Politics – Page 8

‘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.

‘Being a politician today is more difficult than ever.’ Do You Agree

T/S: Those who say that a being modern politician is the same as being a political figure in the past argue that the key factor of being a leader is an eternal constant; politicians portray themselves as compassionate yet powerful figures, capable of leading their nations to greater heights.

EG: Stalin and Putin of Russia both portrayed themselves as compassionate yet awe-inducing father-figures. Stalin often took photos of himself holding up young children with a wide smile, while Putin takes photos of himself spending time with animals like baby tigers or riding horses. Additionally, Putin often releases stories of himself accomplishing amazing feats such as discovering ancient Greek pottery during a recreational dive or successfully hunting down a large bear. Trump, a political outsider, blustered his way into the White House thanks to his effort in portraying himself as a strongman leader who could fight for “fair deals” with the Chinese “bullies”. Bernie Sanders was lambasted for being the oldest candidate and thus the most likely to die in the office should he be elected.

L/B: The main factor that decides the success of a politician is the portrayal of themselves as capable father-figures who are able to convince citizens that they can commandeer their motherlands and drive them to success.

T/S: However, the dynamic modern world with its interconnected global issues means that politicians must grapple with a new set of challenges while still satisfying the demands of local constituents that make their job more difficult than it was in the past.

EG: The British Exit (Brexit) from the EU was a very surprising and shocking event of which its impacts rippled across the globe. The British voted to leave in order to gain better control of their borders while the EU lamented the loss of the large British market. Ex-Prime Minister Teresa May and her successor Boris Johnson both got their positions mostly due to their claims that they would be able to reconcile the differing goals. However, May has failed, resigning in disgrace while Johnson seems to be treading down the same path. To be fair, they are facing a monumental task, the scale of which rivals the challenge Churchill faced during World War II.

L/B: The complex relations that come with an interconnected world make it difficult for politicians to deal with both internal and external problems simultaneously, especially when those goals are in direct opposition of each other.

T/S: Additionally, the genesis of new media has led to the rise of various movements that challenge the decisions of politicians, making it harder to enact such decisions.

EG: The Hong Kong riots originated when Carrie Lam’s government implemented an extradition bill that would allow people in Hong Kong to be deported to China and be judged by Chinese law. While born out of good intentions when a murderer could not be judged while on Hong Kong soil, the prevalent fear was of China abusing this power to deport dissenters and judge them for speaking out against the Chinese government, causing massive riots to break out across the country. While police were deployed to stop them, protesters organized themselves using encrypted chat services such as Whatsapp and Telegram to plan where to strike as well as the locations to avoid. Additionally, the protests have gained the support of the Western world. Social media sites, like Twitter, have posters incessantly voice their support for the protests, garnering international attention and putting more pressure on Lam’s government. She eventually relented and dropped the bill, but the protests have yet to end, with the demands of the protestors yet to be fully fulfilled.

L/B: The rise of the 5^th Estate that has almost no barriers to entry has allowed for the rise of the public consciousness that has the ability to refute government decisions, making it more difficult for politicians to do their jobs.

T/S: Voters are changing and are looking for a different set of values in their politicians, causing established figures to be unable to keep up and not be elected.

EG: In recent years, the low skilled have felt the strain of globalization with cheaper foreign labour taking their jobs, creating a disgruntled citizenry that desires nationalistic leaders who can protect their interests. Additionally, the rise of successful terrorist attacks close to home has entrenched Islamophobia in their society. This has led to the wave of nationalism that has swept the Western world. Donald Trump, Marie Le Penn, Jair Bolsonaro are just some of the examples of the innumerable nationalist leaders in the world.

L/B: The rise of nationalism has caused political extremists to be chosen in major elections and make the lives of established politicians more difficult.

To what extent does the migration of people have a positive effect?

While this is a good essay, by today’s standards, the introduction and conclusion are excessively long.

