Author: VidS

“Is freedom of expression always desirable?” Comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should freedom of speech be protected no matter the cost?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is effective farming possible without science?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retirement years are golden years. Do you agree?

For many young people, “retirement” is synonymous to “rest”: You have already done your part, now you can enjoy the rest of your life without working and still get paid. While this notion is obviously overly simplistic and presumptuous, it is partly true that the retirement years seem to promise one with many perks that he or she could only dream of during their working years, such as almost endless leisure time, guaranteed payment and freedom from commitments to do whatever they want. However, in my society in Vietnam, retirement years are never considered “golden”, in fact, they often bring one much worries as they usually mean less financial security and loneliness, as well as lack of healthcare and overall less fulfilling life.

Stressed-out and overworked adults often have the delusion that retirement years would be the end goals of their working life, during which they will have much fewer work commitments and thus would finally be free from such a stressful lifestyle. They dream that they would have all the time and freedom in the world to travel, pursue their hobbies or to simply spend more time with their children and family. After all, who would complain about too much leisure time if they can afford it? This mentality can be seen in the trend of enrichment classes, not for children but retired adults, ranging from cooking to dancing to flower arranging being organized and are very well-received by those with a lot of time on their hands after retirement. More religious people also see retirement as an opportunity to compensate for ignoring their spiritual growth during the busy years, and dream of using this free time to journey to pagodas and churches all over the country in pilgrimages tours tailored specifically for retirees. They also rather naively think that retirement years allow them to spend more time with their family and children to make up for the time that they could not while they were busy working. This mindset is particularly popular in Vietnam, where traditional Eastern values of putting family first are still highly upheld; and it is not uncommon for several generations to stay in the same house, which would certainly allow them to easily care for other members. Overall, many have understandable, but not so realistic dreams about the endless enjoyment in their retirement years.

These dreams, in fact, are overly optimistic and superficial, since they forgot to consider two other very important factors that would allow such enjoyment and leisure: money and health. While it is true that retired people have considerably more time, they might not have the financial capacity and energy to follow through with their plans. The majority (over 80 per cent) of Vietnamese live in rural areas and thus primarily do agricultural works, meaning that for them “retirement” comes when one is no longer capable of such laborious tasks and has to stop working.  Certainly, they do not have any kind of pension or guaranteed form of payments, making daily sustenance an issue, not to mention costly leisure such as travelling. Thus, for these people, retirement often means becoming dependent on their children and thus they are no longer able to participate in recreational activities. For city-dwellers, the situation is slightly better cine most people either work for the government or private firms; however, they fail to realize that while their pension is significantly less comparing to their working wages, their living expenses do not decrease simply because they have retired. Prices of goods, house rents and other commodities might even continue to rise due to Vietnam’s growing economy’s vulnerability to inflation. While it is not impossible to carry on with their previous lifestyle, looking forward to a luxurious lifestyle with extravagant trips to exotic places or shopping sprees is simply unrealistic. Furthermore, retirees are often 55 to 70 years old, meaning that their health has deteriorated considerably compared to their prime working years. Those who use to do laborious tasks often face bones and respiratory systems diseases, while office workers have their shares of cancer and heart diseases due to their sedentary lifestyle. Vietnam’s lack of a comprehensive healthcare system also leaves many people without healthcare insurance, making it very difficult for them to obtain affordable healthcare. With such poor health conditions, it is rather difficult for a retired adult to follow the adventurous plans he made when he was 27. Hence, in Vietnam, retirement years are not golden as it leaves people financially insecure and often means poorer health.

Those who still insist on viewing retirement years through rose-tinted glasses might argue that despite the lack of money, a retired adult can still enjoy life through simpler things, such as human interactions and a sense of community, what they might have missed out on due to their previously hectic lifestyle. They would back up this claim by pointing out that Vietnamese society, in fact, has very strong grassroots organizations in residential areas, and would frequently conduct meetings and activities to facilitate bonding between members in the neighbourhood. This community, as they would enthusiastically claim, would ensure that retired adults have companionship and can still lead an active meaningful lifestyle even after retirement.

