Politics – Page 8

‘Being a politician today is more difficult than ever.’ What is your view?

In democratic societies, a politician is the appointed representative of citizens through the electoral process. Politicians hold an important and pivotal role in the society by voicing out citizens’ thoughts and demands to the country, hence their jobs are often regarded as herculean tasks. However, it is argued that being a politician is no longer a challenging task since they can easily garner support from the citizens through the introduction of populist policies. Nevertheless, it is an erroneous assumption that all will be enticed by such policies – instead, more citizens are well-informed and educated, making politician’s jobs more difficult in terms of meeting the higher demands of citizens. Furthermore, in the modern-day context where the world is hyperconnected, politicians need to deal with economic vulnerabilities, diplomatic relationships and the rising threat of terrorism so as to justify their political legitimacy. Therefore, being a politician today is more difficult than ever.

Some posit that being a politician may not be a very challenging task compared to the past, due to the emergence of populism in recent years. Populist policies refer to the set of ‘popular’ policies, which sound attractive yet may not be the ‘right’ set of policies for the country, such as simply reducing the personal income tax without a reduction in government expenditure. Still, it can be seen that more of the populist leaders are supported by the citizens, enabling them to garner support easily from the masses and secure their position as people’s representatives. A notable example could be the new president of the United States, Donald Trump, who pledged to build a wall between the borders of Mexico and the United States. His promises are unrealistic, yet people who were discontented with Mexicans working in the United States and losing their jobs supported him during the presidential elections. Hence, regardless of the implementation of the populist policies, the rise of populism makes it easier for politicians to gain mass support and secure their political position, thus making it seem as if being a politician today is no longer very difficult.

However, such argument does not hold water and it is rather myopic to assume that all citizens are enticed by such populist policies – more citizens are educated and well-informed as the society progresses, which makes politicians’ jobs more demanding. As the general standard of living improves, thanks to the rising affluence, more citizens are discerning and are able to weigh the pros and cons of the policies politicians pledge. Hence, more citizens are able to make the right choices for the nation, as well as to have more demanding stance towards politicians. For example, in Singapore’s General Elections in 2011, the ruling party – the People’s Action Party – has received its lowest approval ratings of 66.6%, a 6.5% drop from the last election. Such huge drop in ratings represented how the educated Singaporeans felt unhappy with the party – the People’s Action Party was accused of having a sense of elitism and not catering to the needs of the ordinary citizens. This, after all, has affected the party’s political legitimacy, and the party had to regain the support by providing more humble measures, such as Singapore Conversations which enables Singapore citizens to be engaged in the policy-making process. Thus, being a politician today is a difficult task, and it is rather challenging than ever before due to the higher education level of the citizens.

In addition, it is more challenging to be a politician as they need to deal with the economic vulnerabilities associated with globalisation. The hyperconnected nature of the modern world resulted in greater possibilities of facing economic crises, such as the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 or the Eurozone Debt Crisis in 2009. Therefore, here is a greater need for politicians to address such economic issues and ensure the country is prepared for such situations so that they can still garner support from the citizens, unlike in the past where the countries had fewer possibilities of facing economic crises. For instance, Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe is implementing ‘Abenomics’ so as to tackle Japan’s deflation issue which persisted for the last two decades. If he is unable to solve this economic issue, it is likely that he is going to step down from his position, just as the past prime ministers, who stepped down due to their incompetencies. Thus, in this world of volatile economic situations where every country’s economy is interdependent of one another, politicians are indeed facing challenges in dealing with the economic crises.

Furthermore, politicians nowadays need to balance international and domestic affairs, which makes their jobs more difficult than ever. In this globalised world, it is important to maintain good relationships with other countries, but it is also absurd to solely focus on international relations as this may result in discontentment of the locals. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, was able to maintain relatively high approval ratings until she decided to adopt an open-door policy towards the migrants and accept the Syrian refugees. Even though her actions were lauded internationally, the locals were upset that they need to bear the high cost and societal problems associated with the influx of refugees. Another example would be the Japanese prime minister visiting Yasukuni Shrine, where the war criminals of the World War II are placed at. Even if his acts can please the Japanese citizens for honouring their war heroes, it provokes anti-Japanese sentiments in other countries such as South Korea and China. Thus, it is more difficult for politicians to either prioritise good international standing or support from their own citizens in this interconnected world.

Lastly, the rise of terrorism across the world makes it challenging for politicians as they need to protect citizens from greater terrorism threats. The rise of Islamic fundamentalists has resulted in rampant terrorist attacks taking place, which makes it difficult for the government to ensure the safety of its citizens. For instance, the latest terrorist attack at Ariana Grande’s concert in Manchester, United Kingdom shows that every civilian is prone to terrorist attack and that no place in the world is entirely safe from such threats. There is the greater task assigned to the government as this issue is difficult to tackle – simply preventing Islamic extremists or the supporters of the Islamic State from entering the country does not help when there is home-grown terrorism, where the people are self-radicalised and commit lone-wolf attacks, such as the Westminster attack by Khalid Masood. Such forms of terrorist attacks are almost impossible to detect. Thus, since the government has the duty to protect its own citizens from threats but it is becoming increasingly more difficult to do so in today’s globalised world, politicians face a more difficult task as ever before.

