Category: Uncategorized

The majority of the countries in the world are focused on treating all the citizens of their countries as equally as possible. In this case, it becomes essential that governments take steps to implement policies and programmes that benefit those who come from lower economic backgrounds. Economic gains should be the primary concern of government policies however sometimes these policies can lead to greater inequality within the society and might also have a negative impact on the environment. However, despite these issues, it can be contended that economic gains should be the primary concern of a country because only when a country is economically strong it can solve the other problems.

A government needs to ensure the wellbeing of its people which requires a country to be economically strong. For meeting the financial needs of the citizens it is necessary for the government to implement policies that are concerned with economic gains. In Singapore, the government has always focused on policies that are economically beneficial and competitive. It is the policies that focused on economic gains that led Singapore to become a rich developed country. With its strong economic policies Singapore, today is the 3rd highest GDP per capita, the world’s busiest port, and is the world’s 4th largest financial centre. With increased economic growth there is a scope of creating better infrastructure and facilities and also the standard of living of the people improves. Hence, it is imperative that governments create policies that ensure economic growth, so as to create an economically healthy and strong society.

Economic gains also ensure political stability. This makes it essential to make policies that are focused on economic gains. Strong economic policies ensure political stability and efficient governance. In Singapore, the government has focused on policies that have ensured rapid economic progress for the country, which has earned them credibility and power to move towards becoming a full-fledged democracy. On the other hand, the weakened economy leads to unhappy citizens and political instability which eventually leads to backlash. An example of this can be countries like Venezuela, which declined to an unprecedented political crisis due to declining prices of petrol in 2017. Similarly in Liberia, the country is facing several issues due to limited economic development. Less than 20% of the population has access to electricity, and about 39% are undernourished. Sound economic policies lead to stable and efficient government, as can be seen in Singapore. Thus, it is crucial that the governments focus on policies that promise economic gains because it leads to better governance.

Policies that focus on economic gains also brings social stability within the society. Strong economic policies ensure that everyone has a standard of living that is enough to live a comfortable life. When a country is economically strong the rate of crime is low and people can live in a safe and happy environment. A high standard of living also ensures that people do not suffer from issues like poverty, hunger, poor sanitation and lack of housing. In Singapore, the government has efficiently implemented policies that have created an environment where poverty is practically absent. However, just strong economic policies are not enough to reduce societal ills. In countries where the economic policies are not strong enough has led to higher crime rates and higher societal ills this is evident in countries like Malawi, Mexico, Nepal and Lesotho.  Thus, countries should focus on policies that provide economic gains because it leads to social stability and security of the people.

Economic gains bring a myriad of benefits within the society but the negative side should not be ignored. Rapid economic growth also has the potential to widen the economic gap. For example, even though Singapore has a high GDP and steady economic growth, it also has high-income inequality. The gap between the incomes of the rich and the poor is significant. Though this cannot be denied what is important is that the government recognises the issue and is taking steps to mitigate its effects. Many policies and programmes are in place to assist people from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The government has introduced the SkillsFuture programme that provides the necessary support to our citizens at various stages of life. The government’s ComCare’s assistance programme offers social and monetary assistance to low-income individuals and families. The government is capable enough to tackle these issues because of sound economic policies which have equipped them to fund these programmes. Thus, economic gains should be the main focus of the government because it equips them to help people from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Many believe that the pursuit of economic gains may lead to environmental damage. This is true in many cases where countries focus more on economic benefits while ignoring the damage they are causing to the environment. For example countries like India and China, are not only leading in economic progress but also are also leading in environmental degradation. While in India, the Ganges river is considered to be polluted, in China it is the Yangtze River. Such scenarios make people believe that economic progress should not be the only goal of a government. However, Singapore has found a balance between environmental preservation and economic gains. Strong economic policies have ensured that the government has funds to allocate to environmental conservation. This is evident from the fact that the government has taken efforts to include green spaces in many places. In fact, these practices are also adopted to make greener housing estates like Tengah that will be transformed into a “Forest Town” that is green, sustainable and smart. All this is only possible because the government has focused specifically on economic growth and progress which has equipped them to tackle environmental issues. Thus, protection of the environment is also possible only if the government has emphasised economic gains.

In conclusion, the government should focus on economic gains through its policies because economically strong nations are better equipped to tackle any rising social, political or environmental issues.

What determines a person’s course of action? Is it based on ideals, often visionary beliefs, in order to achieve a means to an end, or rather, is it to accept the current conditions whilst taking into consideration the anticipated gains, costs, necessities and chance of success? One could argue that the latter would appear to be the more pragmatic choice. However, to state the idealism is without its merits is myopic.

In this modern age, it is believed that there is a common mutual interdependence amongst nations- much like the frail balance of an ecosystem- where an alteration in terms of one factor may have vast consequences to a seemingly unrelated outcome. Such is the nature of globalisation. In such a high stakes game, it would be madness to act solely on idealistic beliefs. As a result, to represent things in an ideal form, or as they might or should be rather than as they are, with emphasis on values, without considering the reality of the situation would be too great a risk to be deemed feasible. The violation of human rights occurs throughout many of the world’s nations. From an idealistic perspective, this phenomenon would be deemed undesirable, and we would naturally think that the complete eradication of such atrocities would hence be the most favourable course of action. However, in reality, this would amount to nothing more than a lofty pursuit. If a country should act unilaterally in invading another in order to exterminate such acts, the global consequence would be numerous. By espousing realism, on the other hand, there are tangible benefits to be gained. Instead of leaning towards a zero-sum game mentality, where it is all or nothing, progressive steps could be taken in order to solve such a problem. Perhaps by establishing international ‘watchdog’ organisations such as the United Nations, policies could be put in place in order to methodically curb such problems. Although such methods do not ensure that the problem would indeed be solved entirely, it is a step in the right direction.

