Category: Social Issues

Should the police have unlimited powers when dealing with crime?

In the new movie “Public Enemies”, Johnny Depp plays John Dillinger, the 1930s bank robber and killer who gets hunted down and shot by the newly formed FBI. This seemingly suggests that the government department that was established to maintain order as well as to enforce the law is given a very large amount of authority in the process of law enforcement. However, this is true only to a certain extent because, in reality, the police force does not have such a large amount of power to wield as they wish, and for good reason. Although some argue that the police do not have sufficient authority and that the police force should be given more liberty when faced with powerful criminals like the criminal syndicates, it is inevitable that if given too much of a free rein, the individual members in the police force might be tempted to abuse this power, or even become licensed assassins as they might become as irrational and brutal as convicts in their attempt to resolve a crime.
Indeed, the law enforcers ought to have a greater authority whilst upholding the law, especially in the face of powerful criminals like the crime syndicates. In places like Russia, Japan, Italy, Mexico and China, where the Russian Mafiya, the Japanese Yakuza, the Italian Mafia, Mexican Drug Cartels and the Chinese Triads are considered the five most powerful criminal syndicates according to the Foreign Policy online 2008, it is essential for the police force to have the necessary authority to apprehend them and bring these criminals to justice. This is especially so when these criminal organizations have the ability to reach out to gangsters worldwide. This can be seen in the example whereby wherever there is a Chinatown in the world, the Triad’s tentacles would have reached there to tap into ties – giving them an unprecedented huge network of opportunities to expand their criminal network. With such a huge reach over the many petty criminals worldwide, there is a massive potential for large-scale global crimes to take place. Therefore to prevent this, it is crucial that the police force should be able to match up to, or even hold greater powers that these huge criminal syndicates have so as to able to keep these syndicates in check or to eradicate them entirely.


Indeed, the law enforcers ought to have a greater authority whilst upholding the law, especially in the face of powerful criminals like the crime syndicates. In places like Russia, Japan, Italy, Mexico and China, where the Russian Mafiya, the Japanese Yakuza, the Italian Mafia, Mexican Drug Cartels and the Chinese Triads are considered the five most powerful criminal syndicates according to the Foreign Policy online 2008, it is essential for the police force to have the necessary authority to apprehend them and bring these criminals to justice. This is especially so when these criminal organizations have the ability to reach out to gangsters worldwide. This can be seen in the example whereby wherever there is a Chinatown in the world, the Triad’s tentacles would have reached there to tap into ties – giving them an unprecedented huge network of opportunities to expand their criminal network. With such a huge reach over the many petty criminals worldwide, there is a massive potential for large-scale global crimes to take place. Therefore to prevent this, it is crucial that the police force should be able to match up to, or even hold greater powers that these huge criminal syndicates have so as to able to keep these syndicates in check or to eradicate them entirely.


Some also argue that the police ought to be given more liberty when pursuing petty lawbreakers as they believe that the police do not have enough power to uphold the law. Police power is highly circumscribed by law and departmental policies and they have very little power or control over the situations they are in or the people they encounter. They also cannot use force the vast majority of the time, and when they do, they are subjected to an enormous amount of scrutiny. In the Gallup Poll, an institution that is seen to have too little power is the local police “in your community” (31%). In addition, the poll results show that the oft-cited fear of the power of the police-type units of the federal state, state, and local governments is not as widespread as might be supposed. In fact, at the state and local levels, the prevailing sentiment is clearly that police forces either have the right amount of power or should have even more.


However, the above claim should be refuted since if given too much of a free rein, some members of the police force might be tempted to abuse it to help the criminals get away scot-free in order to reap some rewards. In fact, there have been many cases of police officers abusing their power and accepting bribes from criminals. One case in point is where a number of Colombian police officers were arrested for accepting bribes and returning seized drug to a trafficking group. Furthermore, in Tel Aviv, the second-largest city in Israel, details emerged in April this year of an elaborate criminal scheme to turn police officers into informants on behalf of lawbreakers. The officers were accused of accepting cash bribes to tip off a “serious criminal” who runs brothels and passing on intelligence in ways which are reminiscent of double agents depicted in the Hollywood film The Departed. In a situation where the police were given the right to apprehend law-breakers in order to prevent crime, they abused this right for their own personal gain. In a separate incident, Chicago Police have been accused of using pepper spray without provocation on black people celebrating Obama’s victory on election night and also of kicking in doors and running into people’s houses. They never explained what was going on and simply left when they were done with whatever they were doing. This suggests that the policemen involved in this unfortunate and seemingly racist incident simply rode on the fact that they were in the uniform and took advantage of the authority that the uniform gives them in order to carry out unexplained acts of harassment on the target citizens. Since power can be so easily made use of, it is then unwise to entrust unlimited powers to the police.