In conclusion, being a politician is indeed a herculean task as he needs to deal with more demands from his own citizens as well as those from other countries, signifying the importance of good leadership. However, citizens also hold an important role in choosing the right leaders who can combat such domestic and international issues. Therefore, people need to exercise their voting rights more wisely for the sake of the country’s brighter future – the practising of just responsibilities will ensure their rights to be protected.

How important is charisma?

This is a researched essay.

The importance of charisma as a quality for today’s leaders is indicated by the fact that the definitions of charisma and leadership overlap. Charis ma automatically comes with a leadership position. However, charisma is not the most important trait of a leader. Charismatic individuals in leadership positions can bring discredit upon themselves if they lack more important qualities. If all other leadership qualities are given, charisma can be an advantage.

Etymologically charisma comes from a Greek word that translates to grace. The dictionary employs several words to define grace. These include elegance, politeness of manner and goodwill. Charis ma is defined as a compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.^[1] Leadership is defined as the ability to channel the actions of a group of people. This can be done through formal authority, logic, or through interpersonal qualities as embodied in charisma. By this interpretation, it can be considered a subset of leadership. However, it is not an inseparable part since leadership can be accomplished by other means. Vladimir Putin is a leader with whom both poise and authority can be associated. In 2014, Putin did not achieve the reintegration of Crimea with Russia through his charms. His actions in Ukraine proved that authority alone can be sufficient for effective leadership. Therefore, while charisma can be a part of leadership, it is not necessary.

Charisma is attributed to all great leaders by default. A prime example is Gandhi. He was a simple and soft-spoken man who wore merely a loincloth around his waist. Gandhi is remembered today as a charismatic leader merely because he was honored as a leader. Stalin did not invade Poland with any compelling attractiveness of character. Hitler did not create the holocaust using personal charm. Unlike Churchill and Mandela, Stalin and Hitler were effective simply by the skilful use of their power. Yet, they are considered charismatic leaders. It is difficult to find examples of great leaders that did not possess any aura because followers automatically attribute it to a person of leadership. This shows that the significance of a charming personality can sometimes be more sentimental than practical.

Charis ma is the not the most important quality of a leader. It is possible to fail as a leader, while possessing charisma, for want of other characteristics. Integrity and vision are far more vital. Dick Fuld, the persuasive and charismatic CEO of Lehman Brothers led one of the largest financial services companies in the world to bankruptcy.[2],[3] On the other hand Microsoft is an excellent example of how charisma can help speed-up the success of a strongly authoritarian leader such as Bill Gates. The two contrasting examples show that charisma may be likened to efficiency. It can help a good leader become great or get a poor leader to ruin faster. Clearly, charisma is not the all-important component of being a leader.

Charisma can help all kinds of leaders. Every leadership position requires persuading, influencing and eliciting obedience. Charisma can help a leader achieve these ends through enthusiasm, goodwill and positive emotions, rather than relying purely on logic.[4] Charisma is ethos and pathos. Charismatic leaders are eloquent communicators and skilled orators. They engage with their audience not only with arguments but also with emotions, values and passion. Charisma persuades followers to buy into a leader’s vision. The workplace has evolved with technological development and globalization. Employees have greater choice and access. Employers need to be more flexible and transparent. Diversity is a fact. Employees need to share the leadership vision in order to have a sense of fulfillment. In today’s world personal magnetism is more important for industry leaders than ever. All other qualities being equal, a charismatic leader can be more effective than one who lacks this quality.

Charis ma can help a leader succeed, but is not a substitute for leadership qualities. Leadership is influence. Charisma is one way to achieve influence, but certainly not the only way. People who are not in leadership positions can also have charis ma; even children can. There are ample examples of leaders who had charisma and failed due to other shortcomings. There are also examples where leaders succeeded without charis ma. To influence people, bold speeches are unnecessary. Followers can be inspired by a leader’s credibility, moral conviction, strength of character and focus on goals. These are valued qualities of leaders such as Richard Branson and Elon Musk. Charis ma is not essential for leaders and it certainly cannot stand on its own. However, charisma is great to have.

[1] Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2016). charis ma – definition of charisma in English | Oxford Dictionaries. [online] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/charisma [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].

[2] Huffington Post India. (2016). Dick Fuld, Disgraced Former CEO Of Lehman Brothers, Makes Public Comeback. [online] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/dick-fuld-lehman_n_7462196 [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].

[3] Telegraph.co.uk. (2016). The collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/6173145/The-collapse-of-Lehman-Brothers.html [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].

[4] Antonakis, J. (2016). Using the power of charis ma for better leadership. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/learning-charisma-sustainability-leaders [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].

International cooperation is necessary in this globalised world. Do you agree?

With recent events such as Brexit and the rising resentment against free trade in the United States as shown by the fierce opposition against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement, we see that there is a rising trend of nationalism that is against the idea of international cooperation. While they might justify such a choice as an excuse to stay competitive, I disagree with the notion that international cooperation has no place in this competitive world, because such cooperation is still crucial in providing humanitarian aid, allows countries to tackle global issues, and lastly, is arguably necessary for a country to advance certain domestic interests in this competitive world.