Faced with such stark realities, one would be inclined to believe that idealism holds little value when realism brings about such concrete outcomes whilst the former seems to advocate that the object of external perception consists of mere ideas. What is interesting when considering these factors is that idealism is more often than not, the basis of future realistic action. Many of the things we take for granted today was once the brainchild of someone with a simple idea. It may not have amounted to much at the point of conception, but the process is nonetheless of vital importance. Take mankind’s fascination with flight for example. A couple of centuries ago, flight for man would have seemed improbable. However, with the constant belief that defying gravity is indeed possible, the Wright brothers altered the face of history. This idealistic goal has even propelled past aviation and has lead to advances in space technology by breaking the final frontier. In recent history, we can witness the benefits of idealism, where racial equality is concerned. Not too long ago, African-Americans were seen as the inferior race in the United States; subject to slavery by their white masters, they were deprived of many of the things we take for granted today, such as education, the right to vote or equality in employment. If not for the visionary aims of such figures as Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr, slavery might still be a common practice in America. In King’s speech entitled “I have a dream,” we see the embodiment of an idealistic aim, where although seemingly unrealistic at the time, is of vital importance in order to take realistic measures in the future.

In considering these binary opposites, it is important to note that simply gathering under either banner would be folly. Sheer idealism without undertaking a pragmatic outlook would indeed amount to nothing more than a dream, realism on the other hand, without any ultimate goal may yield some results an yet be without conviction. Hence, there is a need to acknowledge that despite being at opposite ends of the spectrum, the two are inextricably linked when anything of value is to be attained. We see examples of this fusion in our everyday lives. Take for example Singapore’s road to independence. What may have started out as mere nationalistic aspirations led to Singapore attaining self-governance? However, this did not come without a dose of realism as the British would only grant Singapore independence if it was certain that it would not fall to communism. As a result, operation Cold Store was put in place, in order to exterminate communist movements on the island. Similarly, the Obama administration espouses such slogans as “change”, and “yes we can”. This does indeed seem like a grand idea given the current economic situation. However, the importance of laying the foundations upon which realistic policies can be implemented so as to bring about this very change cannot be ignored.

Hence, it appears that it is a situational decision, of whether to adopt either notion or to integrate them to achieve a goal. For all the benefits of pragmatism, it must not be forgotten that realism is merely the process to which idealism was the impetus.

Introduction
Joy is something most people experiences in lives. It subjective but it is a matter of how we look at it. In general view, when one is affected positively either mentally or physically by an event and is able to feel extremely happy, Joy could be said to have been created to the self by the event. Hence, Joy is a feeling of great happiness, a state of mind that encompasses both physical and mental emotions gained from activities that create great happiness to the self. In the later part of the essay, I will be examining how human perceive joy and how it potentially differ in different culture.

Great happiness like joy can be obtained from pleasurable activities such as snow skiing. However, different people may have different perception; some may deem skiing as a pleasurable activity while some might not. A child from a country that does not has winter, for example, Singapore, may find skiing adventurous and a pleasurable activity to do. However, for a child who lives in a country that has winter, for example, Denmark, skiing may be a boring activity rather than a pleasurable one for them. However, how one perceives an activity as pleasurable may also depend on one’s characteristic. For example, a lazy man may find skiing on the snow rather a tedious and tiring activity, whereas a sporty man may find skiing on the snow an adventurous and pleasurable activity. After all, it depends greatly on one’s perception of pleasurable activity before one finds satiety in it. It is often conceptually believed that through bad experiences we are able to learn and obtain good memories and may eventually lead to great happiness it. For example, a lazy man may find it tedious and tiring to ski in the snow as he falls dozens of time while skiing. But the experiences of falling and picking up the skill of skiing may allow the lazy man to understand the joy in skiing. This enables skiing to be a pleasurable activity to him. After all, it really depends on how an individual may perceive what is a pleasurable activity and what is not.

Joy can also be obtained through physical emotion that brings satiety to the self. Examples of physical emotion include gaining better looks or appearances, to recover from illnesses and etc. To a dengue infected patient who has been hospitalized for weeks, recovery would bring satiety to the self as the patient would be able to resume his or her daily life. Satisfaction could also be gained from gaining better looks or appearances. When one gained a better looks, for example through plastic surgery, one may gain confident and be more satisfied as one’s desires of being more impressionable or beautiful is been fulfilled. However, different people may perceive the feeling of satisfaction through plastic surgery to gain better looks. People who believed in staying natural would definitely find gaining a better look through plastic surgery not satiety to the self. However, some people believed that plastic surgery is a privilege to have in this modern society as it could satisfy their desire which brings satiety to the self. For a born looks disfigured person, it is not their will to be born disfigured. However, reconstructive plastic surgery could bring satiety to the disfigured person as it allows him or her to looks like normal or even better. To some, there might be a temptation to acquire the physical or material satisfaction, but it is only the temptation that creates the devil. Often, after people acquire the physical or material aspect of what they previously tempted or desired to acquire, they usually feel unsatisfied and wants more. This is because, in economics, human wants and needs are unlimited. But however, to a certain point I believed, that when people acquire what they previously tempted or desired for, there is inevitably at least a minute satisfaction to the self.

Different state of mind affects differently how people perceive joy. A mentally perverted person may find murdering a sense of satisfaction to his or her physical and mental emotions, which leads to great happiness. However, to the norm, it is regarded as something inhumane and insane, and creates negative physical and mental emotions rather than satisfying it. In this case, different thoughts or mental thinking may lead to different perceptions of satisfaction. One common idea mentioned was, a pianist may find gardening rather a satisfying activity while a gardener may find playing the piano a satisfying activity. In this scenario, the pianist finds joy in gardening while the gardener finds playing the piano a joy. This is a clear example of how different people may perceive joy differently. It sadistic to treat murdering or inhumane behaviour as a joyful thing to do, the person who commits the act may find joy at that period of time but may find it horrifying or guilty when the person repented after his or her thoughtless act. However, we should be aware that each individual has a different perception of joy at different period of time, during the period when the person commits something inhuman the perception of joy is different when he repented. We should take into consideration the fact that at that period of time, the person, indeed experiences joy as his or her physical and mental emotions at satisfied.