Migration of people has become a collective norm, such that it is an ascendant characteristic of the contemporary society thus regulating international and cross-provincial migration is a prime concern on the policy agendas of developed and Third World states. The term “migration of people” refers to the movement of individuals such as refugees and economic migrants. This phenomenon is chiefly pertinent at present, taking into account the projection of unceasing global and regional migration animated by ageing of First World populations, mounting labour shortages in numerous developed states and urban provinces, as well as chronic disparities in income and standard of living across industrialized and developing civilizations. The modern unparalleled degree of migration incites substantial demographic, ethnical and socio-cultural reforms in many communities. Camps are divided on a myriad of issues and the aftermaths of resettlement. Consequently, there is an emerging consensus that migration of people, supposing appropriate policy measures are implemented, may engender crucial merits for expatriates, host nations and motherlands. However, given that immigration can be perceived as a double-edged sword, it does not emphatically imply propitious outcomes. Hence, migration of people has a positive effect to a large extent.

In a gradually more diverse world, where migration is repeatedly discerned as a menace to national and provincial identities in addition to social cohesion, it is fundamental to stress the positive stimulus migration initiates in host states and regions, with regard to workforce, creation of affluence, ubiquitous poverty decline, innovation and fecundity. On one hand, there is proliferating belief that immigration precipitates growth. Migration tends to boost employment in host societies, draw an influx of foreign capital and investment, beget a cosmopolis, and heighten the capacity for modernism. Several economists claim that the import of cheap labour has trifling bearing on incomes and trade openings for domestic workers since migrant workers are frequently employed in low-wage unskilled practices for which there is a lack of local supply of manpower. Therefore, the migration of people is beneficial for the receipt states and districts.

On the other hand, sceptics assert that immigration would intensify public welfare strain as well as hostility between the migrant population and the locals in host communities. One Centre of Immigration Studies (CIS) repudiated the advantages of immigration, stating the case of Mexican migrants in the United States. The study alleged that Mexican immigrants have spawned a five percent regression in wages for the poorest ten percent of the American households. Furthermore, impecunious immigrants exploit social services at twice the rate of native Americans. Thus the detractors argue that migration is detrimental. Despite the element of legitimacy in their approach of analysis, I consider their deduction to be too sweepingly pessimistic. The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) elucidated findings such as the majority of immigration trends illustrated modest or zero influence on employment and earnings of residents. Although economic theory suggests that in the short run, and on the assumption that the skill composition of the immigrant inflow diverges from that of locals, migration may be adverse, the net effects of migration are generally positive over the protracted period.

Concurrently, Third World countries and rural provinces may experience the “brain drain” phenomenon which describes the loss of trained and educated individuals to emigration. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), there are more African scientists and engineers in practice in the United States than in their homeland. The United Nations Population Fund, 2010 State of the World Population report determined that Africa merely retains 1.3 percent of the globe’s health care practitioners despite having over a quarter of tuberculosis cases worldwide. Moreover, Chinese farms are observing a scarcity of labour as rural-urban immigration level rise to a prodigious high. With escalating reliance on agricultural imports, China’s food security is increasingly threatened. Nevertheless, source states also reap benefits through remittances, both cash and societal, in the form of declines in fertility, child mortality rates, higher school enrolment rates and the empowerment of women. The exodus of highly skilled workers should be reflected as a symptom instead of a rationale behind failing public systems in those regions. Therefore, migration is advantageous on the whole, for the sending societies.

It is temerarious to form elementary assessments about the benefits of migrant flows from developing to developed states, and from rural to urban provinces. For poverty-stricken countries, the migration of a sizeable fraction of their talents imperils those remaining behind. The underlying reality is that communities necessitate human capital to ensure progress, assemble institutions as well as implement guiding principles which are the strategic pillars of sustained development. The central factors of intercontinental and domestic migration lie in the inequalities which exist in stages of development. Since the significant magnitude, doggedness and flagrancy of the gaps are likely to reinforce the pressures for migration in the imminent future, this migration trend is probable to increase. Given the considerable and multifaceted aftermaths of migration, the global community should seek a more impartial recruitment of less skilled, greater emphasis on provisional employment with incentives to return, and accent on remedying the institutional malfunctions which motivate talents to leave. With these rudiments in place, migration would be more advantageous for development.

Dominance of Asia is inevitable. Discuss.

A ten year old essay that still reads fresh!

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew gave a piece of his advice to the US administration when he was there to receive the Lifetime Achievement Award in Washington. He opined that if the US does not recognize that the Asia-Pacific is where the economic center is going to be, US would lose its influence worldwide in decades to come. Once considered a poor continent from the devastations of the World Wars with little or no influence (with the exception for Japan) on the global economy, Asia is now seen as playing a leading role on the global stage. The dominance of Asia in decades to come will be more defined as a shift in new economic global order sets in.