Firstly, in times of disasters, international cooperation is still needed in order to provide temporary relief to those in need. In the event of an unfortunate natural disaster, chances are it is going to cause great damage to that area, and such damages often cost the countries millions, if not billions of dollars. For developing or less developed countries, they simply do not have that much money in order to repair their infrastructure, so it is the duty of the international community to come in and provide the necessary humanitarian aid. Even if the world is highly competitive, as human beings, there is still a moral imperative for us, the international community, to step in and provide them with the most basic of needs so that they would not be deprived of their most basic human rights that many regards as inalienable. This is why when the earthquake struck Haiti in 2010, countries all over the world stepped in to provide aid for that country thorough various means, even though the world at that time was just as competitive as it is today. With that, it is hard to justify why, even in this competitive world, should there be any reasons to denounce international cooperation in terms of giving aid.

That being said, nationalists would still argue that a country should prioritise their national interests first before anything else including international cooperation, especially since the world today is so competitive. They argue that in a world with such cut-throat competition, they have to think about how to benefit the country first and foremost, and to them, international cooperation would do more harm than good. Similarly, the concept of realpolitik would also mean to them that countries should do everything in the name of self-interest in such a way that they would get to benefit the most. Because of these two ideas, nationalists have often forgone international cooperation in order to further advance their own interests. That is why the USA refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol which could have been a crucial step in slowing down global warming. The Bush administration refused to ratify it because they did not want to lose out economically with countries that do not have to cut down on carbon emissions such as China. Their national interest in having an economic edge over countries like China had made them decide against ratifying that treaty. With national interests at stake and the competitive world we live in today, these nationalists would argue that international cooperation has no place in the world today. However, what these nationalists failed to realise is that international cooperation is still essential even if a country only did something in the name of protecting and advancing their own national interests.

For one, there are certain global issues that can only be solved with international cooperation, which means that in order to get it done, countries have to put aside their competition and work together in order to solve it. That would then benefit the cooperating countries themselves. When there is a pressing global issue such as global warming, the outbreak of infectious diseases or the rise of terrorism as we know it today, countries have to work together in order to solve that problem to protect their national interests. With the sheer scale of these problems, it just simply is not possible for any individual country, no matter how small or how big and mighty it is. To solve these issues, international cooperation is the one and only way, even if it means that certain aspects of a country’s national interests might be compromised. For example, countries around the world knew that the depletion of the ozone layer is bad not just for the world, but also their own country in particular because the radiation entering the Earth as a result of the depletion of the ozone layer can negatively affect the health of its people. Because of that, they are willing to come together in order to stop this with the Montreal Protocol. Almost all countries then went on to ratify the treaty, and as such, chlorofluorocarbon (the chemicals that deplete the ozone layer) in the atmosphere has fallen by over 90% since then, and the ozone layer is starting to ‘repair’ itself. This is just one of the many examples that show how international cooperation is still relevant in advancing national interests even in this competitive globalised world. Countries vying for global power like the USA, the (then) British Empire and the Soviets came together to fight off Nazi Germany because the very existence of their countries was at stake. Many countries all over the world today cooperate together despite the intense competition to ward off ISIS because their terrorist attacks can be extremely harmful to the countries themselves. The list goes on. Thus, because of how big certain problems are, international cooperation is still a necessity even in this competitive world, even if a country is guided by the principles of realpolitik.

Moreover, those nationalists also failed to realise that international cooperation might be the only way for them to advance their national interests that do not require international effort as well. Domestically, a country has several objectives they want to achieve, including security, social stability, and a healthy economy. Internationally, they would also want to improve their standing amongst other countries, especially in this competitive world where every country is vying for some form of influence, and in some cases, countries have to work together in order to fulfil these goals, and this means that even if a country is guided by realpolitik, it is only natural for them to work with other countries because doing them would benefit themselves too. The world is not a zero-sum game. When one party stands to benefit, the others do not have to suffer. There is a point for countries to cooperate. Doing so can bring about mutual benefits. When these nationalists argue that international cooperation has no place anymore, they are only saying so because they have a myopic view on global affairs and they assume that everything is a zero-sum game when it, in fact, is not. For instance, many countries including Singapore have signed free trade agreements with each other because they know that doing so is mutually beneficial. The economies in Western Europe grew significantly when they removed trade barriers between each other and started to trade freely between themselves. Today, those countries are amongst the richest in the world, and their free trade benefitted every country in that region. It does not stop there. These European countries do not trade freely with anyone and everyone, they just do so between themselves. This shows that they know that they could not fully cooperate internationally because it hurts their economic interests, but they still cooperated with themselves to ‘maximise’ their national interests. Many countries across the world have also contributed to the fight against Ebola so that it would be effectively contained within Africa itself and that it would not spread and cause a pandemic within their own countries. Countries like Russia and Iran are cooperating and supporting the Assad regime in Syria not because they are doing the government forces a favour on purely ‘humanitarian grounds’, but because they want to exert their influence on the global stage and force others in the national community to acknowledge them. These examples prove that in this competitive world, international cooperation does indeed have a place, and on top of that, is essential if they want to fulfil their national interests.