In conclusion, satisfaction from physical emotion depends largely on people’s different perception of satiety. Also, we have to take into consideration that at different period of time people also have a different perception of joy. Once one is able to gain satisfaction through physical emotion or mental emotion that they gained from their activities, one is able to gain joy or great happiness.

Introduction:
Sorrow is something we have to face in our lives. It is inevitable but it is a matter of how we perceive it. In general view, sorrow is perceived as when one experiences great suffering from negative instances which negatively affect both physical and mental emotions. Hence, sorrow is a state of mind, mental suffering that encompasses both physical and mental emotions gained through a series of unfortunate events or negative instances. In the later part of my essay, I will be examining how sorrow may potentially differ in a different culture and how human perceive joy.

Unfortunate events can bring about great mental suffering to one as one is negatively affected. For example, John, a national soccer player, has lost his legs during a car accident. For John, it could be one of the worse events he could ever have as his legs are one of the most important things to him as he earns a living with them. Not being able to live a normal life, has to be wheelchair-bound and not being able to continue his career as a soccer player, John emotions could be devastatingly impacted. This not only brought sorrow to John, but it also brought sorrow to those who are close to John, especially his parents. In this scenario, negative impacts to one’s emotion brought by unfortunate events or negative instances could bring sorrow to one. If John were to look at it on the brighter side, he could carry on with another career perhaps painting or coaching for soccer. These other fields of opportunities that he could possibly carry out may bring him to greater heights in achievement in his lives and may also bring joy. However, the fact that he lost something precious could not be escaped; sorrow will still exist even at least temporary before he finds joy when he takes things on the brighter side of life.

A loss of kin, someone or something close to one could bring sorrow to one as it affects one’s physical and mental emotions negatively. For example, one may think that it is a sorrow for John as his grandfather has passed away. However, if John’s grandfather has been suffering great pain from kidney failure for years, it would be a sigh of relief for John that his grandfather finally could rest in peace than feeling sorrow about it. In this case, the child’s physical and mental emotions are not negatively affected. However, if John were to lose his grandparent due to an accident at a young age, it could be a sorrow to him and could even affect the growth of the child. In this case, the child’s physical and mental emotions are negatively affected; hence it is sorrow for the child after the unfortunate accident. For John to lose his grandparents due to an accident may be a sorrow to him but it may not be as well. If John did not know he has a grandfather or has not seen his grandfather since birth, he might not have affection towards his grandfather. Hence, the death of his grandfather would have a minor or no impact on John. Since it is not a negative instance it may not result in mental suffering gained from this instance. However, we have to understand that John is still the grandson of his grandfather and they are blood linked. Sorrow may still come indirectly from the parents of John as John’s parents may experiences sorrow from the loss of their kin.

A change in lifestyle or culture could bring about great suffering to the self as it affects one negatively on their physical and mental emotions. For example, a billionaire family may have got used to the royal way of life for years but after a sudden bankruptcy, their lives could be completely changed. They might have to live in a slum, eat expired loaves of bread or a minute amount of staple food every day. This sudden change in lifestyle for them, in their own perception, could be treated as negative instances. This negative instance has created mental suffering to their physical and mental emotions. But it is a matter of perception of how they perceive it as a negative instance. If the family has a positive mindset and always tends to look at things on a brighter side, they might find it not a negative instance but a great chance for them to experience new life before their wealth could be rebuilt. However, we must also consider the fact that they have been enjoying life for years and this sudden change might take time for them to be inured. During the period of time when they are trying to get themselves accustomed to this situation, they might find it negative and thus create mental suffering to their physical and mental emotions.

In conclusion, it is often revolving around the feeling of losing something in various aspects of lives, which is important, that create mental suffering. Very commonly, the series of unfortunate events often have a link to losing something, such as the loss of close ones, precious items, wealth and many more. Also, it also important that the perception of losing something or someone important may potentially change an instance from being a negative one to a positive one. When one perceives a loss of something or somebody important as a negative instance, mental suffering could be present as the physical and mental emotions are often negatively affected as well.

Courage refers to one’s bravery in times of fear or distress and bringing about an action that shows fearlessness and valour in a person. One may receive praise or applause for displaying bravery or showing courage at unexpected moments yet at the same time, there are people who are criticized for showing the same sort of grit and valour. Hence, people wonder whether or not courage can necessarily be seen as a virtue. Although courage may not be seen as virtuous if it is inflicted upon others instead, and no effective actions or solutions are seen, this essay agrees to a large extent that courage is in fact virtuous in the aspects of leadership, wars, and when one is fighting for a cause.

Courage is virtuous in the aspects of leadership as it is essential in order to carry out laws that may not be appreciated by others. As a leader, one has to do what is right and what is good for the betterment of people. However such may not be seen as popular or receive much support from the public should it not be what the public want or desire. As such, it takes courage to stand by-laws implemented for the good of people even if leaders may face ridicule and criticism from their own people. For example, changes in healthcare in the USA have caused many people to criticize Barack Obama’s administration even if these laws of increased self-reliance and less dependence on the government were meant to help people to be more responsible for their own well being and healthcare. Even so, Obama’s administration still stands by these laws displaying Obama’s courage while he leads his people despite the criticism he may face. Therefore, courage is a virtue in the area of leadership as it is essential in order to carry out laws that are necessary for the betterment of people.

However it may be argued that courage may not be a virtue should that courage inflict fear into others hence creating uncertainty and worry in others thus, it is not deemed as virtuous. Courage is termed when one chooses to ignore or target the fear that one feels and decides to take concrete actions because of the newly found courage to do something. As such, it would only be natural if one would choose to empower another person to take courage too. However, there are instances where people inflict fear upon others in times of difficulty and hardship. People do this to display their own bravery and honour and sometimes even their authority over other people. This then creates an element of fear and worry in their victims hence cannot be seen as virtuous but rather tyrant like and cruel. For example, the hijackers of the 9/11 attacks were empowered by their leaders to take courage and to fight for the good of their families and people so as to create a more utopian world to live in. They gained courage through influential speeches directed to them and even the provision of weapons to prove to them that they were more than capable to handle the job. Yet, at the same time, the newly found courage was used to create mass terror and fear among passengers in the hijacked aircraft. Thus, depicting them as cruel, heartless people rather than courageous people who gave up their lives so as to contribute to the betterment of their people. Although it took courage to take up arms and rage a war against the West through the 9/11 attacks, that courage was not perceived as virtuous or brave and was rather seen as impulsive, insensitive, and cold due to the loss of lives and fear instilled in the hearts of millions. Therefore, courage may not be deemed as virtuous when pain or despair is inflicted upon others instead.