In addition, the police might become licensed assassins if they are given too much power as they might become as irrational and brutal as convicts in their attempt to resolve a crime. In the UK TV program “Worst Police Shootouts”, viewers were shocked rigid by the gratuitous legalised murder fest that ensued. Five or six cases were shown, each of which ended in the ‘perpetrator’ being shot, usually to death. In one video, a middle-aged lady ran out of her house on a suburban street, obviously in some kind of distress, waving a short kitchen knife. The two attending cops panicked and shot her when she ran towards one of them, panicked and shot her, thinking that she was about to attack them. All the other cases featured followed much the same pattern. Should these cases be considered as ‘legalised murders’ then? Maybe, if the killings were entirely accidental, but if the police use their given authority to behave as they wish while patrolling or chasing criminals, then many more innocent people will be injured or killed in their reckless line of duty. Therefore, since many police force members have already harmed so many people with the current level of authority that they have, it is definitely imprudent assign even greater powers for the police to wield.

To conclude, as Karl Wilhelm Von Humboldt once said, “If it were possible to make an accurate calculation of the evils which police regulations occasion, and of those which they prevent, the number of the former would, in all cases, exceed that of the latter.” It thus can be said that with the current level of power that the police possess, it is already being abused or used in the wrong way. Therefore, the notion that the police should be given more power should not be encouraged as it may result in disastrous results.

How effectively is diversity managed in your society?

In my society of Singapore, it would seem that diversity is embraced. The idea is enshrined in our national pledge, to be “one united people, regardless of race, language or religion”. This was vital to a nation of immigrants from all over the world, looking for a place to call their own and to develop a sense of national and cultural unity amongst the myriad of varying ethnicities. Indeed, Singapore has reached a commendable level of respecting and embracing diversity. However, this essay argues that there is still much to be desired as the nation strives towards maintaining and improving its level of social cohesion and avoiding conflict and dissatisfaction.

Singapore adopts a meritocratic approach to its society. As one of the five key principles of the nation, it would seem to suggest that diversity arising from race, gender, sexuality or age would not matter to one’s worth in society. The ideal of equal opportunity has been touted by many a politician, claiming that there is no discrimination, particularly in terms of race. Indeed, this often true in practice, as the nation strives towards creating job opportunities for all and ensuring that anti-discriminatory measures are in place. Diversity in the workforce is being promoted by the government through the encouragement of including elderly and disabled workers. Though economically motivated, these initiatives make a large impact on these workers’ lives, showing that the fiercely competitive and fast-paced workforce appreciates and includes them as well.

However, Singapore does not totally succeed in creating equal opportunities. Known for its demanding education system and highly competitive workforce, Singapore struggles to ensure that a sense of “classicism” does not form. Meritocracy allowed our forefathers to embrace good work ethics that propelled them into well-paying jobs regardless of their station in life. However, generations later, this same system has allowed an inherent disadvantage to the less well-off. While those working in well-paying sectors such as medicine and law are able to provide the best tutors, studying environment and even nutrition through financial support, those in less well-paying jobs may not be able to provide as much for the next generation. In a meritocratic system, this has created an unfairness that provides the children of the wealthy with an advantage. In a system that ranks students based on academic ability, wealthier students may have to struggle less to achieve the same stellar results any other student may have to slog for. This tends to result in enclaves, where wealthy students acquaint themselves with each other in ‘elite schools’ and form communities that seem impenetrable to those in neighbourhood schools. This inherent weakness in the meritocratic system Singapore employs thus creates a class divide that affects academics and future job opportunities. As a result, diversity in class may be poorly handled, as those with wealthy families more easily follow their parents to the upper echelons of society.

Still, it is respectable how Singapore has handled diversity through multiculturalism. This formation of a “mosaic” of different faces and religions amongst Singaporeans is touted by some in a patriotic passion. Indeed, Singapore’s policy of multiculturalism has allowed to remain largely conflict-free since independence. Following the violence and chaos of the Maria Hertogh riots in its early years, the nation has since learnt that race and religion have been and will continue to be of great sensitivity. On a practical level, the government achieves its brand of multiculturalism through the full integration in public school and housing. They claim that this creates opportunities for interaction that promotes the respect and embracing of other cultures. Indeed, this should be lauded, especially in contrast to the types of conflict that arise in the region. Our close neighbour, Malaysia, has struggled with dissatisfaction from the Chinese and Indian community surrounding the preferential treatment of Malays by the state. Meanwhile, ethnic Malays also resent that they seem to be excluded from the well-paying sectors the Chinese and Indian seem to dominate. Countries like Thailand also struggle with minorities that live far away from the centre of the nation’s activities in the cities, and grow up hardly interacting with it. Instead, Singapore’s equal treatment of all races and celebration of ethnic differences allows the most serious racial offense in years to be a couple of social media posts ignorantly complaining and attributing their personal hassles to the practices of the other races. These sentiments are also swiftly denounced by the nation.

