action needs to be taken to curb the effects of environmental degradation. Economic development is a slow process which happens over years, even decades. However, environmental disasters plaguing the world currently pose an immediate threat, which will only be exacerbated in the future. Hence, there is a greater incentive to take steps to solve environmental issues now, than to wait decades for environmental progress before attempting to solve these snowballing problems. Nations cannot wait for their economies to grow and for their GDPs to increase when their citizens fall victim to natural disasters and environmental pollution. In today’s world, saving the environment is an action that needs to be taken immediately by countries, as waiting for economic growth before trying to solve these issues could lead to irreversible consequences. The extinction of endangered species and loss of entire nations to rising sea levels are devastating outcomes of environmental degradation which cannot be reversed, even with modern technology. One example of a country at risk of vanishing is Kiribati. With islands raised a few metres above sea level, the nation is predicted to become uninhabitable by 2050, when the ocean rises enough to completely submerge the tiny country. The president of Kiribati even made an appeal to the United Nations General Assembly to call for efforts to curb global warming, before island nations such as his vanish for good. Thus, economic development should not be prioritised over environmental efforts, as environmental degradation results in issues that must be solved as soon as possible.

In conclusion, although proponents argue that economic growth is essential to solve the immediate problem of poverty and that it places developing nations in a better position to conserve the environment, they have ultimately failed to recognise that environmental degradation is an issue that must be addressed now and that reckless economic growth unfairly harms vulnerable nations which do not benefit from it. Thus, economic development should not be prioritised over environmental efforts due to the excessive harms that arise from solely focusing on economic growth and neglecting environmental conservation. As Martin Luther King once said, “We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.” Economic development may benefit our own nation, but it is environmental conservation that truly protects the world that we all live in.