Having mentioned that, courage is still seen as a virtue because courage displayed in times of war shows an unwavering commitment despite the dangers and risks posed hence is viewed as admirable and virtuous. In times of war, uncertainty runs high and a lot is at stake, especially the lives of innocent people. This is especially so when one puts his or her own life ahead of others so as to protect other people and to carry out a job that needs to be done. As such, due to the many dangers and risks posed to a person such as casualties and even death, courage in times of war is admirable. For example, the assassination of Osama bin Laden was deemed as one of the greatest counterterrorism victories of all time. This was so because the job was well done by US special forces, the naval SEAL who displayed immense courage even with the pressure to carry out the job successfully and to keep themselves alive and lit. Their courage was admirable because, despite the difficulties that they faced or treaded upon, they managed to successfully capture the most wanted terrorist in the world, thus receiving much praise for their valour because their discipline and commitment were seen as virtuous and something to be admired and modelled after. Although, it may be argued that these men are trained to be able to react to difficult situations such as these their courage can still be seen as virtuous because it shows, to give up their own life so as to save millions more thus is virtuous and courageous. Therefore, courage is a virtue, especially so as one’s life is at risk for the sake of many others.

 Conversely, courage may not be a virtue if there are no real solutions or actions that help ease the current situation hence overriding the idea of courage being seen as a virtue. Even if one shows courage and bravery, if that bravery is not channelled to produce concrete actions for results, that courage would not be at no avail and would mean nothing especially if one has failed to carry out certain aims or goals planned in mind. Moreover, this may no longer be seen as a virtue but the person may not even be seen as courageous anymore but rather impulsive and impractical instead. For example, Gorbachev was praised for mustering the courage to improve relations with the West and USSR through reforms and plans. However, even with the courage mustered to save relational problems with the West and improve standards of living in USSR, his reforms such as perestroika and glasnost were not radical enough hence no real concrete or desirable actions were carried out. Whatsoever, not only did it cause a lower standard of living in USSR, Gorbachev lost the confidence of his people and his courage was no longer seemed like a virtue but rather a curse. Therefore it can be said that unless concrete actions or solutions are seen courage is not a virtue as it may very well be just as bad as not having any courage.

However, there is no doubt that courage is a virtue when one makes use of their courage to fight for the rights of others so as to help them and ease their pain or burden. When someone challenges the status quo, it is likely that he or she will come under scrutiny or even be ridiculed. Yet their courage is a virtue because they are pushing on so as to see through their plans to help others and improve their lives and even make a difference to the lives of the people they support. People like Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther Jr. are famous not for the lives they led but by the number of people they inspired and touched through their valiant acts and were controversial yet acceptable especially when it was meant to help others. Whatever problems that they had on their hands, they managed to juggle that and successfully do what they set out to do. As such, their courage in times of complexity and wanting to improve the lives of others is seen as a virtue. For example, not only did Nelson Mandela have to protect his people, he had to fight the criticism and ridicule he faced while he was protecting the blacks. However, instead of ridiculing the whites for their lack of empathy and compassion, he tried to reconcile with them and to take a conciliatory role with them so as to bring about peace among all people in his nation. Hence, his courage is seen as virtuous because he was willing to run into an angry mob of unhappy people and to be criticized in order to fight for the rights of people, at the same time, make an effort to understand and reason with the whites which took him immense courage especially since his life and his family’s lives were at stake too. Therefore, his valiant acts are virtuous. Although it may be argued that Mandela could have chosen not to mediate with the whites he took the extra step and effort to take a compromising role with them further reinforcing the fact that his courage is virtuous and righteous. Thus, fighting for the rights of others is virtuous especially so when one does not need to do so and still chooses to so as to make a difference in the lives of others.

In conclusion, although it may be argued that courage may not always be seen as virtuous when pain is inflicted on others and brings about no concrete action, courage is still largely a virtue when one is expected to do what is politically right when one gives up his or her own life for others and fights for the well-being of others. Courage will always be present in times of hardship and fear but it is how people choose to display their courage and improve the lives of people around them. As C.S Lewis once said, “ Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point,… the point of highest reality.” Therefore, there is without a doubt that courage is, in fact, a virtue.

Ambition, in its purest form, is the desire for success and the driver for individuals, organisations, and governments alike in achieving excellence. Ambition holds no limits and no one is spared from its intoxicating allure. The desire to become successful, the yearning for the betterment of others. These are all ambition common to us, humans. Ambition in itself is neither good or bad, but the effects are. While it does drive people to work harder, it could also cause people to suffer. It drives societies forward but in its wake, ruthlessness is also born in order to achieve the desired outcome. While I agree that ambition is good for the most part, I would not say that it has always been good as in some instances, ambition serves as a detriment rather than a force for good.

To individuals, ambition has always been defined as the hunger to succeed to attain the future one envisage. Ambition festers in the soul of the average person wanting to be something more than himself – to give himself either verification of his existence or to strive to reach the very limits of excellence. It has given us many greats of our time, from Muhammad Ali in boxing to Lionel Messi in football. These athletes exemplified how ambition can be the force for good individually as their ambition help them to pull themselves out of dark times and propelled them into the forefront of success. Lionel Messi was born with a gene that prevented him from growing taller, which could have ended his sporting career as it was a perceived norm for players to be of a certain height to be effective in playing football. His ambition to prove his doubters wrong and the ambition to achieve greatness despite the setback launched him to the pinnacle of excellence of sports, where he is now regarded as one of the greatest ever to have graced football. This goes to show that ambition is good as it pushes one to overcome his own setback, regardless of what it is, and is the catalyst for individual success as not only did Messi become what he set out to be, he also broke the perceived norm that athletes need to be tall. He paved the way for many others who may not be tall to equally have a chance in sports by serving as their inspiration. Hence it can be seen that ambition is good for individuals, and even those around them as it is the driver for people to achieve excellence.