However, one bears in mind the Singapore Recollections, “let us not take for granted that we have will always be”. While the nation has enjoyed relative peace, destabilizing entities such as ISIS have great impact on our majority Chinese nation in a community of Muslim-dominated states. Growing tensions surrounding religious extremism has cause for Singapore to reevaluate its effectiveness in handling diversity. Although multiculturalism purports cohabitation amongst different ethnicities, one questions if it truly upholds the embracing of differences as much as it does mere tolerance. A society where races can coexist but are not required to intermingle can be a brewing storm. The lack of the need to examine our differences and to face tough issues surrounding them may have made Singapore complacent towards its peace in diversity, A culture of casual racism has been largely swept under the rug, with a mindset of “going along to get along”, particularly in our youth, may be sources of friction with growing Islamophobia globally. To ensure further effectiveness in managing diversity, Singapore must be prepared to identify and address contention and suspicion between different ethnicities in order to prevent societal fissures in an era of uncertainty instead of merely alluding to it or ignoring it.

Finally, one of the biggest critiques against Singapore’s management of diversity remains its handling of alternative voices. Due to its particularly paternalistic ruling style, the government tends to censor much of the views it deems immoral or inappropriate. Though this has been argued as a means to cater to a largely conservative society, many liberal voices have taken issue with it. Most prominently, the criminalisation of gay relationships is perceived as oppressive and against a culture of diversity to the growing Pink Dot movement. There has also been growing discontent over a lack of positive portrayals of physical and mental disabilities outside of charity shows, which, even then, tend to portray these communities as weak or pitiful. In contrast to racism, sexism, Islamophobia or classism, this type of discrimination tends to hold more ground for the existing stigma , as they are largely perceived as “abnormalities” or “unnatural” by governments or the media. Thus, Singapore’s relatively poor representation towards LGBTQA and disabled persons is a source of much discontent as their diversity is not given its opportunity to be positively represented and instead this promoted an attitude of ignorance towards them on the part of the government and state-owned media.

Thus, although this essay regards Singapore’s management of diversity as largely effective, it is not blind to many flaws that tend to be inherent to its style of government or principles. In an age of growing concerns over individual rights and diversity, Singapore may face challenges in maintaining its control over diversity and the peace we currently enjoy. A sense of identity in the community is vital to ensure Singaporeans enjoy the level of peace and prosperity it strives to achieve.

‘To tell our own secrets is folly; to communicate those of others is treachery.’ Should we ever reveal the secrets of others?

In the words of the French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” This quotation from The Little Prince sheds light on one particular slant towards secrets: that they are meant to stay forever hidden, sequestered in the depths of our minds. However, no book comes without its critics. This seemingly innocuous quote makes the assumption that all of one’s hidden thoughts and unconveyed desires are benign and “serve as a moral compass”. The stark reality is that one’s intentions are rarely if ever so benevolent, but almost always tainted with the selfish and even injurious manifestations of the human condition. Those who choose to harbour such illicit desires or not benevolent intentions are certain to argue that secrets should never be revealed, for revealing such crucial snippets of information infringes on the right to privacy and harms the one whose secrets are exposed- them- giving rise to accusations of treachery and unfaithfulness. However, it is more important to consider that revealing such secrets allows us to glean invaluable learning outcomes, is justified, and can possibly save lives.

The first argument typically forwarded by those who feel that secrets are personal, private, and never to be revealed is that such an act would be a blatant violation of one’s right to privacy. Privacy, which has now come to be seen as a basic right, is highly regarded as it is needed to retain confidential information, and by keeping such information out of the hands of others, one is ostensibly safer from their prying eyes. An oft-cited example would be Facebook, the social media megalith which syphons users’ priceless personal data to be sold to other companies. Yet another instance would be Google, the multi-billion dollar search engine that engages in similar practices, with over 1.5 billion users daily. In spite of their functionality, they have been greatly impugned for such covert stealing of data, which transgresses their users’ right to privacy. The strong flak faced by the Patriot Act implemented by the US after the 11 September 2001 attacks also echoes the public sentiment that secrets are never to be revealed, not even to the government. The invasive nature of these large public entities is one of the central arguments against the exposure of personal secrets, for under them one cannot feel secure having their information in the databases of hundreds of companies one has never even heard of.