Hence, in conclusion, even though there are some reasons to believe why international cooperation have no place in this competitive world, the fact that some problems cannot be solved alone and the fact that cooperation is essential to improve one’s own standing suggests otherwise. Moreover, when it comes to relieving a disaster, it is our duty as part of the international community to help a country struck by a disaster. As such, even though the world today is highly competitive and when countries across the world do things in their self-interest in order to stay competitive, international cooperation still has a place for various moral and pragmatic reasons.

‘International cooperation has no place in this competitive world.’ Discuss.

His name is Omar. A picture of a toddler caked-on with debris and dirt with blood dripping down his head sitting in an ambulance had taken the Internet by storm earlier this month. This gave an alarm and wake-up call to the world to stop the many wars and fights occurring in conflict-ridden countries such as Syria. Similarly, the effect of a single picture on the global community was seen when a picture of a toddler washed up on a beach was taken and posted on the internet depicting the thousands of lives lost at sea as a result of the Syrian Refugee crisis. These pictures had no doubt created an increased sense of urgency and pressure on agents of international cooperation to intervene and collectively put an end to the many events occurring in the world. However, the real question is, how effective is international cooperation in the world today? The questioning of its effectiveness has then led to the debacle whether international cooperation is still relevant in today’s’ increasingly competitive world, which may cause countries to prioritize their national interests over that of global interests. However, this essay argues that some issues are unable to be solved single-handedly and require a collective effort to overcome. Furthermore, the world has become increasingly interlinked as a result of globalization and hence certain internal issues may, in turn, affect other countries. The increased competitiveness has also instead, made international cooperation more relevant as it can bring about economic benefits to be parties involved. Therefore, there is no doubt that international cooperation still has a place in today’s competitive world.

The characteristic of today’s’ world, which is that of an increase in connectivity, has made international cooperation extremely useful as issues affecting a country can, in turn, affect another. Globalization has no doubt brought about greater mobility of goods and services, labour, technological know-how and capital. As a result of this phenomenon, countries and the global community are more interlinked causing issues that may seem to only affect the internal stability of a country to affect other countries as well. For example, the annual haze that has been occurring as a result of the illegal deforestation in Indonesia has greatly affected its regional neighbours such as Singapore. As a result of the haze that has reached unhealthy and dangerous levels, the non-material standard of living of many in the region has decreased as they suffer from health problems such as breathing difficulties. Furthermore, the bad air quality has resulted in a loss of tourism earnings for many countries such as Singapore whose attractions and skylines were drowned by the haze. International cooperation has played a part in helping Indonesia to alleviate the problem, where regional countries had offered aid and assistance in taming the fires. For example, Singapore has offered assistance in the form of cloud seeding and dispatched many relief helicopters. Furthermore, as a result of the international pressures and attention on this issue, the Indonesian government had recently been able to obtain a sum of money by the company responsible to pay for the damage done. Therefore, as a result of the link between countries, issues that affect one country may, in turn, affect others. Another example would be that of epidemics and diseases such as Ebola that stemmed from Sierra Leone. With greater mobility through great inventions such as the aeroplane and boats, these viral and transmissible diseases could cause a global pandemic and have the ability to wipe out billions of people at once. Thus, with international cooperation playing a part, aid and assistance would be rendered to affected countries to treat and find antidotes to the disease. Therefore, although the world is increasingly competitive, the increased interconnectivity has made international cooperation to be of importance.

However, critics may argue that as a result of a more competitive global environment, cooperation between countries is often hindered by the fact that they may prioritize their national interests over global interests. As we move to a more competitive environment, where the common mindset is that of the ‘survival of the fittest’, countries are often finding ways to outshine other countries and to better upgrade their comparative advantage. This is to prevent other countries from eroding their competitiveness and thus, ensuring their relevance in today’s’ fast-paced world. Due to this mindset, efforts to tackle global problems are often rendered to be ineffective and useless, as many tend to prioritize their own interests even though a greater good could be achieved. For example, in the fight for environmental conservation by reducing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, international cooperation has been proven thus far to be ineffective. In the Kyoto Protocol established in 2002, this idea of prioritization of national interests can be seen as many big countries such as China and Russia had pulled out upon the very beginning of discussions. Furthermore, the USA has yet to ratify the protocol, stating that doing so would only result in great economic loss to the American economy. The ratification by these larger countries is important as these economic powerhouses are the ones that churn out the immerse amount of greenhouse gases but yet, are not willing to sacrifice economic growth for environmental conservation to be achieved. Furthermore, countries play the blame game by pushing responsibility to other countries. For example, developed nations blame developing nations as their current industrialization are the ones greatly increasing the production of these gases while developing nations are blaming the developed nations for their past industrialization. This ‘game’ that they play puts across the idea of unwillingness to accept responsibility, and thus, limit the place and effectiveness of the role of international cooperation in today’s world where countries fight for their economic prosperity and power. Hence, due to this, international cooperation can be said to not have a place in our competitive world.

