Politics – Page 3

‘Terrorists are nothing more than criminals’. Discuss.

Detractors of terrorism criticise it by labelling terrorists as nothing more than criminals as they resort to atrocious acts of violence and bloodshed to achieve their aims. Although this view undoubtedly holds a whit of fidelity, it would be too reductionist and simplistic to believe entirely in it. From a religious and even moral point of view, it must be remembered that all are equal, and even terrorists are ultimately part of the human race. Who are we to judge them and degrade them to nothing more than sinners if we do not understand the complicated situations and environments that they grow up in? Should we not practise what we preach and forgive them for their heinous crimes? It is more than valid to say that the atrocities of terrorists are so frightening that it breeds pure hatred towards them, but it would be myopic to jump the gun and label them as nothing more than criminals.

One of the arguments levelled against terrorists is that their outrageous acts of violence show an absence of compassion and humanity, rendering them as mere sinners who do not deserve to belong to the human race. However, those who argue so fail to realise that terrorists are only doing what they do because of their circumstances. It would be almost impossible for someone living in a well-developed and peaceful country to imagine the environment those growing up in the war-torn Middle-East have to face. The classic example of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one that tells of severe oppression. The teenagers and young men, sometimes even women, of the Middle-East, only become terrorists after they have experienced the

The devastating loss of loved ones, witnessing them being blown up by those of another religion or ideology. Living in a society where you fear for your life every single day, with helicopter attacks and suicide bombings becoming just another feature of daily life, it would be difficult not to be influenced by the extremist beliefs of religious martyrs that resort to violence. Hence, we cannot hastily come to the conclusion that terrorists are any less human than us as it is their extreme circumstances that give them no other alternative but to resort to bloodshed.

Those who strongly oppose terrorism put forth the argument that the very actions of terrorists show a complete lack of love for humanity. This might hold true to a certain extent, but it would take a bigot to not realise why these terrorists are employing the use of violence. As an oppressed minority, it would not be feasible to wage a conventional war with the majority. If the Catholics in Northern Ireland did not fight for their causes with terrorist measures, they would have stood absolutely no chance against the Protestant government. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka exist today because they would never succeed fighting a direct

war against the Singhalese rulers. We should not condone or even come close to accepting terrorism, but we do have to recognise that what terrorists do is not for the mere sake of killing. It is more than a shout for attention so that the world sees what they are fighting for; it is a desperate, last-ditch attempt to secure their basic freedom and rights.

Many who feel strongly against terrorists dismiss them as nothing more than criminals, as their actions portray them as cold, heartless beings, but to do so would be to lack compassion themselves. It is important to remember the very basis that mankind sets out on; everyone is equal. Whether one adopts a religious view or a moral view, it is clear that all members of the human race, some going as far as including the animal kingdom, are born the same, and should be afforded the same love and respect. Just as we do not discriminate against the minorities, those of a different race, colour or religion, we should not be blinded by our anger against these terrorists, and we have to try to understand that despite their actions of violence and slaughter, they are as human as any one of us.

As the world continues to wage its war against terrorism, we have to face the reality that we will never obliterate it entirely from the face of the earth. There will always be majorities or those in power who impose a tyrannical rule on the minority, and this creates the perfect environment that is conducive for the breeding of terrorism. As voices of the oppressed are drowned out by all-powerful governments, the only war that they can wage is that of terrorism. With fear and insecurity as their weapon, they will continue to march behind their shields of extremist beliefs. We cannot simply judge terrorists to be nothing more than criminals as they are only driven by the extremity of their circumstances. Perhaps one day the world will move towards an integrated global society that respects the rights of the minorities, but until then, terrorism will still flourish, as those who do not receive their basic rights and respect will do that they deem necessary to secure them.

“The individual today is powerless in protecting his right to privacy.” How far would you agree with this statement?