Yet another attack on the exposure of secrets is that they invariably harm the one whose secrets are made accessible to others. This is typically because any leaked information quickly devolves into mere gossip as it spreads through the grapevine. The perhaps initially harmless bits of information could quickly turn into an ugly fiasco of groundless accusations. One such example would be the 2016 US elections, which were greatly besmirched by the spreading of personal secrets of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, with the gossip surrounding her ranging from incriminating tax audits to the simply ludicrous and non-existent Pizzagate scandal. Such is proof that the exposure of secrets will lead to the sullying of others’ reputations, for Hillary Clinton ultimately lost to the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. The profound and manifold implications the revealing of secrets has on others include the ruining of their public image, a significant harm which contributes to the notion that unconveyed information ought to remain that way forever.

On the other hand, it is indisputable that the sharing of others’ secrets can offer us invaluable insights, be it into the lives of others or of societies as a remarkable whole. This is particularly because unarticulated opinions and sentiments may sometimes reveal the white elephant in the room- egregious truths that need to be tackled but are sidestepped by virtually everyone. The uncovering of such secrets would then be of immense benefit, as they reveal volumes about the state of society amongst a milieu of other learning outcomes. Anne Frank, a young Jewish girl who died during the horrific Holocaust perpetrated by Hitler’s Nazi Germany, kept detailed accounts of her daily affairs and her insights into the vast persecution of minorities and the anti-Semitic attitudes then. All of this was journaled into her private diary, definitely a body of her opinions that would comprise hidden secrets amongst other things. Even decades after her passing, the insights she has written about the Holocaust regarding the horrors of war and the preservation of human rights are still taught in schools and remembered by millions of children. Secrets should thus be revealed as they have immeasurable value, being capable of enlightening us on core human values that form an integral part of our lives.

Moreover, the exposure of secrets has already become synonymous with justice, as no criminal justice system in any functioning society could possibly do without such a fundamental tool. The revealing of secrets, in this instance, would be particularly necessary in order for true justice to exist within societies. During lawsuits, the prosecution and especially witnesses are legally bound to reveal truthful information. Any deviation or non-cooperation warrants stiff penalties and punishments. Without a doubt, such an enumeration of incriminating data would be uncovering the secrets and misdeeds of the defendant. Regardless, without such testimony in court, no trialled criminals can truly be brought to justice, allowing them to escape with impunity. Societies will descend into chaos and anarchy in a world where secrets are never to be told to others because the legal justice system would lose its operational capacity in totality.

Perhaps the most cogent line of argumentation in favour of having people being cognizant of others’ secrets is how it might be essential to preserve human lives- not one, not hundreds, but thousands. Only by exposing critical information of others containing plans to inflict harm on vast populations can preventive action be taken in order to protect the people of a nation. This is particularly true in wartime situations and even terrorist attacks. The US has been known to perform enhanced interrogation techniques on captured terrorists in order to force them to reveal life-saving, time-sensitive information. Such measures have saved countless lives from the devastating blow of a terrorist attack. During World War 2, rebel groups comprising prisoners of war and civilians in Nazi-Germany captured countries were integral in helping Allied forces defeat the Axis powers, as the information these rebel groups purveyed provided the Allied forces with critical insights necessary to force Germany out of its invaded territories, thus ending the war far sooner and save the lives of millions who would otherwise have died catastrophically in the brutality of the war. Since the dissemination of such crucial information of others is so valuable for its power to end wars, save lives, and preserve human dignity, there are definitely instances when secrets have to be revealed.

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].

“Is freedom of expression always desirable?” Comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should freedom of speech be protected no matter the cost?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What should priorities of poorer nations be?

Poor countries have always had little say in international affairs due to them being viewed by developed countries as having inadequate economic prowess to be of any influence on the international stage.  Progress be it social or economic has been stifled by corruption, poor government funding, rampant diseases, racial tensions and low literacy level. The priorities of governments from poor countries should have a proper quality education, proper healthcare system, decent infrastructure and low crime rates. With the basic fundamentals stabilised, would it be able to progress and create new opportunities for sustained developments.

