Should the poorer countries develop their tourist industry when the basic needs of their own people are not being met?

Tourism in many developing countries is one of the most reliable and sustainable economic development options and in some countries the main source of foreign exchange earnings. Part of this income trickles down to different groups of society and it is easy for this revenue to leak away from the poor benefitting the more educated and well-off segments of society. However, if tourism is managed with a strong focus on poverty alleviation it can directly benefit the underprivileged, empowering them with the ability to take care of their basic needs such as access to clean water, food, proper sanitation. With this in mind, it is my thesis that poorer countries should develop their tourist industry with poverty alleviation and sustainability as the central aims that are built into strategies and action plans. 

Developing the tourist industry will generate a tremendous amount of revenue which can be used to elevate the standard of living of the people. Hence it would be sensible for poorer countries to expand the tourist industry. Constituting the second most important source of foreign exchange revenues, the growth of the tourism industry can result in a significant change in the economy of a developing nation. On top of that since the industry is conventionally made up of microenterprises and many of the jobs demand little skills and investment, developing the tourist industry can potentially be the most valuable and sustainable way for economic development. At the same time, tourism is largely based on the rich cultural heritage, unique landscape and biodiversities of the country which do not require heavy funding for infrastructure and yet creates high turnover. For example in the case of Nepal tourists often embark on mountaineering and trekking expeditions, and religious pilgrimages contributing to 4.6 % of Nepal’s GDP. Moreover, in the process of developing the tourism industry, infrastructure for basic necessities such as clean water, proper sanitation and power supply will be developed. One such example is the millennium villages project, Mayang, Rwanda,  like most developing countries, experiences high infant mortality rate, limited health care, no electricity and no paved roads. However, after developing the tourism industry Mayang’s plight has been steadily improving – there is abundant food, booming businesses, increased number of schools and a decline and mortality rate. This reasserts that promoting tourism development can, in turn, benefit the locals through the provision of capital which can be used in meeting the basic needs of the poverty-stricken. 

However, a paradox is that the rise in tourism can also be detrimental to the poor. Hence it may not be advisable for underprivileged countries to develop the tourist industry. The concentration of resources to the tourism industry may possibly result in the negligence of tourism’s welfare. As a consequence, people’s needs will be compromised. Brazil, for instance, had vital services such as transportation, education and health care that were inefficiently run and woefully underfunded. Yet it spent a ridiculously huge sum of 11 billion dollars on hosting the world cup alone. Should the interest of its very own citizens not remain the top priority? It is utterly unacceptable for a country to channel its already limited funds to accommodate the foreigners when the basic needs of its people are still not well taken care of. Having been bogged down by cost overruns, delays in the infrastructure projects and deadly accidents the world cup had also innovatively resulted in an inflation spike in Brazil. The influx of tourists increases the demand for basic services and goods causing prices to accelerate which negatively affect the local residents whose income does not increase proportionately. This impoverishes the poor to an even greater extent, depriving them of their essential needs all the more. Furthermore, in reality, most of the profit generated from tourism goes to the richer strata of society resulting in leakage. Take Thailand for instance, it is estimated that 70% of all the money spent by tourists ended up leaving Thailand via foreign-owned tour operators, airlines and hotels. Evidently, tourism gives the largest piece of the pie to large foreign companies and little earnings remain within the country. Moreover, the running of tourist facilities such as resorts and Recreation parks require a tremendous amount of water and energy. In developing countries, these resources are often scarce and used at the expense of the local population robbing the locals of their meagre essentials. Hence, the suggestion that tourism will alleviate poverty in developing countries may be a misguided one. It may be unwise for poorer countries to expand the tourist industry.