However, it is still evident that retired adults feel much lonelier after leaving their workplace, in fact, many were in shock and terrified of no longer having work and wish to continue working to have a sense of purpose. These grassroots communities might provide short-term relief for these people, but in the long run, it essentially confines them to interactions with people in the same situation, further drilling into them the notion that they now belong to a “group” of old, non-productive people of the society. Activities carried out become repetitive and superficial a while as they do not have many variations, and thus cannot help retirees find a sense of purpose after they have stopped working. Family-wise, they might find themselves cast aside by other family members who are still working and have much busier schedules to follow. Ultimately, retirees are left falling lonely, unproductive and ignored by society, which severely damages their self-esteem and can even contribute to depression among the elderlies.

Vietnam has quickly moved from a tightly bonded, inclusive and caring society to one that favours productivity, progress and economic development, and this has had clear impacts on the retirees. While it is difficult and not necessarily beneficial to try and make the retirement years “golden years” in one’s life, it is certainly important that the government, communities and every member of society change their views towards retirees and help ensure that everyone is allowed to lead a productive and engaging lifestyle regardless of age and socioeconomic status.

Is it futile to try and save the environment?

In this post-industrialisation era, many governments and individuals have raised concerns over the environment; global warming, loss of biodiversity and land degradation pose threats to our survival and add moral burdens on our shoulders. Many international conferences have been held and environmental organizations’ voices have grown stronger than ever before, giving some the illusion that we can restore the environment we damaged. However, efforts by these institutions and individuals, more often than not, do not produce actual effects, due to profit-centric political agenda, technological limitations and nature’s unstoppable force. Thus, it is true to some extent that it is futile to try and save the environment.

Looking through rose-tinted glasses, those who are overly optimistic may claim that the rising concerns for the environment at the national level will make the restoration of the environment an achievable goal. It is true that environmental issues have been brought up in many international conferences. The World Commission on Environment and Development, for example, was established in 1983, where the concept of sustainable development was first acknowledged by multiple nations. In the later years, environmental conventions in Brazil, Copenhagen, Kyoto and Paris brought together world leaders to discuss strategies to save our environment. Such international efforts to address environmental issues paint a promising picture for the optimists, especially when many countries have consistently met the environmental targets set. France, for example, successfully reduced its carbon emission drastically by using nuclear energy to power 70% of its domestic electricity. Example like this can easily give the impression that our efforts to save the environment will be effective, as the world nations seem to be willing to put in resources collectively and some results have been seen.

            However, those optimists fail to recognize that those international conferences and the apparent results have too trivial an effect to be able to save the environment, as the current level of technology does not allow us to achieve our ambitions. In particular, the notion that humans can slow down environmental degradation by changing our energy use pattern is overly simplistic, because the process of producing alternative energy itself deteriorates nature. For instance, although many countries have tied to use solar energy as a green alternative for fossil fuels, the production of solar-energy panels involves mining-specific metals, which are already scarce in nature, and the transportation of materials, as well as the manufacturing process of these panels, emits greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Hence, the so-called environmentally friendly energy is ironically environmentally devastating. Furthermore, the waste generated by nuclear plants and the radiation that affects the surrounding ecosystem has also rendered our efforts to save the environment counter-productive, causing further damages to the environment. Therefore, the attempts taken on a national level to restore the environment are rather futile as the solutions to environmental problems still cause an adverse impact on the environment.

            Active environmentalists may argue that the awakening of individuals around the world who now advocate for the environment has halted many environmentally damaging projects and activities. With the maturing of democracy across the world, citizens have used their individual power to try to save the environment, by protesting and advocating. For example, Nature Society of Singapore, a non-government organization, published Master Plan for the Conservation of Nature in Singapore in 1990, which propelled the government’s now institutionalized Green Plan that sets aside five per cent of Singapore’s total area for nature conservation. Incidents like this convince the environmentalists that concerted efforts by individuals can be very powerful in protecting our environment. Nevertheless, they ignore the compelling truth that most of the time, profit-driven companies or governments that prioritise economic development are too powerful to be challenged. The Three Gorges Project in China, for instance, caused many environmentalists to protest due to its potential damage on biodiversity. However, the project was continued due to the strong will of the Chinese government and the multiple corporations involved. These examples show that individual efforts are too insignificant to save the environment when most of the time, governments and corporations overpower these individuals.