Intrinsic integration of economies has opened up markets in Asia which has widely benefitted it. Compared to the developed continents of Europe and North America, Asia is largely still a developing continent which strangely is working in her favour. The opening of emerging economies like Thailand, Vietnam and the two economic superpowers India and China has seen low wages being offered partly due to an abundant supply of labour and partly due to lower skills of these workers. As a result, these had led to many multinational corporations to outsource production of their goods in Asia to take advantage of the low-cost of production so as to be able to retain global competitiveness. China known as the world’s largest manufacturer has seen surge in demand for its labour that led to its economy to be overheated. India too is known to export IT services to countries due to her level of competency in that field, many Indian expatriates have been working in Silicon Valley, making up 30 per cent of the workforce. Due to greater demand from corporations it too allowed Asia to grow at an accelerating for the world to straighten up and recognize the rising dominance of Asia due to her economic prowess.

A downside to this though is that as Asia expands at an accelerating pace internal problems have become more poignant. In large parts of Asia, rural developments still persist. People in these areas tend to be illiterate and still engage in the cradle to grave employment – farming. They do not benefit from economic growth that other sectors do arising to the microeconomic problem of widening income inequality. China’s Gini coefficient is relatively high which signifies that if Asian government do not address the bipolarity in developments within its boundaries, the dominance of Asia may just become a passing fad.

On the entertainment area, Asian movies have been making its mark globally. Mention Bollywood and immediately one would conjure up an image of constant song and dance that revolves around a tree. Several Asian movies have received international awards such as Mother from South Korea, My Magic from Singapore; the Japanese movie The Departures won an Oscar award for best foreign film. Cross-border collaborations are rising as well. Westerners see Asia rich in culture and its diversity appealing as more Hollywood movies direct their movies in Asia. Even remakes of Asian films such as “My Sassy Girl” and “Departed” illustrate the growing influence of the Asian entertainment industry.

The myriad of traditions able to blend together in a melting point allows many Asian films to the created derived from the cross-cultural experiences in Asia which is its triumph card in the international market. Models too known for their “exotic looks” are making waves on in the fashion industry. Its dominance yet is not obvious but in decades to come, its rippling of waves would turn to full tides.

Education – a vital, necessary tool to equip are with the necessary knowledge to be able to command a higher wage for skills learnt to provide a comfortable life for one has seen Asian university rankings rise in the annual QS list. The desire to be taken seriously by their competitors have witnessed an immense hunger in Asia to strive for the best or so to speak. Asian education system is known for its rigours and is clearly evident in the number of international maths and science Olympiads Asians win. Compared to the US education system, where school days follow the 19th century agarian calendar which has become irrelevant in today’s world, pale in comparison to the Asian school system, Japan has 242 school days, South Korea 220 and Singapore 200. This has provided Asians a competitive edge in consistent production of highly skilled workers. This, coupled with low-cost labour, creates an ideal investment environment. Academics aside, athletes too are becoming serious competitors in international competitions. It is no wonder then that Asia will lead with an army of well educated scholars that can shape policy and industry.

However, a crucial limiting reagent that can potentially undermine the dominance of Asia is that it is the most vulnerable continent to climate changes that can adversely impede the growth of Asia. The Java coastline of Indonesia has the world’s most fault lines, making it most exposed to earthquakes. To recent surge of fury of mother nature all occurred in Asia. From typhoons rampant in Philippines to Taiwan to Japan, it creates havoc, destroys buildings and more importantly creates casualties. The economic aid into reconstruction from the damage is huge. As Asia constantly experiences such calamities, resources have to be diverted to aid devastated neighbours. This would hinder the capacity Asia has to grow. It is of utmost importance and only circumspect that Asia weaves a social fabric to truly become a domineering force. Lack of aid in times of need would result in a fallout as a whole. Increasing dominance will be diminishing in decades to come instead.

Boasting multi-ethnic groups, multi-talented individuals and large domestic market, Asia is a force to be reckoned with. Its buzzing nightlife and rising social entrepreneurs has sent a message to the world. It is said to be the makeshift of new economic world order. These are transparent signs of rising dominance but to see it turn to actuality, only time will tell.