Nonetheless, tourism development should be actuated as long as it is done in a sustainable fashion. This will guarantee that the depletion of resources is minimised and the interests of the locals are not jeopardized. It is imperative that sustainability is taken into account as failing to do so will result in tourism being destructive to the economy which exacerbates the people’s inability to sustain themselves. In order to do so, these poorer countries need to develop their tourism industry whilst having poverty alleviation as the main principle. Part of the revenue needs to be directed towards the building of infrastructure for basic necessities and the government will have to ensure connectivity and accessibility of the industry to the poor. With this in place, more of the poor will be able to earn at least a living wage and thus be able to pay for their basic necessities. Developing nations should model the development of the tourism industry after South Africa’s so as to ensure this economic pursuit will not undermine the ability of the poor to meet their basic needs.  In South Africa, ecotourism accounts for a large portion of employment in rural areas, the places where poverty is most rampant. The World Wide Fund also estimates that more than 80% of their revenue is invested in building water filtration facilities in villages. Such a sustainable approach to the development of tourism industry ensures that people are able to take care of the basic needs and also end their poverty cycle. 

Tourism being susceptible to political unrest, natural disasters and shift in international demand is a very volatile industry. As such, it would be prudent for poorer countries to develop the tourist industry sustainably and with caution. Its development should also be done with people’s welfare as the main principle. Feeling to do so may result in tourism being a destructive industry, intensifying the people’s suffering and minimising their ability to meet their basic needs.

“With great power comes great responsibility”. Discuss with reference to scientific development.

“With great power comes great responsibility”, a sensible quote made famous by the Spider-Man franchise. In this era, mankind wields more power than ever with the help of scientific knowledge, discoveries, innovations and modern technology. We are able to greatly improve the lives of mankind, increase longevity, reduce the burden of menial work and much more but science does not stop there. In recent times, scientific discoveries have been groundbreaking. Whole new realms of science are being researched into, pushing limits, reaching beyond boundaries. These include subjects like genetic science and nuclear technology that promises benefits to mankind that we could never have imagined. Yet in science, there are always flaws and risks that make such issues controversial. Should science be responsible for its discoveries and research? Should the power of science be subjected to humanitarian responsibility? I believe so because it is only moral and ethical to do so, however, such cases are not always plausible. 

Nuclear technology is one of the greatest developments in recent times. Through nuclear technology, man has been able to harness great power in military weapons and also in energy production. The advantages of using nuclear energy are phenomenal because the energy that can be harnessed surpasses energy production through the burning of fossil fuels. Presently, the earth is relying only on the remaining 50 years worth of fossil fuels to generate electrical energy. Nuclear energy is hence touted by many scientists and governments to be the solution to depleting fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is also clean and environmentally friendly as it is non-pollutive. Many countries have begun to invest in research and development of nuclear plants to generate energy for their country’s needs. One such example is Japan however the recent earthquake has proven that such technology is risky and dangerous. In March 2011, earthquakes that struck Japan caused nuclear power plants in Fukushima prefecture to break down. This caused high levels of radiation in the city which was dangerous for humans. The nuclear power plant meltdown has shown that world scientists have to be responsible for innovations when dealing with such high-risk technologies. They have a moral obligation to ensure that their technology and equipment is stable so as to protect the safety of individuals who might be disadvantaged, should accidents occur. Nuclear Technology has also been used in military science to create Weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction can release vast quantities of energy from small amounts of matter and are extremely destructive. The research in the creation of such weapons has caused an arms race all over the world and the consequences of nuclear warfare would be terrifying. Indeed, great power calls for great responsibility because with great power, more is at stake and it is crucial that someone should take responsibility to ensure that the power is only put to good and efficient use.