            Lastly, the environmental issues we perceive can simply be a natural pattern that no human efforts can stop. Global warming, for example, is believed by many scientists to be merely a result of increasing solar activity, which has nothing to do with the faults of human. Researchers also point out that, the earth has experienced a period of warming when the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases was low. Scientific pieces of evidence like this reveal the horrifying fact that environmental issues may not be a result of human activities. If so, our efforts to save the environment will not produce any effect. Furthermore, the still-rising carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is a compelling corroboration that our individual and international efforts achieve a little outcome to stop the possible natural trend. Hence, given the scientific uncertainty about the truth of environmental degradation, it is rather futile to try and save the environment because the force of nature itself is almost unchallengeable.

            In conclusion, provided with the current state of science and technology, as well as the socio-economical needs of countries, human efforts to save the environment produce rather negligible outcomes. Moreover, the possibility that environmental issues are merely a natural trend tells us that it is futile to save the deteriorating environment and ourselves from its impacts.

Should the British Empire return the looted artifacts?

History has been witness to the British Empire looting many countries of their precious artifacts. The Elgin’s Marbles from Greece, The Benin Bronzes from Nigeria and many artifacts from countries like Australia, India and Native America. Many believe that these artifacts should not be returned but in reality there is an increasing need for these artifacts to be returned to their respective countries because it is their rightful place and if Nazi-looted art is fair to be returned then it is also fair that the empire returns the looted artifacts.

Many believe that the artifacts kept in the British museums are safe and encourage archaeological research done on them. However, it should not be forgotten that the artifacts stored in the British museums are looted and the countries from which they are looted will feel satisfied if their artifacts are returned to them as they are a part of their cultural heritage. For example, many believe that the Elgin’s Marbles should be returned to Greece as it belongs to them but UK does not plan to return the artifacts. The British believe that if they have the artifacts they can take better care of the artifacts. It is true that, the countries deserve to get their artifacts back.

It is also necessary to understand that returning the artifacts can also maintain the amicable relationships between countries. It is true that if the artifacts are returned to their respective countries, it would help in maintaining smooth relations between countries, while not doing so can lead to countries becoming more hostile towards the British Empire. One such instance can be Egypt declaring that it is going to sue museums in Britain and Belgium and if the artifacts are not returned the archaeologists will not be allowed to continue their research in the country. The artifact issue is not only limited to countries like Egypt and Greece but also extends to countries like India, China Australia and so on. Hence, it is only justified that the British return the looted artifacts to their respective countries because not doing so can lead to spoiling relationships between countries.

Additionally, Britain’s expectation that Nazi-looted artifacts should be returned to them reflects their hypocrisy. On one hand, they are readily accepting their artifacts but on the other hand, they are denying requests of other countries for reclaiming the artifacts which are rightfully theirs. British officials argue that many of these countries are incompetent in preserving their national artifacts. Therefore, according to them, the empire is doing a great service by keeping the important artifacts safe. However, it should not be forgotten that if the British believe that they should receive the Nazi-looted art then it should also be return the artifacts looted from various countries. Hence, even if the countries are not stable and are asking for their artifacts it should be returned to them.

It is completely wrong to believe that the British are deserving of getting their artifacts back while the colonized countries are undeserving. There is an underlying race issue prevalent here; it is evident from the fact that Elgin’s stones are the face of the artifacts return debate. Greece’s request for the artifacts is considered while from another country is completely ignored. One instance of this can be the denying of the request of the return of Benin’s Bronze wherein one journalist even said that Nigerians do not deserve the artifacts as they were bought by selling slaves. Hence, this shows that the British are wrong in their approach where they are constantly denying the requests of repatriating the artifacts.

In conclusion, it can be said that the British need to realise that they are no longer the colonisers. Today, the world has changed and it is high time that the artifacts were returned to their respective countries. The British should introspect and understand that behind the guise of a beautiful artifact is a long history of violence and subjugation. It is important that these museums try their best to return the artifacts and the ones they cannot return should have an explanation given of how these artifacts reached Europe. In this way, we can share the cultural heritage and maintain amicable relationships with countries around the world.

‘Environmental conservation, not poverty alleviation, should be the priority of developing countries.’ Comment.