The general belief today is that our right to privacy is an illusion – something seemingly sacred, but in reality, non-existent. Individuals living in today’s world are powerless in protecting their right to privacy. It is widely known and possibly accepted, that in order to coexist in a safe and efficient society, we have to give up information about ourselves and our lives for reasons such as convenience. Sometimes, people even share their private lives willingly for the pleasure or benefit of others. However, it may be argued that by becoming more aware of how systems operate in society around them, individuals can indeed try to protect their right to privacy, albeit to a small extent.

One of the most commonly cited reasons for an invasion of privacy is that it is a sacrifice made in the pursuit of a larger goal, that is, national security. In the name of national security, government agents or other parties involved justify their acts of digging into our most private lives – telephone conversations and emails. In certain institutions, security cameras watch our every move and breathe. More commonly around the world, security officials in airports are permitted to rummage through passengers’ bags and personal belongings. Since such acts of invasion of privacy are

often state-warranted and hence legal, it can be argued that the individual is powerless to protect himself against them. From another point of view, these security measures may not be seen as a threat to an individual’s right to privacy since the information that governments aim to gather – political inclinations, terrorist connections, plans for acts of violence or rebellion – is not the typical information an average individual would be seeking to keep private. From this perspective, there would be no clash of interests between the government and citizens where privacy is concerned.

Often times in today’s world, an individual gives up his right to privacy without even being aware of doing so. For example, filling out a form asking for our personal particulars inadvertently leads to information about ourselves that can be used or abused. When this happens, it can be said that the individual is powerless in protecting his right to privacy because if he does not know something is happening, how can he fight it? In the fast-paced world where information can be transferred in the blink of an eye, corporations are cashing in on opportunities to trade information for money or even for more information. For example, it is common for banks to exchange credit card client information. This results in the barrage of targeted advertising that may even seem impressive. The solution is simple: people should educate themselves about how information that they give up about themselves can and will be used by organizations. Then, they can think twice before signing-up for freebies or participating in a contest. The reality is that private information has become a bargaining chip, a negotiation tool that is exchanged for the worldly conveniences that we so desire such as access to games, news and even movies.

While examining how powerless an individual is in protecting his right to privacy, it would be prudent to also examine how much an individual today wants that power. Does the majority of the world today really seek to protect their privacy? The general consensus is, no. If an individual is not seeking to protect his privacy in the first place, it is no wonder that he finds himself powerless and justifiably so.

In order to conform and to exist as a good citizen in a civilized society, an individual has to surrender some of his right to privacy to the government. Assuming the government is benevolent, information gathered would be justly used for the greater good. Any further divulgence of information to other sources is done at the choice of an informed individual. Therefore, while one can concede that the individual today is powerless in protecting his right to privacy, it is also prudent also acknowledge that he is not entirely powerless in making the decision to give up some of that power.

‘A world without censorship is a delightful idea but a dreadful reality’. Discuss.

Censorship is the process of examining and suppressing unnecessary parts. This can be adopted by anyone in society. In modern society, censorship is debated about its benefit and its disadvantages. In addition, some critics perceived that freedom of speech and free flow of ideas are compromised due to censorship. However, I strongly disagree. Censorship can prevent people from mimicking dangerous acts. Also, censorship can maintain racial stability in a country. Most importantly, censorship can filter the right information to be released for the public. Hence, without censorship, the world would be very dreadful.

Some critics state that information disseminated by the government to the public is limited and is an act of controlling the people. Information such as policies that government wants to implement is not released. Similarly, the agenda and motive behind every government policies are not explicitly explained and are not fully disseminated to the public. Hence the public does not understand society well enough. In North Korea, the information about its nuclear power and its usage is not explicitly explained to the public. This results in the public being afraid of the presence of nuclear power. Similarly, foreign countries are afraid to approach North Korea or maybe suspicious about North Korea’s motive behind such a move. This might result in a war aroused by suspicion. Hence, censorship is deemed detrimental and should be removed. However, some level of a world with censorship is still necessary so that the government can function properly as if all information about the government is given to the citizens, it might be pre-mature and unjustified which makes governing a country more difficult.