Ambition in organisations too can be a great force for good not just for the firm but for their customers too. Ambition, when placed in this context, could be seen as the desire to conquer industries or challenge existing powerhouses or to stay at the top of the food chain for incumbents. For instance, Apple was founded on the very desire to break into a market dominated by giants such as IBM. Steve Jobs had infected the company with his ambition of making Apple great by challenging IBM’s stranglehold on the personal computer industry. This manifested in Apple coming up with the Apple 1 as a direct competitor to IBM’s computers at the time at a reasonable price point to attract customers away from IBM. In this instance, the ambition was a force for good for the organisation as its hunger to break into the market gave it the ability to innovate and come up with products that customers want, giving it a foothold in the industry. Even now, that same ambition lingers in the company which helps it to post-high levels of profits and make it one of the world’s most valuable companies. The benefits of ambition by the organisation is not just confined to within the company but also ripples down to the consumers too. People are given a greater variety of products to choose from, all at a lower price due to competition hence are much more satisfied. Hence this shows that the ambition of organisations is good as it benefits both the organisation and the masses.

Ambition is also good as it is a vital ingredient for governments to succeed. This ambition takes shape in the form of the state wanting to better the wellbeing of her people and brings about economic prosperity. A great example would be that of Singapore and her founding father Lee Kuan Yew. It is hard to imagine nowadays that Singapore was a developing country a mere fifty years ago without the skyscrapers and the multinational companies on her shores. This would not have been possible had it not been for the ambition of the late Mr Lee and his government to transform the country. Conventional governments would have pandered to national pride to grow their support in anticipation of their next election, but Mr Lee’s government’s focus was to ride the wave of meritocracy to bring about economic prosperity to the country. We could have kept our resentment towards the Japanese close to our hearts, or continued sobbing over Malaysia’s decision to kick us out of Malaysia, but it was because of our ambition and our desire to survive that we did not let our emotions get the better of us and instead stayed objective. The government warmed relations with Japan which allowed for huge capital inflows into the country to build the nation. We showed no hostility towards Malaysia and in return, they sold us potable water for survival. This is all due to the ambition of the government to survive and succeed and now we reap the rewards centuries later while our government continues to have that same level of ambition to help us stay relevant in the world today. Hence ambition is good for governments as it helps them to stay objective and bring out prosperity to her people.

However, to merely say ambition is always good would be myopic as with all issues, there are two sides to the story and ambition is no exception. While ambition is a driver for a cause, it will inevitably result in sacrifices being made in other areas to achieve that cause. Going back to the example of Singapore, ambition drove the country to economic prosperity but it also led to the stifling of the local political scene. In order to push forth the government’s agenda and better the country, Singapore has effective been a one-party state since her inception. Resentment or opposition had been dealt with an iron fist by the founding fathers in the form of libel lawsuits or control of the freedom of speech. This was due to the ambition of creating economic prosperity and its trade-off for a small country like Singapore was the vibrancy of the local political scene. Investors desire stability and we duly delivered by covering our mouths with tape in exchange for money and shut the mouths of others who try to speak out and potentially jeopardise the inflow of capital. In this case, ambition has been a bane as it destroyed the opposition in our country and prevented the checks and balances of power. We were lucky in that the People’s Action Party ran a corruption-free government and did not seek to exploit the lack of an opposition to exercise their powers uncontrollably to enrich themselves. In the international scene, however, our model has legitimised the use of a one-party state to run a country due to our success as seen by Russian President Putin’s praise of Singapore and his alleged ambition to emulate our success. This will not bode well for Russians in general as his government is a kleptocracy and his ‘ambition’ is only used as a pretext to legitimise his abuse of power – something we may have contributed to due to our success with the system. Hence ambition, in this case, is not good as it entails trade-offs vital to keep a check of power while inadvertently may provide as a convenient excuse for others to achieve their ulterior motives.

           Furthermore, individual and organisational ambition could be of detriment to society if the ambition is of malice. Ambition is a double-edged sword and it is wielder who ultimately decides whether is it used for good. The past has seen many who used ambition to leverage on their desire for excellence but history shows us that ambition has also been a tool for destruction. Memories of World War 2 still linger in the minds of the survivors while the sins committed by Hitler continues to haunt Germany even today. Hitler, in his time, was ambitious and wanted to save Germany from her economic freefall and her loss of pride. However, unlike the relatively more pacified approach Mr Lee employed with Singapore, Hitler chose to do the opposite and pursued that path of a warmonger to ‘cleanse Europe.’ From waging unnecessary wars to wanting to play the role of God via creating the pure Aryan, his ambition lied in all the wrong reasons. His ambition was clouded with hate and the people too – disillusioned by the shame the Allies brought to them – were galvanised by his ambition and inflicted suffering on the Jews to alleviate their own pain which led to the Kristallnacht before the floodgates opened. His ambition to cause harm on others took his actions even further such as building concentration camps to inflict maximum suffering on the Jews, stripping them of their dignity as humans and their right to live. This goes to show that ambition can be employed wrongly as well and compared to good ambition being the spark to eventual success, this form of ambition spreads like wildfire which will inevitably burn down all before it, leaving nothing behind. It brings civilisations down the path of self-destruction and is the premonition of death for many others unrelated to that society. Hence ambition in its ugliest form is the grim reaper for innocent lives and it being bad is a severe understatement.

          In conclusion, ambition is neither wholly good or bad. It is just a means to an end and if used correctly, it creates wonders but if used wrongly, it destroys. To say that it is always good is to be delusional while claiming it is always bad is perhaps being too pessimistic. I am for one who believes in ambition being mostly good but is not oblivious to the nastier side of what it may bring about too. Hence while I find that ambition is largely good, it can be folly in other instances.