Environmental problems, as well as poverty, exist in many developing countries. Environmental problems such as pollution and exploitation of scarce resources may exist due to the country’s desire to advance economically so as to alleviate poverty. Some may say that environment conservation can deprive a country financially and that the funds can be used to eradicate poverty instead. But, by conserving the environment, people in developing countries can be lifted out of poverty as well. Furthermore, the lack of environmental conservation can lead to further damages to the environment and worsen poverty. Thus, environmental conservation should be the priority of developing countries as it can benefit them in the long run and also, likely bring about monetary benefits and reduce poverty.

Admittedly, environmental conservation requires large amounts of funds which can be used for poverty alleviation through means such as subsidising education. Environmental conservation usually involves the transition from coal-produced electricity and usage of fossil fuels to renewable and clean energy. The use of renewable energy such as wind power, solar energy and hydroelectric energy can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions which can help slow down global warming as well as the depletion of the ozone layer. However, the transition to clean energy comes with a huge price. At the 2010 Copenhagen consensus, the UN and World Bank mentioned that the conversion from coal-produced electricity to clean energy requires US$100 billion at least, which is more than 10 times of what most countries’ governments are investing in clean energy now. Electricity from wind power, for example, cost two times more than electricity produced from coal. This is often due to the need to construct direct current lines to transport the electricity as well as storage for energy. Thus, developing countries may be unable to afford to convert to cleaner energy due to the high costs. On top of that, money spent on environmental conservation comes with an opportunity cost as well. The money, arguably, can be used to subsidise education. This can allow more financially disadvantaged children to attend school and thus increase their employability and lift themselves out of poverty in the near future. Education on birth control can also reduce family sizes, which is a factor that often worsens a family’s financial situation due to the need to bring up more children. Undeniably, spending on education can have benefits on poverty alleviation. However, developing countries often lack the funds to do so. Thus, developing countries can possibly use environmental conservation as a stepping stone to eradicate poverty in the long run.

Environmental conservation should be the priority of developing nations as it can help countries to reduce poverty in the long run. In less developed countries, ecotourism is a common way to generate income and thus it is a thriving industry in many less developed countries. For example, countries such as Costa Rica and Kenya, engage in ecotourism and this industry has generated many jobs for locals. This is especially helpful for the locals as many are trapped in poverty and thus are largely uneducated. For instance, local fishermen are often hired by tourists to bring them out to sea for the purpose of ecotourism. Thus, this generates income for the locals who are living in poverty. Additionally, this also creates revenue for the government which can be used to help the poor through the form of subsidies or food aid, provided that the government is not corrupt and hence will use the money to improve the lives of its citizens. Also, the government can use the money to conserve the environment and they are incentivised to do so as by preserving the environment, the country can attract more tourists for ecotourism. Hence, it is evident that environmental conservation can bring economic benefits to developing countries and the wise use of the money generated from it can benefit the poor.

However, by having environmental conservation as the most important goal of a developing country, instead of alleviating poverty, it can also worsen poverty by causing locals to lose their jobs. Although clean energy is known as clean energy, they are not actually “clean”. All forms of energy, including renewable ones, have some form of impact on the environment. For example, biofuels can cause deforestation and hydroelectric energy can cause changes to the landscape. All of these can potentially worsen locals’ lives. In Uganda, ecotourism is a prosperous industry. Many locals are employed in that industry and thus, it is very important as it feeds a large proportion of the locals. The government is also actively engaged in the conservation of the environment. Hence, dams were built to provide hydroelectric energy to the locals, which is clean and allows the country to shift from coal-produced electricity to clean hydroelectric energy. However, the construction of dams, one of which is the Bengali Dam, disrupted the flow of the river, which has a negative impact on the ecotourism industry. Many locals who bring tourists for kayaking and rafting are affected as tourism reduced after the construction of the dams. Thus, this proves that the conservation of the environment has its downside too. However, damages can be mitigated as new jobs will be created as well, following the construction of the dams and locals who are out of a job can work at hydroelectric energy plants. The government can also try to mitigate damages and preserve the ecotourism industry so that poverty is not aggravated in the pursuit of environmental conservation which can eventually eliminate poverty.