In reality, censorship is important in filtering out unnecessary information and provides the right information to the public. The term “right” may be a point of contention as it is not a perceived view of the government which fits their political motive. The term “right” means that the form of information disseminated to the public is justified and real. For example, in the context of a recent earthquake in Fukushima, the death toll mentions by the media has many variations with some saying a death toll of 20,000 in the region. This unsettles people and breaks the optimism of the people. Hence, in this sort of media coverage, the government could prevent the death toll and the disaster situation to be released till everything is confirmed. This will then bring ease to people’s mind. Hence, a world without censorship will be dreadful.

Some critics state that freedom of speech and expressions are compromised when there is censorship. Freedom of speech and expressions are parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are seen as we can convey our messages more freely either in a speech or an expression of art. However, censorship limits these freedoms. Through censorship, freedom of speech is limited especially if it touches on racial issues, political uprising issues and other sensitive issues. It is deemed as an invasion into other forms of rights. Hence, one could speak or express as freely as he pleases as long as he does not make any sensitive remark. However, people find the boundaries too restrictive. For example, the issue on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. The artist of the cartoons, even though is being charged, still strongly believes that his drawings are solely to criticise about self-censorship. It is seen as ridiculous to him for being framed for drawing a false picture of Prophet Muhammad when the Islamic people do not know his real appearance. Hence, his freedom of speech and expressions are compromised. However, it is seen as dangerous to the borders of Denmark and Countries like Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. Racism caused by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper has escalated a level and caused protests across the Muslim world. It exacerbated the situation further when some of these conflicts turned into violence with instances of firing on crowds of protestors. It is therefore important in compromising freedom of speech and expressions to a safety level.

Not only does censorship provide the people with the right information, censorship is also essential in maintaining racial and religious harmony all over the world. Censorship can remove any racial or religious discrimination remark or detains any individual who made such a remark. A closer look at home, during a service in a particular church in Singapore, Pastor Rony Tan was making his speech and within his speech, he criticised Buddhism which angered the Buddhist populace. Without censorship, such issues which involved freedom of speech might cause a religious conflict in Singapore. However, there are some forms of censorship in Singapore. The day after Pastor Rony Tan made his speech; the Internal Security Department of Singapore tracked him down and persuaded him to make a public apology. This shows that censorship can prevent racial and religious issues from getting out of hand. It filters out what people should and could say so that no particular race or religion is hurt in the process. If censorship were to be removed, chaos might break loose. Hence, in addition to providing the right information, censorship is important in upholding racial and religious stability. Most importantly, censorship can prevent a dreadful reality such as cross-borders racial conflict or racial riots. Hence, it is imperative for a country to have censorship.

Some people state that censorship prevents the free flow of ideas. Ideas and information may undergo some sort of manipulation before publishing and releasing it to the public. Eliminating offensive remarks and unnecessary information are also parts of the censorship of ideas. An example to illustrate this will be the Saudi Arabia Internet Censorship. The internet censorship in Saudi Arabia is relatively tight. The Communication and Information technology Commission (CITC) established a new service for an internet user to request to block or unblock a website. In this case, it can filter unnecessary and bad information. This will only enable the free flow of good and inspiring ideas instead. Some may argue that censorship, in this case, will stifle connectivity and prevent the transfer of ideas. It prevents sharing of knowledge and technology know-how if censorship is imposed to block certain website. Hence, censorship ceases the exchange of ideas. However, censorship can filter and provide people with the knowledge that is beneficial to society and to them. For example, Operation Pangea III which shuts down website selling unregulated slimming pills. This form of censorship protects people from harmful information. So, a world without censorship can be dreadful.