Genetics is another area that has been heavily researched. One very common example is genetically modified food (GM Food). Genetically Modified food has brought breakthroughs in the agriculture industry. Crops can now be pest resistant and are more durable, and they can also be modified to be enriched with nutrients. Scientists and companies that produce such seeds are ultimately profit-driven which leads to methods like terminator technology that enables GM seeds to only be able to be used once. This coupled with patents, allow companies to demand high prices for the seeds, eventually displacing poor farmers out of the agricultural business. Scientists should be responsible for preventing the abuse of the disadvantaged.   Also because science has the potential to bring great benefits to mankind, it should fulfil its humanitarian obligations to help the disadvantaged. This has been done in the Philippines where Golden rice, a type of grain enriched with beta carotene has been planted and given to poor children. This enables them to get more vitamin A and has saved children from death and blindness. Genetics also dabbles with other controversial issues that require responsibility when undertaking research. Genetics may lead to great medical breakthroughs like gene therapy and stem cell research, however, many people demand regulations and guidelines to protect the sanctity of life that they feel is being tampered with. Scientists have to be responsible in their ethical conduct when doing research so as not to abuse their experiments and the sanctity of life. Therefore responsibility is important to ensure that science does not cross over the line of what is unethical and immoral. 

While science should seek to be involved in humanitarian work due to its ability and potential to help and better the lives of the poor and disadvantaged,  it is not always possible to do so. It is difficult for certain areas of science to be linked with altruistic goals. Some areas of Science and Technology are profit-driven, with goals only to create innovations that would satisfy consumers and this is essential to drive our economy. Research and development have resulted in products like touch screen phones and mini portable music players that really do not mean anything to the poor and disadvantaged, yet we cannot do without them.  These brilliant innovations have benefited the wealthy and in turn, generates wealth. It is difficult to include any form of altruistic responsibility, however, we cannot agree that such technology is redundant. Therefore, it is not always true that technological power should always be connected to responsibility. 

Science is ever-evolving and changing. New discoveries are made every day and it takes failures for man to recognise the current flaws which would then lead to improvement. There is always some form of risk that remains and scientists cannot bear all the responsibility and blame when accidents related to their scientific discovery and innovation occurs. If the Japanese earthquake did not happen, then the power plants and equipment would always have been susceptible to shocks and damages. damages. However, after one failure, improvements and more research will be made. This is then the scientist’s responsibility to recover and improve. Therefore it is not responsible when possessing power but responsibility to strengthen that power. 

 The summative assessment of the arguments above leads me to conclude that it is impossible for science to just create and discover but shrug its hands off the consequences of its creations. That is because so much is at stake. (E.g: lives of people, safety) and also science has the potential to help the needy and so should be harnessed to fulfil this moral obligation. However, science cannot always be used just to serve and help others.  Other aspects of science that have to do with profit-maximizing are just as crucial to our lives.

Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?

Censorship is not a new process in the world. It has been around for centuries. Back in 398 BC, Plato was a leading advocate of censorship. The birth of new media and social media has brought the topic of censorship to greater heights. However, according to the United Nations, human rights include freedom of speech and expression. Thus, any form of censorship is deemed to be a flagrant infringement of human rights and cannot be tolerated. However, to say that censorship can never be justified is not a prudent statement because it comes with benefits as well as costs. Thus, I disagree to a large extent that censorship can never be justified.

Primarily, censorship is mostly used to protect a nation’s security. This is one of the reasons why censorship is still being practised. A nation’s progress cannot be totally transparent to the citizens, let alone reporting it to the whole world. This is for the fear that some information that carries sensitive material will hurt and jeopardize economic security or internal security and benefit potential aggressors. The censored material includes the state’s build-up of weapons and the government’s plan with regards to defence. Hence, in times of war, censorship is stricter than before because the state not only wants to prevent the enemy from getting information on military value, it also wants to sustain the morale of its people. Given that censorship is a way to protect people and countries well-being, censorship is justified.

While it is true that the public should make an informed choice where religion, race issues are concerned so as to make the right choice, in a society with people of varying viewpoints and backgrounds, it is highly myopic to assume that everyone is entirely sensible to make the right choices, uniformly. Racially insensitive material can create misgivings, misunderstandings and misinformation among the various ratio and religious group resulting in civil unrest and disorder. Firms of publications that slander or lampoon a particular race or religion should be censored. The Charlie Hebdo attack on 7 January 2015 in France has taken away at least 12 lives. The fatal incident occurred due to racist cover page of the magazine on the Muslim community. As the media portrayed the minority group in the negative light, it is extremely necessary to censor certain religious sensitive material to maintain the stability of a certain belief.