It is important that environmental conservation, not poverty alleviation should be the priority of developing countries as the lack of environmental conservation can lead to further damages to the environment and worsen poverty. In the pursuit of economic development, many countries are willing to sacrifice their environment so as to prosper. China is one such example, China is burdened with air and water pollution due to its rapid growth in the recent decade. In 2013, New York-based Blacksmith Institute even ranked Linfen, a China city, alongside Chernobyl on the list of the top 10 most polluted cities in the world. Furthermore, emerging economies such as India and China are rising up the list of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters with China being first and India being fourth. This is evident that several developing countries caused harm to their environment for economic benefits. However, while this degradation of the environment can lead to prosperity in certain developing countries, it may also worsen poverty in some other developing countries. In Nigeria, the transnational company, Shell, has caused damages to its environment which also affected the livelihood of many locals, rendering them helpless financially. The production plants of Shell have caused fires which burnt croplands. This reduced farmers’ crop yield and destroyed their croplands which cause them to lose their tool to generate income. The production plants have also resulted in oil spills which polluted rivers and ponds. This also caused fishermen to lose their rice bowls and thus are unable to make a living which further worsens their financial status. On top of that, locals affected are not compensated for their loss. The corrupt government also further worsens the situation as they prioritised the economic benefits that Shell brought to Nigeria by building oil production plants there. Thus, there are lax or no environmental laws or rules that Shell has to abide by, allowing them to cause damages to the environment. Hence, measures or laws have to be put in place to conserve the environment so as to not worsen the financial state of locals. Due to the corrupt government, foreign presence such as the United Nations may be needed to protect the environment as well as not worsen the poverty in developing nations.

In conclusion, developing nations should prioritize the conservation of the environment instead of alleviating poverty. The conservation of the environment may be costly, but there exist many protocols which developing nations can take part in and receive help from stronger nations or agencies. For example, the Montreal Protocol which provides funds to needy developing countries. In the long run, environmental conservation will affect poverty positively as it can generate jobs as well as provide the government with funds to improve the citizens’ lives and lift them out of poverty. Since solving environmental issues can have benefits on alleviating poverty, developing countries should prioritise it to benefit their people.

‘A good leader should always be popular’. How far do you agree with this statement?

The concept of a well-like leader has probably never been concretely established such that everyone can agree with it. History has seen many leaders revolutionised the world with their set of beliefs, be it good or bad, and thus not everyone has the same perception of a leader. However, in more recent times, we have seen heads-of-state and premiers with their fair share of proponents and opponents around the world, therefore bringing up the question of whether good leaders should always be popular. Many believe that popular leaders are definitely better for our society but others do think that leadership is amoral in nature. While both sides of the contention have validity, I believe that a good leader should always be popular mainly due to the fact that their influence can transcend geographical boundaries.

Detractors of my stand argue that it is important to go back to the reasons why leaders are elected in the first place; to the governor to inspire a group of individuals to specific goals. Such opponents adopt the pragmatic view of leadership and believe that above all, good leaders ‘get the job done’ efficiently, and therefore it is inconsequential whether or not their people or colleagues admire them. By a simple definition of a leader, my opponents believe in leaders serving their purpose first, as people may support politicians who are true, bad. A converse of this, however, is the incumbent Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who with his strong anti-corruption and crime rhetoric, is making headlines. Famously nicknamed ‘The Punisher’, Duterte has been slammed by leaders around the world for his extra-judicial killings. However, from another viewpoint, he is a hero in the eyes of a local contingent for his low tolerance of corruption, which would see the Philippines progress as a country. While his actions are condoned by many, people do believe that he is moving his country in the right direction. To the pragmatics, doing right is better than what is popular.

This claim is no doubt valid and does show a reflection of the beliefs of a practical audience. However, I opine that doing what is right is not the only purpose of a leader. Being ruthless even for a supposedly good cause, like how Duterte does, has its repercussions. Such aggressive approaches can lead to hostility and political uproar initiated by the public. This was evident in Libya in 2011, during which a political rebellion led to the end of the reign of Muammar Gaddafi. From this, we learn that gaining the approval of the people is important, and support is crucial. Rodrigo Duterte is at large due to the fact that he is well-supported but may see an end similar to Gaddafi is he angers his people as well. With popularity, comes power.