On the contrary, international cooperation can be said to be even more important amidst a more competitive environment as it can, in turn, result in mutually beneficial results that ensure their relevance in the world. Small economies and countries such as that of Singapore can be said to be a country that can greatly benefit from international cooperation economically. For small countries, the increase in competitiveness of many countries can threaten its long-term survival as larger economic powerhouses have the ability to develop and thus, replace and erode the comparative advantages of these small economies. Since these small economies largely gain their economic prosperity through trade and seek external sources of growth, their economic survival and relevance could be easily wiped out. However, with the role of international cooperation, the setting up of economic groups such as Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Asia-Pacific Economic Corporation (APEC) could essentially bring about lots of economic benefits. For example, through ASEAN, Singapore has gained access to many free-trade agreements and treaties that enable her to expand her industries and obtain growth. Another example of the role of international cooperation in the setting of a competitive world would be the South China Sea dispute. The role of international cooperation is extremely crucial for small countries as amidst larger economies, they may be bullied and ignored. With the discovery of the importance of reefs and sea-coasts as they contain hidden reserves of oil, many countries such as the Philippines, China and Vietnam claimed territories in the South China Sea. However, small countries often face the wrath of bigger economies such as China, which often treads onto their claimed territories. For example, in 2014, China had crossed into Vietnam’s claimed territories with an offshore oilrig, resulting in great protests in Vietnam. However, with international cooperation, these small countries that are part of ASEAN, are able to garner strength and support to stand up against China. Subsequently, the Philippines and many other countries have reported China to international organizations such as the International Court of Justice. As a result of this, recently, China historical claims on the South China Sea due to its nine-dash line has been rejected, as it’s claimed territories were not within 12 nautical miles of its mother-land. Therefore, with the help of international cooperation, the fight to obtain natural resources to gain an advantage in the competitive world can be utilized against larger economies that seek to bully smaller ones.

Furthermore, some issues are unable to be solved solely by one nation and thus, causing international cooperation to play a role in today’s’ competitive world. The sheer extent of some issues are too large for a nation to solve and although the world experiences greater competitiveness, it is often in their moral obligation to help another country. For example, in the situation of natural disasters that may occur, such as that of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster in 2011, Haiti Earthquake in 2010 and the typhoon Haiyan in 2014, international cooperation is said to be extremely crucial. Although America is currently facing debt in the global economy, it has provided humanitarian aids in many disaster-stricken countries and has aided them in their recovery. For example, it is one of the largest donator of aid and assistance in the Haiti earthquake as well as during the typhoon Haiyan, contributing billions of dollars to alleviate the aftermath of these events. Another example would be that Venezuela had helped in the Haiti earthquake by cancelling some of the debt generated by Haiti’s import expenditure. This shows that moral obligation does take form in our increasingly competitive world as many countries had given up economic prosperity to assist many countries that face mass destruction due to disasters. Furthermore, some issues such as terrorism are of such a large scale that international cooperation is often needed to overcome and tackle it. Terrorism as a result of the Syrian Crisis is of such a large scale that international cooperation is needed, as the government itself is unable to control and place an end to it. With the role of cooperation amongst the former Cold-War rivals, America and Russia, they have recently agreed in a proposed plan to counter the terrorist threats such as the Islamic State in Syria. By placing an end to the Syrian crisis, the refugee crisis would then be alleviated and the 2,500 lives lost in the sea by May 2016 would be reduced. Therefore, even though the increasingly competitive world may cause countries to think about their own problems and benefits first, issues that require humanitarian aid and assistance still requires the role of international cooperation to play a part in alleviating unnecessary human suffering.

All in all, even though the world is increasingly competitive and countries tend to prioritize their economic priorities, international cooperation still has a place in the world. The world would be a better place with collective effort and cooperation.

To what extent is poor governance responsible for the increasing insecurity in many countries today?

Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, once said, “Leadership is key,” and this was one of the four guiding principles in which he believed would lead to good governance. It is true; governments require people with great intellect and leadership to run a country effectively. That said, the reverse is also very true as well: a poorly run country is due to poor governance that stems from poor leadership. Poor governance also leads to a whole host of problems that will threaten the security of not just that one country, but also every single country in the world. This security refers to not just one’s safety from wars and gunfight, but also secure in terms of sustaining one’s life, being able to roam about knowing you have a job and a stable flow of income, as well as knowing that you would not have someone crazy shouting “Allahu Akbar!” then blowing himself up. As such, I would feel strongly for poor governance being largely responsible for the increasing insecurities in many countries today.

A sign of poor governance is clearly seen from a failing economy, in which comes from ineffective leadership and is completely responsible for the increasing uncertainty of one’s job prospect. A person’s employment status is mainly due to the health of the economy, in which the more flourishing the economy is, the more jobs citizens would have; vice versa, there can also be massive unemployment when the economy fails, as evidently shown in the Great Depression back in the 1930s, as well as the 2008 US Subprime Crisis that occurred not too long ago. A country’s citizens would lose their jobs if a country were to experience a recession, in which the government would then need to attempt rectify it, by spending its government reserves in attempts to start the recovery process. It might sound like the government is doing something to help the people, but it is not the case when the government does not have a thorough understanding of the economy, whether certain options are appropriate or not. The government would have completely failed their job if the country’s economy is unable to recover after so many years; just look at Greece! Their economy has stagnated for such a long time and they owe such huge debts, and even after being bailed out several times, the situation remains as such. This is clearly the government’s ineffectiveness in helping the country recover, and the one’s suffering the most is the people as they would have to live with the rising insecurities of not having a job or fear of losing their jobs if they have one. Hence, the government is very responsible for their own insecurities.