As it goes with any society, education is key to building a creative and intellect workforce that would have levels of productivity and improve the standard of living of one. They would possess relevant knowledge and skill to command a higher wage for their qualifications that would add comfort to one’s life.  Knowledge is said to be the only thing one cannot be robbed of.  If these poorer nations truly recognize the need of education for its multitude of benefits and not just know that education is vital, would they be on the right track.  Education that creates a talented workforce would be able to produce thinkers and inventors that can pull the country out of its current “brain drain” situation.  With a pool of talented and skillful individuals would they be able to attract foreign investors keen on tapping the undeveloped market that is complemented with a high productivity level.  The transfer of technology and management skills know-how would enable these countries to achieve sustained economic growth that would increase the national income and national employment rate of an economy.  Singapore was once a highly labour intensive country in the 1970s but the emphasis and constant revision of education led Singapore into a knowledge-based, innovative society that boasts high literacy levels of over 94 percent.  It is now a cosmopolitan city that is able to diverse production of various goods.  Education thus, should definitely be a priority for poor countries.

However, whether high levels of education can be achieved is difficult to say.  Firstly, lack of domestic teachers due to low level of qualifications and the fact that an educator’s income is relatively underpaid, would deter one from the profession.  Governments of poorer nations would have to initially “import” educators should the priority be met.  More often than not, they would demand higher wages due to their more “advanced” skills and knowledge. Moreover, poorer countries tend to be demographically large with lots of spare land and with no proper infrastructure.  The ability for one keen on educating himself to get to school is usually a long and tedious journey due to lack of transports or supply of schools.  Schools in poor African nations like Congo, Mali and Chad are sparsely located with no proper facilities for proper education and other developmental enrichments as such drama or sports. This may discourage one to go to school.  Also parents of children from these countries tend to make their child to take after the cradle to grave employment of farming than go to school, as they see farming more beneficial. Government thus should emphasize and create understanding for the need of education. For education to materialize and attract investors proper infrastructure should be built.

Poor hygiene practices and lack of sanitation have allowed diseases to be rampant such as malaria and pneumonia that snatch lives away from thousands of children yearly due to their still feeble developing immune system.  If these children have a chronic date with the Grim Reaper, then there is little but no future for these poor nations.  Human resource is a valuable factor for any country’s progress.  The implementation of a proper health care system that can be made affordable and easily accessible to all must be a priority.  For it to be effective it has to be coupled with better development of rural nations such as ensuring adequate supply of clean water and proper garbage disposable centres that would diminish the possibility of illness.  An obstacle these countries face is the high cost of the provision of healthcare.  In US the healthcare is subsidized at US$2800 per capita and in Singapore it is US$400 per capita.  If only the wealthier counterparts are able to afford it would undermine the nations effort to build a decent healthcare system. For instance, in Sri Lanka, hospitals can be as little as five in a state.  The high demand is not met by adequate supply that sees many left untreated or wait as long as eight years  to be treated.  Subsidies should be implemented with the priority to healthcare in poor countries.

A common detriment to poor countries is the lack of social cohesion and relatively high levels of crime rates be it white or blue collared crimes require proper law enforcement to be a priority.  With social unrest present in a country, focus on where it should be (education cum healthcare) is diverted to violence that breeds inefficiency and casualties. Investors too would become pessimistic about the country’s political climate that would deter investment and also conjure up a negative image of the country’s reputation. They would lose trust from their richer counterparts and would not have the opportunity to host major world events such as the World Cup, IMF meetings and Olympics that can accelerate growth.  Governments should regulate and revise laws that could be harsher to negate crime rates.  Social tensions could be quelled by implementing civics classes for racial groups to appreciate one and other.  For instance, the former ethnic clashes between the Hutus and Tutsies in Rwanda saw over 850,000 casualties.  In Brazil drug syndicates have political ties and are difficult to weed out that can result in high levels of violence and in Eastern Europe, high levels of drug trafficking.  In Thailand, Red versus Yellow have made the country deemed unsafe to travel that lowered tourist numbers. If corruption and social tensions impeded, it can allow progress to thrive.  Tightening of law and proper administration of police forces to inspect and regulate areas should be a priority.  With greater influx of tourists as the country is deemed safer can increase government revenue that can be directed to financing merit goods that are long term investments.

Poorer nations are not congested in just one continent.  They live in contact side by side with their rich neighbours.  Poorer nations have the resources to thrive and should be able to know that they have opportunities – immense opportunities to be economically and politically stable (for instance China). If other countries are rising up they should too.  Excuses for lack of funding and what rot is immature.  If priorities are identified and rightfully implemented they would finally be a belie all who doubted them but more importantly see that the welfare of their citizens have been enhanced, giving them an equal chance based on meritocracy and minimize outflow of migrants.  With higher development of infrastructure, education, healthcare and low crime levels would they be able to handle better world environment problems that trouble the world. With social and economic security, they would have their opinions heard rather than discarded.