Astute leaders should be popular as the combination of good leadership and the public vote has the potential to unify a society. Good leaders are, of course, venerated by many across the planet, but popular leaders have the power of influencing their people as well. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is arguably one of the most renowned and favourite world leaders of many today. In the wake of neighbouring head-of-state Donald Trump’s stance against Muslims, Trudeau has publicly announced his respect and acceptance of immigrants of different ethnicities. At the same time, he was seen dancing along to Indian music and giving intellectual discussions, making him a favourite and a common topic of discussion amongst Canadians. This goes to show how a popular leader can get his country buzzing about politics and life under his leadership. In a so-called ‘angry place’, good and popular leaders are the beacon of light that motivates millions around the world to believe that the world can be a happy place. They bring in a new air of positivity that stimulates optimism and the best in individuals. While there are many examples of good leaders, the people’s leaders leave more profound impacts on the world, as illustrated by former actor-turned USA President Ronald Reagan who chose to be positive while dealing with the threat of the USSR.

From a socio-economic perspective, good leaders ought to be popular in their quest of seeking cooperation with other countries and governing bodies. A popular leader firstly gains the support of the country, making his or her nation stronger through social cohesion. Secondly, a leader who can make a positive mark around the world prompts other countries to seek partnerships. Thus, the influence of a popular leader has worldwide can lead to greater economic cooperation. Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew is respected by many for the robust fortress he moulded Singapore into, which has seen great economic growth in the country. His popularity in Singapore made him a potential ally to many other countries like China. Thus, there is a solid advantage for a good leader to be popular in that, in a world of distrust and rapid globalisation, economic benefits can be reaped.

Additionally, popular leaders make the foundation of a strong political society that is immune to internal conflict. As popular leaders resonate with their people and share their voice, they can help solidify the political foundations in their country, giving her people contentment and no reason to rebel. Nations such as Bashar Al Assad’s Syria and, back in time, Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya have been on the receiving end of the spectrum. It may take a new leader, in Syria’s case, to rid the nation of political insecurity and fear instilled in the people.

In a nutshell, there are several social, political and economic reasons for a great leader to be in sync with his or her people’s beliefs. However, it is paramount for leaders to be popular for the right reasons as the inspirational Martin Luther King and the draconian Josef Stalin have shown. In line with Jeremy Bentham’s belief of consequentialism, it is essential for the leaders of today to possess the blend of doing what is right for the greater good, hearing and acting on the public’s concern and of course being the moral compass for the world to follow.

Do you agree that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation?

The United States of America is the shining beacon and bastion of liberal democracy and has successfully exported this very ideology to most countries around the world who chose freedom of expression instead of oppression as their way of governance. The freedom of expression is said to propel a country to its heyday through the progress of all aspects of the country, be it political, social, cultural and technological aspects. This is because it gives people the opportunity to share opinions, think out of the box and work towards the progress of a nation. This is evidenced by how civilised and well-perceived countries are when they subscribe to freedom of expression, like the US and the Scandinavian countries. However, underneath the veneer of its merits, some incidents that have come to the fore recently strengthens the validity of this notion that the freedom of expression actually hinders the progress of a nation. Nonetheless, I beg to differ. It does not hinder the progress of a nation, so long as it is regulated.

Freedom of expression does not hinder a nation’s progress because it brings about a more vibrant culture by rehabbing a country’s cultural scene. As cultures provide a country with a sense of identity and its citizens, a sense of belonging, freedom of expression serves as a vehicle to forge these important traits at a time when the westernisation of countries have started to amalgamate cultures into a homogenous one. It allows for artists and creative people to illustrate or express the country’s’ roots, way of life and thinking without prosecution. This is crucial for a country to make cultural progress because possessing a vibrant culture strengthens the social fabric of a country and fills them with pride and motivation to help the country progress. For example, the freedom of expression has enabled the publishing of literature like ‘Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry’ and ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ which reflects on America’s wretched past on racial inequality. These works allow citizens to better understand their country’s roots and learn from mistakes of the past so that they become responsible citizens. On the other hand, if a country curbs freedom of expression, it will most certainly hinder its progress, as seen from the consequences of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, where the teachings of renowned scholars, religions and people who preach them have been purged. This resulted in the majority of the population, unable to generate significant cultural progress because they have been indoctrinated and have not been given the freedom to express the right to practice proper moral values. Despite its rich cultural heritage, the Cultural Revolution brought about by draconian restrictions on the freedom of expression has had China regressed culturally. America however, has matured into becoming a more civilized society with a vibrant culture, proof that the freedom of expression leaders to the progress of a nation.