Also, governments are also clearly the ones who are responsible when it comes to the extreme suffering of its people, when their people are uncertain their own lives and fate. People, who are experiencing poverty, do not have access to a constant supply of food and water with some not even a shelter over their heads. A person is considered to be in absolute poverty if he or she lives on under US$1.90 a day, and it is a really miserable amount compared to most of us in affluent societies. It is undeniable that these countries experiencing poverty are receiving help, it is clearly seen that these countries are experiencing poverty even with international help. This would then raise questions about whether the aid received is actually delivered to the citizens, and who is the prime suspect? Without a doubt, it is the government. The government is the first to receive help, as they are expected to distribute it to its people so that their lives can be improved. However, this expectation is not a reality in many cases; for example, Ethiopia receives so much support that almost 90% of their government spending is funded by international aid, but a vast majority of their population is still experiencing poverty. This would be obviously due to corruption going on in the government, as the government is free to usurp as much as it wants. Who is there to check and stop the government? As such, the government is clearly to be blamed, and they are the ones mainly responsible for the suffering of its people due to poverty, due to corruption that leads to poor governance.

However, sometimes an unstable situation in a country may not be completely due to the government itself, as they might not be able to control what is happening hence some might posit that the government is not responsible for the ever growing threat of attacks. When it comes to security in terms of one’s physical safety, a government is obviously a main protector. However, a government can only control what occurs within the country, and not what comes in from other countries. The increasingly globalized world today gives terrorism an easier passport to create chaos in many countries. Terror groups are usually developed and grown under the radar of the government, as evidently seen by the spew of terror groups that have appeared over the last few decades. Governments are unable to deal with them as these groups are just so elusive. The terror groups then carry out their attacks not just in their own country, but also in foreign countries as well. In the case of the Paris attacks in November 2015, the French government is obviously not at fault, as they are neither belligerent nor incapable. The group responsible for the attacks was the Islamic State or more commonly known as ISIS; they came from Iraq and Syria, in which they were able to develop and was also due to poor governance, but rather foreign intervention. In Syria, ISIS was able to rise due to the falling significance and power of their president Bashar al-Assad, which was due to the United States oppressing him. As such, it was not due to poor governance that led to these terror groups rising, but rather it was due to uncoordinated intervention efforts by other countries. Therefore, poor governance is said to be not responsible.

Even though it can be said that foreign intervention led to these rising insecurities, and not poor governance, the very fact that foreign intervention was needed shows that the government was somewhat incapable, hence poor governance is responsible for the rising insecurities. The requirement of countries coming in to help in terms of military aid would already show that the government is ineffective in terms of managing internal conflicts. This would be even more so when foreign military involvement is for the purpose of going against the incumbent government, supporting the people that have been unhappy with government. One responsibility of the government is to take care of the well-being of its citizens and to keep them happy and prosperous. This may not occur in some countries, in which the ineffective government, laden with only thoughts of fulfilling their own personal desires, does not care for its people at all. These governments turn to authoritarian governance, which seeks to completely rule its people. However, try as they might, there is always a possibility of an uprising, that would lead to a civil war. This would be prominently shown in what happened in South Sudan, where the authoritarian government was taken down after fighting against its people during the Arab Spring. What comes after that was even worse, where an attempted democracy for its government did not work out well, and resulted in more civil wars. These fightings claim the lives of not just those directly involved, but also innocent ones, due to the indiscriminate bombings and shootings. These innocent people would live in constant fear as they do not know when a hail of bullets would come raining down on them. These insecurities came from the very fact that it all started with poor governance, which caused unhappiness and led to this whole chain of disastrous man-made events. It is not just South Sudan alone that face such an insecurity, but also countries like Somalia and Iraq that it all began with poor governance. Therefore, incapable governments are to be held responsible for the insecurity in countries around the world today.

Governments are expected to, at the very least, ensure that their people are safe. The security of knowing one can stay alive would be the most crucial and assuring one, as one would know that there is still a tomorrow that can be worked on. If an incapable government cannot even ensure this, then the government can be considered useless and ineffective. Yet sadly, these horrendous governments tend to stay in power for a long time, due to corruption and who knows what other reasons. Therefore, I feel that poor governance is to be held responsible, as they are the ones who have the ability to make a significant change, but they just simply refuse to, due to their own personal agenda, incapability and corruption as well.

Efforts to save the environment will not yield positive results. Do you agree?

There is a quote that goes “The world is your oyster.” Indeed, in today’s globalised world, we are free to travel and explore almost any part of the world. As we savour and immerse ourselves in the beauty of our environment, have we ever stopped to consider that given Man’s current pace of urbanisation and actions, this beautiful environment we have now will soon be gone? Environmentalists may argue that it is not futile to try and save the environment because they believe in the hope that when Mankind mends its ways, saving the environment would be possible. However, I am of the view that efforts to save the environment will not yield positive results due to the nature of our world at large today.