However, while it is true that censorship can largely be justified, one cannot dispute the fact that censorship violates humanity’s natural autonomy as it denies an individual an unbiased choice in formulating his or her beliefs.  By not giving mass media the liberty and responsibility to function freely in order to provide free access to information and ideas to the public, the people are not well informed on current affairs and will not be mentally prepared for any major disturbances in the country. North Korea, the most censored country in the world (according to the Committee to Protect Journalists) has no independent journalists and all radio and television receivers sold in the country are locked to government-specified frequencies. For many North Korean the lies that the government presents as truths are considered the truth because people have no alternative source of information to compare allegations of facts. The conservative mindset of governments has led to censorship often being abused by repressive regimes which effectively decides what the population processes by restricting information, leading to a society that is ignorant, thus, censorship is not justified.

Nevertheless, while audiences are more discerning and not likely to be corrupted by access to certain questionable materials, it is only moral to censor materials to prevent those from the unsuitable age group – children and teenagers from viewing it. The prevalence of such materials may erode the moral fabric of society as such material affects the basic moral values of people. For instance, pornography perverts the young, impressionable minds, encourages promiscuity and undermines the general morality of the public. As such the movies are often rated and regulated with movie classification parental guidance to NC 16, M18 and R21, to protect viewers from using dangerous material unsuitable for their age. Thus, censorship is justified as it is necessary to bar the young from being exposed to harmful materials.

In conclusion, censorship is justified in many cases. As William Westmorland said, “Without censorship, things can get confused in the public mind”. Since we citizens have entrusted our lives and countries to the government we voted for, we have also relinquished some of our freedom and the government has a duty to ensure the citizens’ well-being is not compromised at the expense of censorship.

Is History anything more than the study of warfare?

History is the account of events that have happened in the past, usually recorded in the most objective way possible. Being a subject in schools, colleges and universities, too many people the subject History remains merely something to do with dates, famous people and events that have left some impact or other on mankind, especially warfare. However, to the less ignorant, history studies not only man’s bloody and violent past, but its political and cultural structures, socio-economic policies and, more often than not, history teaches us very valuable lessons that are applied to current life situations. Therefore, it is a great injustice to merely classify History as the study of warfare, as it is a far greater and more diverse subject than the discussion of brutality and bloodshed.

It must be acknowledged that a large number of conflicts and wars that have occurred in the past does take up most of History, especially when studied in tertiary institutions. Destructions and death; the consequences of war and armed conflicts are clear, and the importance to stop this violence is duly imparted to the younger generation. One thing man has learnt from these past conflicts is that war can never be justified because not only do soldiers die in the front line, never mind the fact if they were forced to fight for an ideal they never believed in, but innocent women, children and elderly are caught in the crossfire and are shown no mercy. Many perish, and so the world learns the hard way that war can only be used as a last resort to end conflicts. Diplomatic negotiations are to be used whenever possible as it is seen as a peaceful process of finding a resolution to disagreements between parties that do not involve the massacre of innocents, though its process may be long-winded and inefficient. However, with so much violence and so many wars occurring in the world today, it can be questioned whether the idea of using diplomacy to end conflicts is being passed down to the younger generations at all.