The elimination of global poverty is certainly not a realistic aim in view of the various problems that are still arising in these poverty-stricken states, and such problems are also often more likely to lead to a continuation rather than the elimination of global poverty. At the same time, while initiatives had been taken by authorities or international institutions to deal with the problems, the effectiveness of it is however often undermined.

One of the main problems that caused some of these states to suffer from poverty is the control of the country under the corrupt government. The government often plays an important role in helping its people meet their social needs and other welfare. Thus, if their leaders are corrupt and are only concern with achieving their self-interest rather than the nation’s, then the elimination of global poverty will definitely be impossible. The Oil-for-food programme by the United Nations implemented in Iraq is an example of how a corrupt government in power could prevent the people from receiving the humanitarian aid they were supposed to get. In this incident, the UN officials and the Iraqi government were accused of siphoning off profits from the Oil-for-food programme. Under this programme, a percentage of the profits gain from the sale of oil were actually to be used to provide basic needs to the people there, however, due to corrupt officials, these benefits were not trickled down to the people and hence the inability to tackle the problems of poverty there. From here, it is clear to us that albeit initiatives taken by international institutions to address the problem of poverty, as long as there is the existence of corrupt government all these solutions may just ultimately proved to be ineffective.

On top of that, the debt problems that some of these Third World Countries face till today have also crippled them to an extent that they are unable to make economic progress and thus bring themselves out of impoverishment. For instance, for the poorest countries, $550 billion has been paid in both principal and interest over the last three decades and yet there is still a $523 billion debt burden left for them. Although various aids had been put forward to help these countries, some of these aids still failed to help deal with these debt problems and sometimes even backfired. The Heavily In-debt Poor Countries initiative, for example, was set up to help reduce the external debt for the poorest countries. However, it was instead backfiring in some cases as unfair conditions are also associated with this initiative and some of these debt relief advocates were making it even before the scheme was launched too. Therefore, with these huge financial burdens, it would certainly be difficult for these countries’ economies to pick up and thus the achievement of the aim of eliminating poverty for these states will certainly not be in the near future too.

At the same time, while many of the developed countries have played their part in helping these states, ironically they are also the ones that are worsening the situation there too. The falling commodity prices presented by these developed nations brought in tough business competition for these poor countries and also, the vast agricultural subsidies in North America and Europe have all combined to have various effects such as forcing farmers out of business and into city slums too. Hence, while steps have been taken by these richer nations to help these impoverished countries, the effectiveness is eventually undermined when their own government policies fail to take into consideration the adverse effects they may have on these nations.

On the other hand, the UN has also put forward other initiatives that saw hope for the aim of eliminating poverty on a global scale and such an initiative is the ‘Millennium Development Goal ‘. The first initiative calls for halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015 and some of the many actions taken were such as the elimination of school fees, upgrading slums and providing land for public housing etc. Indeed, living standards have risen dramatically over the last decades and the proportion of the developing world’s population living in extreme poverty has fallen from 28 per cent in 1990 to 21 per cent in 2001. Thus, this goes to show that the aim of eradicating global poverty may not after all be unrealistic.

Although recent research by the UN has shown that there are more people living in poverty in 8 Indian states than in 26 poorest African nations combined, patches of light are still showing, as a recent report has shown that improvements have been seen in these poor provinces too. No starvation deaths have been recorded in Chhattisgarh in recent memory and in Bihar, which was widely seen as India’s worse administered states, the crime rates have fallen and infrastructure is taking off too. Hence, despite the fact that poverty is still one of the major problems faced by India, the improvements that could take place even in one of their worst-hit states expresses to us that the aim of achieving the eradication of poverty on the global scale may not be that far off ultimately.

However, it is still important to note that the effectiveness of some of these initiatives is often limited due to the aforementioned problems that surface in many of these impoverished countries. Therefore, at this point in time, eliminating poverty at a global scale still remains uncertain and thus is an unrealistic goal.

From the very genesis of philosophy as a discipline, scholars have struggled with the concept of knowledge and, by extrapolation, the wide array of methods concerning the acquisition of knowledge. In pursuit of this aim are two noteworthy groups of philosophers apparently at odds with each other: the rationalists, who see logic and raison d’être as the source of all knowledge, and the empiricists, who believe that knowledge must be derived from one’s experience of the surroundings. Both schools of thought accept the idea of warranted true beliefs as a working definition of knowledge. It is about the steps required to satisfactorily prove a belief both true and justified, that rationalists like Rene Descartes conflict with empiricists like John Locke. Rationalism holds that all knowledge can and should be uncovered through the use of logic and reasoning, beginning with comprehensible and distinct ideas that need not be proven further and building up through layers of more complex reasoning a view of the world that is both true and logically justified.

Reasoning is an extremely powerful tool in the overall attainment of knowledge, offering philosophers a method of broadening yet deepening their knowledge of the world beyond their own experience. By comparison, empericism’s reliance on sensory perception and contact with the physical world appears somewhat limited and possesses the ability to cast doubts on the extent to which empirical knowledge can be conclusively proven factual or justified. Newton’s law of gravitation itself was incomplete by experiments; it was only after Newton came up with the equation that weight was the product of an object’s mass and the value of the gravitational field strength at that point in which we could fully appreciate the experiments that he carried out and extrapolated that knowledge to anticipate the outcomes of further experiments. This is less of a challenge in rationalism, where one need not depend on sensation to develop knowledge; instead, one can derive knowledge through a series of logical arguments, that is, through the supremacy of reasoning alone. In the case of Descartes, rationalism also transcends the challenges posed by scepticism to some degree by asserting that proof of a consciousness is a sufficient proof of existence. By adopting a structure that is apparently more objective that empiricism, reasoning offers us a chance to acquire theoretical knowledge even beyond our personal experience.

Thomas H. Huxley’s quotation, though contentious, gives any reader good food for thought. By claiming that “the deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence”, Huxley implies that the mere obtainment of knowledge without any proper, well defined proof is as good as blatant ignorance. Huxley can thus be categorised into the school of thought of positivism, first theorized by Auguste Comte in the mid 19^th century and developed into a modern philosophy favoured by scientists and technocrats; positivism states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method. This perception that science provides us a platform for absolute truth and unfalisifiable facts was, however, rebutted by classical compatibilist David Hume and was consequently deemed incredulous.