Naturally, in the 21^st century, where the majority of the countries are developed and globalised, people will look towards short-term goals to satisfy their needs. As consumers aiming to maximise utility and welfare, we accomplish tasks and do things which we feel will benefit us in one way or another. Some corporations which desire to profit-maximise may also see the futility of trying to save the environment. Though outwardly, consumers, households and corporations alike may claim to try and save the environment, more often than not, many forgo the environment in order to pursue their own interests and motives. For example, the Kyoto Protocol is a case in point that highlights even though countries may have agreed to a particular standardisation of what they will do for the environment, such as reducing carbon emissions and decreasing their carbon footprint, some countries, have broken their word and have continued with their rapid pace of industrialisation to further increase output. Thus, it is clear that Man, in order to meet and satisfy each others’ needs, will likely give up whatever they have promised to do to help the environment, making it futile to try and save the environment.

Moreover, it is futile to try and save the environment because, in reality, our actions have resulted in our environment’s tipping point. This means that we have reached a point of no return and no actions or efforts no matter how redeemable can save the environment, thus rendering these efforts futile. For instance, NASA has already ventured into the Moon to discover and find out more about its environment and deduce the likelihood of its inhabitation by Man. Reports on the Moon’s surface having droplets of water, an essential to life, sparked hope in people globally that there is a chance for us to inhabit the Moon. This mindset comes about because the majority of us acknowledges the dire straits our environment is currently in – that is reality. Hence, given that the probability to save the environment is slim and the outlook and prospects of redeeming the environment that is dim, it can be said that it is indeed futile to try and save the environment.

However, environmentalists argue that it is not futile to try and save the environment. These advocates of our environment consistently emphasise that the effort of every individual count towards saving the environment. In Singapore, the BioGaia organisation advocates for its cause through various channels like social media. Music videos based on the theme of “Save My World” featuring citizens doing their part for the environment can be seen in the video. Other organisations like the World Wildlife Fund also advocate for the saving of our environment through the reduction of deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest. Truly, to these pro-environment groups and organisations, saving the environment might not be such a dim prospect after all.

However, though this view holds true for some groups of people, it is not true for everyone. Though the efforts of these individuals are important and are valued, it is vital to note that the effort from everyone outweighs individual efforts. Some people like environmentalists do their best to try and save the environment as they see the value of it. On the contrary, many of us do not wish to inconvenience ourselves to recycle our drink bottles simply by dropping them into recycling bins. These seemingly small acts to us are the complete opposite of what we perceive them to be. On a larger whole, if everyone recycles, then our recycling rates will surely increase drastically. Singapore’s landfill island, Pulau Semakau, will be completely filled up by 2025, in eight years’ time. This is largely due to low recycles rates in Singapore. Hence, it is evident that everyone’s efforts to save the environment counts towards saving the environment more. This is provided we, as individuals, put in our effort and play our part to save our environment.

In conclusion, there is still some hope that things may change, people may change and become more environmentally-friendly. However, mindsets take a long while to change, actions take time to cultivate and habits require time to instil. Given the fast-paced nature of our world today, saving the environment is a second priority to many. Thus, given our current state, I feel that it is indeed futile to try and save the environment to a large extent.

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’.

‘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.

Terrorism should be condemned no matter the cause. Do you agree?

Since the turn of the century, the postmodern world has seen increasing levels of political, cultural, military and socio-economic tumult, much of this due to a series of terrorist attacks on American soil and the resultant waging of Washington’s “War on Terror”. Consequently, the nature of terrorism has come under intense media focus and is subject to immense debate, especially on its justification. Before engaging in such a debate one must first identify terrorism as an act of widespread violence, whether on the part of a state or individual, against another state or society, with the ultimate goal of forcing the latter party to cede to the demands of the former – be they political or socio-economic. With such a definition in place we find that terrorism is indeed unacceptable in a vast majority of occurrences. But we cannot be entirely certain that that is the case for a few but highly controversial situations. In its entirety, though I would tend to agree with the statement I must also state that it is too complex to be offered a clear-cut response.

From the perspective of a humanitarian, terrorism is completely abhorrent and totally unacceptable no matter the opinion of the terrorists themselves. All areas of terrorism in recent years have been manifested in the form of the taking of innocent lives – lives that had little to do with the terrorist’s main cause. From the attacks on New York City in 2001 to the spate of car bombings in Moscow to the insurrections of the Southern Philippines, almost all terror attacks have caused the death of thousands of innocent bystanders, wanton destruction of private property, and incredible distress and pressure brought upon those who had the misfortune of seeing their loved ones being threatened with decapitation on news channels. It is through this argument that we as a “moral” global people condemn terrorism and its perpetrators no matter what their cause is. They as human beings are simply barred by the laws of humanity from inflicting such atrocities upon the lives of those who had nothing to do with their past hurts and grievances.

Indeed, terrorism is essentially a magnification of previous injustice. While terrorists such as the impoverished minions of Al Qaeda or Abu Sayaff feel that their lives have been cheated by the big American Satan, what they do to take the lives of civilians elsewhere is, in fact, even more, satanic than the policymakers in the White House refusing to end economic aid to developing countries.

Apart from criticizing terrorism by measuring it according to the standard of universal human values of justice, we as a community of nations must also condemn it according to international law. State-sponsored terrorism is no different from the terrorism of a fanatical private individual and hence must also be stopped. And this is extremely important because state-sponsored terrorism is easier to identify and curb, it also makes the nation-perpetrator extremely illegitimate because it violates international law in the most despicable of manners, the show’s the leaders of their nation as callous brutes, and thus degrades the international reputation of that country. For example, Muammar Gaddafi’s sanctioning of civilian aeroplane bombings over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1986 gave him the international image of a madman and turned Libya into a pariah nation even until today. For the sake of protecting national dignity, each and every member of the international community must never see terrorism as acceptable.