Censorship is important in protecting people from mimicking dangerous acts done by professionals or restricts any forms of media which could affect the people negatively. In the context of Australia, the famous “crocodile hunter”, Steve Irwin, was a role model to many people out there who seek adventures. In 2006, when he was filming a show about the coral reef, he was pierced through the heart by a stingray. Months later, Steve Irwin “copycats” made trips to the coral reef ocean to complete his expedition. This results in an 81-years-old man being in critical condition after being attacked by stingrays. Also, before Steve Irwin’s death, due to his popularity of being a crocodile hunter, copycats begin to copy him by approaching a crocodile in the wild which results in severe injury. This shows that if censorship is not in place, people will be misled into believing that Steve Irwin’s acts are normal and harmless. This might lead to severe injury and even death. After all, censorship is important to protect the people with the safety of knowledge and information. Hence, it is imperative to uphold censorship in the country to prevent a dreadful reality.

In conclusion, it is a common error among laments to believe that censorship is absolutely detrimental. However, censorship may really be good sometimes. In order to ascertain the viability of censorship, we have to examine the purpose behind the use of censorship. An example closer to ourselves will be we will self-censor. Despite the feeling of disgust, dissatisfaction and discouragement, we often do not explicitly show our despair or hatred. We are aware of the consequence of such actions and hence, we often self-censor. Hence, it will be superfluous to say that a world without censorship is a delightful idea. Therefore, censorship is very important in preventing any dreadful consequence of social instability and the transfer of inaccurate information.

Can democracy be imposed or must it grow naturally?

Possible points for/against democracy must grow naturally

• Democracy must grow naturally as it is a tender plant that takes time to take root and flourish in new soil.
• Recent examples illustrate the above point clearly, e.g. constituent countries of the post-war eg North Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan.
• However, natural growth needs time and patience – most of the established Western democracies have evolved over centuries and are still far from perfect.
• Any imposition of democracy against the will, culture, wishes of the people will encounter major difficulties and can easily result in all kinds of conflict.

“Fear is the Root of War.” Discuss

Since the history of civilization, various wars have been fought between states and nations. War can be defined as an intense armed conflict between states, governments and societies. There are some who argue that fear is the root cause of war as people fear death, destruction and even loss of power. However, it can be contended that fear is not the only root of war as there are other causes which can lead to warlike honour, aggression and self-interest.

Supporters of the idea suggest that fear is the root cause of the war because people are scared of oppression and fear the unknown. They argue that in many instances people retaliate in the form of war because they believe that it is the only way to cope with their fear. The fear of domination leads people to believe that the threats that endanger them can be alleviated by using violence. For example, the ethnic civil war in Nigeria and Sudan were the result of fearful communal groups who saw violence as a practical solution to political oppression. Similarly, it can be said that the Six-Day war was a result of fear that Jews were creating societies in countries like Egypt and Jordan. Fear triggered by different ideologies and oppression is the main cause of why war occurs in the first place. The fear of a foreign power gaining control and the ruling has led many countries to indulge in war as a means of retaliation. Hence, it is justified to believe that fear is the primary motivation behind the war.

Fear is the cornerstone on which all military tactics rely. The military strategies of all countries involve tactics which incite fear in the minds of enemies. An example of this can be the war in Afghanistan, the U.S.-led invasion left people on all sides of Afghanistan’s conflict-afflicted with fear. Similarly, in Syria, the tyrannical regime of Assad responded to peaceful protests with severe repression. The regime used artillery power, airstrikes and chemical weapons to instil fear in the minds of civilians. In such instances, it becomes clear that fear strategies are often used to distort the opponent’s decision-making or break the opponent’s will. In recent times too, there have been several instances that prove that the concept of war is based on fear. Instances of this can be seen in the US where President Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ Iran strategy stokes war fears and the Pre-emptive strikes by India in Balakot which led to the speculation of war between India and Pakistan that share a strained relationship. Thus, fear not only causes war but also incites situations that can lead to war.

