Category: Politics
‘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?
One in nine people on our planet cannot enjoy life because of malnutrition. Suggest and evaluate ways that could cope with this crisis.
How can we cope with the problem of malnutrition
• Less emphasis on meat production
• To cope with the problem of malnutrition there is a need for more support for small farmers
• Cash crops and local needs
• Ownership of patent – GM crops – the role of GM in countering scarcity
– positive and negative aspects
• Use of water – how to more effective and less wasteful use of
• Role of charities and volunteers outside of purely cash donation
• Less waste of food in wealthier nations/adjustment of shopping
habits and attitudes
• Education in sustainable farming methods
• Food awareness and health
To what extent can outside intervention in the affairs of sovereign countries be justified?
Can intervention in the affairs of sovereign countries be justified
• One rule for one, not others
• Types of espionage
• Countries that default on their debts
• The prevention of genocide
• The impacts of the intervention on other countries
• Arbitrarily drawn borders
• Is independence any longer meaningful?
• The authority of the U.N
To what extent is gun control a priority?
• More people have been killed by guns than by terrorist attacks
• Some argue that constitutional rights should not be set in stone; they
should be relevant to the times we live in
• Most gun violence is inter-communal
• Therefore the real priority is not gun control but the eradication of injustice
and the reduction of ghettos
• The various drug cartels might be seen as the root of the problem
• Violence is normalised in various ways, for example, video games
• Disturbed people would be less likely to acquire guns
• In homes guns can easily fall into the hands of the young
• The gun lobby and vested interests
• Limits to gun control – self-protection, hunting, other sports
‘People’s views matter as little in a democracy as in a one-party state.’ How far do you agree?
Points for whether people’s views matter as little in a democracy
• Consensus politics reduces the scope for change
• Public apathy
• The electoral system ensures that a truly popular government is unlikely
• Community involvement is often negligible
• Powerful interest groups are unchallenged
• The interests and needs of minorities are unrepresented
• Lack of diversity – women and minority ethnic groups
• General feeling of powerlessness
• If we deserve better, how do we go about achieving it?
• Corruption in public office
• Other views often do not count in one-party states