Though this may be the case, this is a very shallow interpretation of what one can learn from History, as it holds far more diversity than mere warfare. The early development of European superpowers can be used as models or examples for developing countries to imitate and follow on their way to prosperity and growth. For example, the British and their Industrial Revolution changed the world from a technological point of view; men using machines as part of our daily lives to be more productive and efficient, as well as making eighteenth-century life more comfortable. From a local context, Singaporeans learn how nationalists David Marshall and Lee Kuan Yew fought for our independence from the British Colonial masters, the hardships our ancestors had to go through during the Japanese Occupation and during the post-independence years. We learnt the importance of racial harmony, for fear of a repeat of the violent racial riots of the past. In doing so, national identity is formed amongst the citizens; a sense of belonging to a country that accepts and respects people of different ethnicity with different religions, languages, beliefs and cultures. Therefore, war is not the only topic that is learnt, but also the political and cultural development of countries too.

Economic booms and recessions make up part of our global history; different strategies and policies employed by countries to survive in an ever-changing economic climate. The development of new large economies, such as India, can show us how the rise of a superpower can effect the global economy as a whole in the coming decade. Measures to avoid or at least prepare for a recession can be put in place by the government as man learns from mistakes and failures in policies employed in the past. Such events like the Great Depression and the Asian Financial Crisis have had severe effects on many people in many countries, and a repeat of such events will want to be avoided at all costs. Referring to Singapore, we learn that its lack of natural resources and its comparative advantage in importing and exporting foreign goods allows the country to strive on the growth of other economies, having such an open market. Therefore, it can be said that there is a lot to be learned from history from an economic standpoint, as it helps new economies develop while avoiding past errors and mistakes.

Above all, history allows us to be better prepared for the future on many levels. In many circumstances, learning from past experiences improves our lives, and can even save them. For example, from the bad experience from dealing with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Singapore is now more prepared, mentally and medically, to deal with such a situation, as shown with the recent cases of the H1N1 virus. After the horrific events in New York on September the eleventh in the year 2001, the world is aware of terrorist organisations, and Singapore has successfully foiled bomb attacks on our soil. With lessons learnt to form the past, we are more aware of our surroundings and are able to use this knowledge to our benefit.

History entails so much more than merely the study of warfare, as shown above. Its study makes us prepared for a future crisis, and therefore makes our lives better and more comfortable.

‘Human actions should be based on scientific fact, not religious faith’. How far do you agree with this statement?

Religion has always had an undeniable arm in the world. “God might not be dead, but God sure leaves a lot of people dead” This was one social science professor’s response to Nietzsche’s famous proclamation that “God is dead”. Evidently, he is trying to point out the influence of religion upon our views and decisions in society. Religion affects every society on a personal level because it also affects every aspect of our lives. At the same time, today’s society is also influenced heavily by advanced science and technology. Human actions, if based on either science or religion, may result in grave consequences. However, scientific fact is definitely more trustworthy and reliable than religion for it can explain and manipulate the physical world.

Scientific fact ensures that the decisions we make are rational and always to our best interests after taking into account the cost and benefits of the decisions we are making. Today, we see apps and software with the ability to provide us with the most advantageous or the profitable choice we can make, be it for business level or personal level decisions. Furthermore, we can see the emergence of apps that enables us to make decisions based on our heart. “Choice compass”, an application, use our smartphone’s camera to analyse changes in our heart rhythm while we consider each of two choices: such as ‘buy’ or ‘don’t buy’. It then tells us which of the choices returned heart dynamic associated with positive rather than negative decisions, allegedly tapping into our innate ‘body wisdom’, giving a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘follow your heart’. Another app, “Best Decision” claims to take the emotional agony out of making a decision by helping us arrive at the best conclusion objectively, grading potential outcomes under various criteria. With technology being advanced enough to read our minds and provide us with the most practical solution that will only benefit us, there is no need to base or actions on religion which in today’s context is becoming an out-dated concept.

On the other hand, science cannot explain everything in the universe and it certainly cannot be perceived to be precise when it comes to deciding what the heart wants. Science does not claim to offer a full or complete understanding of the universe but merely hopes to move closer to the truth. Science cannot prove certain things like moral and experiential truth. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgements for their own lives like euthanasia. Science helps us describe how the world is but it cannot make any judgements about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good or bad.