However, the war in today’s time stems from a multitude of issues. Thus, it would be myopic to blame fear as the root cause of war. Though fear can be one of the root causes of war, there are also other issues at play that can lead to war. Pride ad honour of the country’s leader can also lead to wars. For example, Hitler’s grandiose thinking and belief that he was a world-historical figure of destiny led to world war I and world war II. The pride in racial identity led to the civil wars in North America where both black and white groups fought to defend their own visions of the just cause. The war led to the freedom of black people who were enslaved and exploited. Furthermore, many wars have been fought for noble causes like the Iraq war which was against the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein. Thus, fear is not always the root of war but war stemming from pride and nobility can lead to fear in the minds of many.

Fear can be a motivator to create peace. Many wars have led to the loss of lives and can have detrimental effects on society. For example, World War I and World War II led to the deaths and casualties of millions. The horrific visions of the war led to the formation of the United Nations, an international peacekeeping organization and a forum for resolving conflicts between nations. The presence of the UN has also led to the prevention of another World war that can prove catastrophic. Similarly, the news of death and destruction in Vietnam led to people protesting against the atrocities committed during the war. This protest and outcry led to a ceasefire in Vietnam. In recent times, also many fear to go to war because the current war can be deadlier and more destructive. All these points illustrate how fear not always leads to war but also leads as a barrier to war.

In conclusion, fear might be the motivator behind the war, however, it is not the only cause behind the war. War is also rooted in other factors such as pride, honour, aggression and self-interest. It is also essential to understand that fear may seem like a disease, but it is also a cure which can lead to peace and stability in society.

To what extent have political decisions improved the lives of people in your country?

Points for/against have political decisions improved the lives of people in your country

• Family
• Education
• Economy
• How have political decisions improved the employment situation
• Infrastructure
• Equality
• Justice
• Protection of poor/vulnerable
• Welfare
• ‘To what extent’ needs to be addressed and linked to ‘improved’ for Band 2

Why is it that world peace remains unattainable?

World peace remains unattainable because lies, cover-ups, deceit and corruption stand in the way. International peace remains unattainable because international organisations are weak and do not have strong leaders. While naysayers will highlight the fight against terrorism, and deposing authoritarian leaders as successes, these same myopic sheep forget about the 30 civil war conflicts that plague the world. They forget about the

Champions of peace suggest that the fall in the number of terrorist activities is attributed to international cooperation among various nations. The defeat of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is cited as a victory. But the reality is that organisations such as ISIS have mutated into different organisations. Where ISIS was previously only focused on Iraq and Syria, it has branched into Sudan, Nigeria and even parts of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Taking back Iraqi and Syrian towns and cities from ISIS was a major achievement, but the “physical” destruction involved did not cripple ISIS. It instead involved the destruction of the homes and businesses of ordinary people. If anything, the Iraqi government’s poor performance in restoring those homes and business has created a serious new cause of instability that aids the potential recovery of ISIS – as does the creation of new refugee and displaced populations in Syria. Crises still linger in Yemen, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Ethiopia and the Southern Philippines where in-fighting continues between different factions.

In the immediate aftermath of World War II, the creation of the U.N. and the European project were the most imaginative attempts to banish war without trying for the utopia—or perhaps dystopia—of world government: They aimed at reconciling the welcome diversity of states with the need for a robust transnational system of laws that regulates their relations. Today, both are in crisis: The U.N. has proven incapable of reforming its security council, and the European project, whose example and appeal helped stabilise western Europe, is unable to transform its environment and deal effectively with issues including a Middle East in turmoil and a nationalist Russia. Today there are around 100,000 personnel from over 100 countries serving in 18 UN peace operations around the world, at an annual cost of five billion dollars.

With aggressive posturing in South China Sea by China, clashes between India and China on their mountainous borders, is it any wonder that peace is illusive? Russia’s dominance in the artic, as well as it political meddling in Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia, has created tensions in another political theatre. With the remaining members of the U.N. security council monkeying around to flex their own political whims, the chaos that needs to be quelled is engineered and instigated by the same countries that are tasked to protect the rest of the world. For international peace to be attained, archaic systems must change. Is it any wonder that world peace is unattainable?