I do not agree that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation because of engenders technological innovation and progress. It lets innovations thrive because new concepts and schools of thought can be created for the betterment of countries. Taking these concepts further is the improvement in technology to solve the world’s problems and safeguard nations. It is only through the freedom of expression can scientists save lives with stem cell research and the 3-D printing of organs because they are backed by no boundaries to experiment. Through these experiments, new ideas and improvements could be made. Scientists can also solve hunger by creating GM food, which genetically alters the genes to make crops more resistant to diseases. This increases crop yield such that it is hoped that it could meet the quickly escalating demand for food as the world population is projected to hit 9 billion by 2050. Furthermore, the freedom of expression also gives rise to a nation’s military progress, allowing it to safeguard its borders. A country’s productivity, infrastructure and various interests can only be protected if there is a competent military to deter aggressors. Freedom of expression lets engineers developed advanced military technologies like stealth, cruise missiles, drones and laser weapons never before accomplished. These advanced technologies allow for a military to gain unparalleled situational awareness on the battlefield through information sharing and therefore, more potent warfighting capabilities. Not only will military technologies increase survivability, but it can also protect a nation’s borders through deterrence. All this progress can only be achieved if the freedom of expression was in place to bring about, and not hinder, progress.

The freedom of expression does not hinder the progress of a nation because it ensures that the political situation is uncorrupted and that the government can be kept in checking such that it serves its citizens well. It forms the bedrock of a country’s progress. By having a free press, leaders who commit wrongdoings can be held accountable as seen by the impeachment of South Korean President Park Geun Hye, whose confidant’s meddling with state affairs has seen her political career unravelling into shambles. This is only possible and the freedom of expression creates windows of opportunity to do research and dig deep for information to expose wrongdoings. By exposing corrupt leaders can new, more righteous ones be elected. The country can then progress politically. Freedom of expression does not hinder a nation’s progress insofar that citizens can provide feedback and air with their discontentment through dialogues and online forums. Governors and diplomats, are after all, also human and will make mistakes. Some governments may be blindsided to certain issues and when this happens, it is a citizen’s responsibility to express his opinions so that their governments can correct policies to allow a nation’s progress.

Alas, events of recent times have juxtaposed with my stand that the freedom of expression does not hinder the progress of a nation, especially in a social aspect. The massacre at Charlie Hebdo, where Al-Qaeda terrorists struck the offices of a satirical cartoon magazine who drew derogatory depictions of Prophet Muhammad, and the Muslim ban in which Donald Trump has imposed has given rise to a surge in Muslim discrimination across America. These are just two instances in which freedom of expression leads to social regression because it testifies to the abuse of this freedom bestowed on the populous. Vilifying and cracking jokes about religion will tear the ever-widening social fabric that has held liberal democratic counties for years apart with its relentless wave of immigrants assimilating into these nations. These incidents hitherto unseen before will cause racial vitriol, disunity in society and potentially, social, economic and political instability. Terrorist organizations like the Islamic State could up the ante by ramping up propaganda to victimize disenchanted Muslims to join to fight as martyrs. These exploitations have manifested themselves with the rise of lone-wolf terrorist attacks around the world. Far-reaching implications like these will undermine the security of nations. As a result, people living in liberal democracies will soon sell down the river, the social principles they have stood by for so long.

Though it may be true that the freedom of expression can at times hinder the progress of nations, betraying principles like these will do greater harm than good. Look at how far nations which have espoused the freedom of expression have come. It is through these freedoms can positive changes be realised. It is through these freedoms can citizens, the building blocks of society, have a say in how to govern their country and not instead be politically apathetic. It is through the freedom of expression can the ideas of society be shared, mistakes are corrected and progress is achieved.

To end off, I do not believe that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation. In fact, it makes a nation’s collective experience more colourful by experiencing the best of times and the darkest of hours. That said, we must never forget that we are the masters of our own destiny. We can influence, direct and control our environment, to allow humankind to progress as one. To do so, it is of paramount importance that liberal democratic countries regulate the potential negative effects that may accompany the use of freedom of expression, especially with regards to sensitive racial and religious matters, so that these nations can progress towards their future utopia.