It is almost a characteristic of modern society that when progress takes place, a myriad of issues with regard to the purpose, the means as well as the implications of that progress would emerge. The appreciation and understanding of information via lifelong learning, from birth till death, and experience is incontrovertibly intricately interrelated to the development of nations. Eg? However, it does not serve as a purpose, means or implication to this progress; instead, it stands as a cornerstone in our unending journey towards the unreachable, undefinable success of a country. Knowledge develops man to achieve their potential in their ability to interact with his surroundings, both adversely and beneficially; such a gift does not necessarily affect the progress of a country directly. Nevertheless, it is vital for the long term growth of our international society that consists of both developed and less developed countries. Eg? Consequently, knowledge is not an object to be selfishly confined within a group; it is a valuable possession that is meant to be shared throughout our international platform regardless of the existing paradigm shift.

However, a challenge that arises alongside such an advantage of knowledge is the acceptance of knowledge. Sometimes, our reluctance for knowledge emerges due to our stubbornness and reluctance to understand our world although it is clearly beneficial; such a case is acrimoniously tragic as the laziness and glaring materialistic tendency of mankind result in ignorance which further exacerbates the situation in which we are suffering so devastatingly in. The reality that there has been an exponential increase in the consumption of fast food is great testament to the fact that we either ignore information concerning the adverse effects of such consumption, such as insulin resistance and obesity, or simply are ignorant to such knowledge. According to the film ‘Fast Food Nation’, (why quote this movie if all you want to cite are statistics?) in 1969, McDonald’s had 1,000 restaurants compared to McDonalds’ more than 30,000 today, with 2,000 new ones opening each year due to an increase in demand for fast food.  A  more poignant movie would be Sicko – that why despite the effects of fast-food, people still consume horrendous amounts. If you can give a simpler example, you can remove the above lines. How about…HIV/Aids?

However, the rejection of knowledge may also be due to our tendency to subscribe to solipsism which is the idea that one can only know that one’s self exists and that anything outside the mind, such as the external world, cannot be known to exist. Solipsists place emphasis on a subjective reality, and that what we perceive to be true for one person may not be true for another. In fact, many of our global leaders today lack sufficient current affairs knowledge to be compatible politicians attempting to assist mankind in its unending journey to an ambiguous better life. Sarah Palin herself thought that Africa was a country, not a continent and could not name all the countries involved in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Another example is that of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran who claimed vehemently that the holocaust did not take place.

With the ever-growing culture of globalisation, we, as global citizens have to be knowledgable about our rapidly-changing world. As developments occur, we have to keep updated. We have to keep track of developments in our globalised world. The lack of acquaintance about our surroundings has the potential to disadvantage us. Only with proper knowledge about our surroundings can we make informed decisions for our own selfish desires; only with various angles can we appreciate suffering and selflessly think about how advantaged we are. We live in a highly interconnected world; our very actions can have far reaching effects. The burning of forests in Indonesia adversely affects tourism air quality in Singapore and the region. Consequently, the development of other countries in Southeast Asia.Mere apathy of our surroundings can result in undesirable effects for others or even one’s self.

However, it is apparent that knowledge is both our friend and foe. Incontestably, we have improved our standards of living through technological developments and the spread of ideologies such as capitalism, mainly due to knowledge. At the same time, the overflowing knowledge of certain individuals may be highly aversive to society; the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the nuclear bomb was due to our confident knowledge of modern physics, the brainchild of Albert Einstein.

In today’s modern context, the most common mode of transmission of knowledge and information is via the mass media. The mass media is a powerful force that inevitably penetrates through our lives to the extent that it can influence our character, attitude and lifestyle; its ubiquitous nature has the power to make or break a person. New and conventional media have managed to integrate into our lifestyles such that we are non-existent without it. Dwelling in an exceedingly interconnected world, we cannot merely garner knowledge by word of mouth, just as the aborigines in Australian transmitted their knowledge over generations. We depend highly on the Internet and newspapers for knowledge concerning daily occurrences; journals keep a register of past discussions for us to learn new knowledge for application in future research. Internet usage itself is increased from 361 million users in 2000 to 1.8 billion by 2009.[i] Its effects in disseminating knowledge are far reaching – a new frontier at a cusp of innovation…Since September 2006, the brainchild of Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook has seen an exponentially increase in a few short years to a sum of 300 million subscribers today. Such a platform has been useful in the spreading of knowledge and as a discussion forum.

In our aim to teach one another knowledge that is freely accessible physically, yet extremely exclusive mentally, we have to undertake pedagogy that appreciates that we most efficiently learn via different learning styles. In our aim to teach knowledge through the best possible method, we should have the target to do so efficiently and within the least time possible. This can only be done if we can satisfy the learning style of the person being taught. This is where many educational institutions have failed. Merely organising lectures and tutorials are insufficient; they are only effective for auditory and visual learners. Holistic teaching that encompasses theory and application are essential to driving knowledge. Institutions should organise field trips and excursions so that kinaesthetic learners are not left out; they can benefit equally from the education system. Alternatively, practical sessions could be organised; instead of simply learning an economics concept or scientific theory, projects, experiments ad research can be facilitated as an approach to hands-on learning. Today, we should not emphasise rote learning is a distant past; independent thinkers  are the future.should be developed. This can only be done if institutions teach less, but students learn more. This will succeed if institutions inculcate into their students the importance of interdependent and independent learning.

Independent learners can be developed through Socratic thinking and questioning. Socrates once said theorised that, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” To develop independent learners, we need to teach ourselves how to think. Through independent learning, we obtain knowledge by ourselves; we do not depend on others for such a valuable commodity. The job of institutions is to teach people to find knowledge, not teach them knowledge. The best way to do this is via thought-provoking questions. Through his relentless questioning, Socrates forced people to examine their own beliefs. Questions provide us a platform for a purpose-driven life. We think about our actions; we appreciate our environment. We do not merely accept knowledge; we question it. We do not simply consume knowledge; we apply it. The integration of such outcomes of a thinker causes us to become more than knowledgeable. We become wise. Examining Blooms Taxonomy, accepting knowledge passively is the lowest level of education-receiving. Institutions should aim to undertake an approach in which students value knowledge and allows it to influence his or her characteristic where useful such that that knowledge can be applied with wisdom.