Finally, terrorism as a solution to one party’s problems must be rejected because it is extremely ineffective in the long run. Though seemingly inhumane for its lack of human rights consideration, this argument is built on unshakable logic and is exemplified by recent events. Palestinians regularly don bomb-jackets and detonate themselves in Israeli cafes and buses in order to secure a future for their Palestinian homeland. What they have succeeded in achieving to date is an ever-increasing rate of Israeli military incursions into refugee camps, helicopter muscle strikes on their key leaders such as the Yassin assassination earlier this year, and increasing international unwillingness to broker a peace deal that may well guarantee the very Palestinian security which they died for in the first place. In short, violence only begets more violence, nothing else, hence making terror totally unreliable as a means to an end.

But, as with all controversies, the issue of terrorism has spawned a large number of devil’s advocates, and hence a member of arguments that terror is “acceptable” because it is “a natural consequence” of the actions of one nation upon others. Though highly repugnant to the humanitarians, these arguments do make for a convincing, if controversial, case.

Terror must be accepted as the inevitable outcome of the damning legacy of colonialism that the First World has left on the Third, which was further exacerbated by Cold War machinations and power plans. Since the last century, the vast majority of African, Arab, and Asian states have suffered under periods of debilitating colonial rule, and we find that the majority of terrorists have come from such impoverished nations. But their plight was forged into a cause for violence because of the First world ‘s action In the Cold War. When we examine the methodology, tactics and weaponry of the international terror organizations, we find that they in fact had their origins in the First world! American and Soviet Cold War-era weapons are the mainstays of Al Qaeda’s and Abu Sayaff’s arsenals, and CIA training doctrines in Afghanistan have had a massive impact in shaping the methods of infiltration carried out by Al-Qaeda’s cells. But more importantly, it was the actions of the United States in leaving Afghanistan to languish in poverty in 1987 after the Soviet Union withdrew that brought an incredible sense of bitterness and resentment upon many a mujaheddin fighter, most notably a certain Osama bin Laden. By taking the macro point of view we find that the terrorism of today is but a natural consequence of the plans that were set in motion a couple of decades ago by the world’s most powerful countries.

In addition, we must accept terror even though we do not condone it because it is also a natural outcome of severe desperation and bitterness of the world’s impoverished majority. By examining the root causes of terror in the terrorists’ own homelands, we find that their suffering in poverty and that their perceptions of the “unfairness” and moral decadence of Western capitalism have resulted in terror because they have no other room to make their opinions heard. All the Arab states save one or two exceptions are run by autocracies without the slightest hint of free media. This has given rise to entire societies that have no room to voice their opposition to American policy in Israel or Russian occupations of Chechnya. And this is not limited to Arabian monarchies or theocracies. In Southern Thailand, the Muslim peoples became increasingly bitter about their situation because of the lack of national focus on their plight. When two such powerful forces, one of government repression and the other of a people’s bitterness and envy and need to be seen and heard, collide, the resultant outcome can only be violence in the form of terrorism. One has only to look at the societies from which Al Qaeda’s operatives, Abu Sayaff’s guerillas, Palestinian suicide-bombers, and even the Spanish Basque Separatists come from to see the ongoing trend of desperation and need to be heard being put down by government repression and international indifference. Terror must be an acceptable outcome if we do not give ear to the needs of the poor.

Finally, we cannot immediately condemn all violent actions in society as a form of terror. Terror to one is not a terror to another; this is clearly seen in the split of world opinion over the mounting Israeli-Palestinian crisis. The American government, heavily pressured by a powerful Zionist lobby, sees the Palestinian suicide bombers as callous terrorists whilst the Muslim world, as evidenced by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Doctor Mahathir’s speeches, views them in the light of martyrs, sacrificing themselves for Allah and Palestine. In such a situation it is virtually impossible to objectively define what constitutes a terrorist and what does not. And even if we do say with conviction that such suicide bombers are terrorists, who are we to say they are unjustified in fighting they only way they know? The weight of suffering and mistreatment of the Palestinians by the Tel Aviv coalitions has grown almost unbearable over recent years. If the immense injustice the Palestinians have borne is not just enough for their taking of innocent Israeli lives, then surely we can argue that the USA ‘s refusal to listen with unbiased hearing to their cause is. It is plausible that the Palestinian suicide bomber does what he does because violence is the only thing that would make the rich Jewish businessmen in America sit up and take note of CNN’s coverage of the burdens the Palestinians have to bear because of the biased American support of Israel or whoever’s in power. In this scenario, the case for terror is stronger than the case against.

In summary, I would not condone terror nor deem it acceptable under any circumstances. But I also have sympathy for the societies in which these terrorists are born and raised for it is the sense of injustice that they feel there that causes even more injustice around the world. As much as I condemn terror as an act of taking innocent lives, I sympathize with the demands of terrorists because that which drives a human to take the lives of others must be an unbearable force indeed. In the final analysis, a clear-cut response to the scourge as terror is illusory and cannot be found.