Thomas Edison explained, “our greatest need is to teach people who think- not what, but how.” Through such judgment, we are not satisfied with simple knowledge. We are more interested in the process than the final result of knowledge per se. We are not as concerned about the facts; rather, we are engrossed with the derivation and controversies about such beliefs and falsifiable theories. When Einstein presented his theory of Quantum Physics, the world was appalled. How could electromagnetic waves have wave particles? Nevertheless, it was the process in which Einstein was enabled to justify, to an extent, such a theory that appeased the world; he performed experiments. Through judgment and the skill of analysis, we evolve from conformism into individualism. Only through individualism can future civilizations accept facts firmly and determine the suitability of such knowledge in that modern context. Conformism is the sustenance of knowledge; individualism is the birth of knowledge. Our understanding of the heliocentric solar system and quantum physics were due to the individualistic nature of brave, confident scientists who rejected the paradigm of their time and were consequently leaders of a paradigm shifts. Via Quantum Physics, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was invented for further investigation into the characteristics of subatomic particles which will consequently strengthen foundations concerning our knowledge on Quantum physics and build upon that understanding. Individualism allows for the growth of a plethora of schools of thought that enables us to appreciate knowledge based on stronger foundations.

Knowledge consists of both the priori and posterori knowledge; nonetheless, there is no superior form of knowledge. Knowledge should be a civil right; it should be non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The preference of type of knowledge and learning style will help us, as members of an interdependent international society focus on the development of one another, as independent, individualistic thinkers such that we are not merely bogged down by mere memorisation of knowledge; we rather decisively critique knowledge. Only then can we apply knowledge to improvements in quality of life so as to ensure the progress of future generations. Our forefathers have passed down to us invaluable knowledge; the Babylonians and Egyptians indisputably inspire us. It is time for us to take the lead and inspire future civilisation to press on and trudge on in the unending pursuit for knowledge. Ultimately, it is the wise who own knowledge. They know the importance of it and they apply it not to benefit themselves only, but to advantage the rest of mankind as well. Stephen Hawking, a reputable mathematician and physicist who continued the work of Einstein from various aspects such as relativity, once said, “we are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.” Knowledge and its applications have made us superior. The option has been provided to man to accept knowledge and convert it into multifaceted wisdom.

---

Progress — the word commonly employed to describe improvements and advancement with regard to the passage of time, invoking positive connotations. Yet is what we typically call progress all that good— for us and the world at large?

The passing of recent centuries, most notably the nineteenth to twentieth, has been described as steps forward for mankind. One would frequently come across commentators talking about the “progress” we humans have made since the 20^th century. Indeed, we have been pushing the frontiers of science, making huge break-throughs in innovations and understanding. Average life expectancy globally is and has been on the uptrend with the advent of modern medical science. Previously hugely dangerous and potentially fatal child-birth has been conquered by knowledge gains in gynaecology and measures developed to counter the myriad of hazards. Innovative mechanisation of mundane and repetitive tasks like production lines have been turned over to more efficient robots. Judging by these yardsticks, no doubt we have progressed positively over the years.

Yet, on the other hand, the same period saw the exponential increase in military capabilities. We went from fighting localised contained wars into dreaming of global annihilation. From shooting muskets round by round on horseback in the Napoleonic Wars, we have “progressed” into mowing down advancing waves of each other with machine guns while hiding in the trenches of World War I. World War II saw the spreading of destruction from the battlefield into the population at large through indiscriminate allied airborne bombing runs. The Cold War brought about winds of change bearing nuclear bombs. Opposing sides began threatening each other with the ability to destroy each other’s half of the planet with a rain of nuclear detonations. In light of all these, militaries continue to use “progress” to describe the upgrading of their capabilities when all that does is to spur each other into acquiring progressively deadlier weaponry to keep up. How exactly is this “progress” beneficial?

On the political front, leaders who make little or no change to the status quo are described as conservative, even regressive — as opposed to leaders who make sweeping changes and supposedly help the nation progress. No doubt some positive quantum shifts have been made with regards to women rights and their roles in society. Yet more often than not, progress described as beneficial and introduced by “progressive” politicians are nothing more than policy oscillations between political leaders. Take the Woman’s Charter in Singapore for an example. In Singapore’s formative years, women typically took a back seat to males and the Woman’s Charter was hailed as a huge progressive step in the right direction for woman rights. Yet progress now is defined by the rolling back of certain parts of the Woman’s Charter and implementing the rolling-out of a “Man’s Charter” to enshrine gender equality. As such, how does a person even begin to ascertain the benefits of progress in the political sense when it is nothing more than skin-deep policy vacillations to suit voter sentiments of the moment?

Perhaps one can ask about the global economy – surely, we must have progressed in that aspect? No doubt average incomes and wealth worldwide have generally increased and by western standards, the standard of living has increased too. Yet absolute figures do not tell the whole story. Much of the world is labouring under the umbrella of capitalism despite its inherent imbalances. Capitalism generally rewards the person with the most resources at his disposal, leading the rich to get richer and the poor to get comparatively poorer as the gap widens. This is akin to letting the sprinter who jumps the gun and emerges first to win. In addition, who is to say that leading simple carefree lives by subsistence farming and living off the land, having shorter life expectancies as compared to leading a longer modern life of consumerism, makes a person any less well off? Thus, how exactly can such progress be said to be beneficial, if it can even be called progress in the first place?

Progress, as we know it today, is based upon the western world’s ideas of advancement and can hardly be described as universal. However, going by that yardstick, it is beneficial only in certain aspects where it is ambiguous at best for the rest. In this light, we should be more discriminating in areas for advancement and not progress for progress’ sake; rather, we should weigh the consequences of each advancement to allow the world to benefit from progress together.