This does not necessarily mean that we can act based on our religious faith because history has shown us the consequences can be very grave such as genocide. By its very nature, religion can make different groups of people disagree and the quintessence of religion is faith in something that can neither be seen nor proven, cannot be debunked as well. Holocaust and crusades exemplify how desensitizing feelings of hatred can hypnotise individuals and blind them to common sense. In absence of common sense, a Hobbesian nightmare of ‘war of all against all’ does not seem far away if we were to act based on our religious faith. Science, on the other hand, is able to provide us with common sense and the ability to make logical decisions, unlike ones that are heavily influenced by the blind faith of religions.

Religion, however, provides a group of individuals common mortality and decisions made as a form of community-based on religion will not lead to any form of harm as all religions encourage love and kindness. Buddha’s words, “All beings long for happiness. Therefore, the extent thy compassion to all. He, who wishes his own happiness, let him cultivate goodwill towards all the world”. While the Bible reads “Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you. For if you love only those that love you, what reward have ye?” Furthermore, mot believers across the globe belong to one of a few major religions and most of these religions, although practised in various forms preach the same kind of moral values.

‘Kites rise highest against the wind – not with it.’ To what extent is adversity a good teacher?

Winston Churchill once said, in the midst of World War II when British sentiment and morale was at its lowest, “success is not final, failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts.” Often, when difficult situations arise, and times are tough, the true character and calibre of a person are revealed and it is also through this period of struggling that many of life’s lessons are imparted. Adversity, difficulty and setbacks, on the surface, hinder growth and cut down dreams prematurely, but in the long run, it allows for the cultivation of adaptability and flexibility, strengthens one’s character and brings about community spirit, teaching people how to work together. As such, adversity is a good teacher to a vast majority of people, due to the merits it reaps, and the many valuable lessons it leaves behind.

People who view and believe adversity and trials to be situations which do not give rise to positive impacts posit that these difficult times, at the forefront, hinder any prospect of growth in terms of character. Adversity breeds pessimism and only serves to discourage those who face it, and are in tough situations. When faced with difficulties and challenges which sometimes prove too much to handle, people are stressed out, and they might begin to feel as though their problems would prevail and that they are worthless. By reducing self-worth and pressurising people who are going through a time of brutal confrontation and are struggling, adversity contributes to the build-up of negativity and as a result, a loss of self-worth and degradation of one’s well-being. For example, there are many cases of Singaporean students committing suicide due to a drop in their results and the crushingly negative feelings that come with failure, resulting in unhealthy emotional and mental states. A sobering example would be that of an 11-year-old boy committing suicide due to his subpar mid-year examination results. This acutely reflects how failures and setbacks serve their purpose of literally preventing people from achieving growth as a person, and from accomplishing future endeavours as they drive home the point to them that they are worthless and will always succumb to their weaknesses. Therefore, adversity is not a good teacher, far from one, according to people who believe so, since it does not grant those going through difficult situations any merits. It apparently only provides room for the breeding of negativity and the hindrance of growth, due to reduced self-worth which it inculcates.

Similarly, people who firmly believe that adversity is not a good teacher argue that it inhibits innovation and creativity. They believe that adversity and difficult situations serve as a deterrent against attempts to try out new things and pursue one’s dream. Challenges prove themselves to be stumbling blocks in the lives of many and are thus not situations which give rise to many positive outcomes. For example, many young millennials, Generation Z, are afraid to chase their dreams, out of fear that they would be met with the same rejection their predecessors have. By posing challenges and difficult roadblocks, adversity, unfortunately, prevents potential individuals from pursuing their hopes and aspirations out of fear that the same rejection and hardships would befall them. Adversity therefore hampers and deters passionate and inspired people from doing things they truly enjoy and from daring to take that leap of faith, due to the harsh realities of the difficulties those who went before them had faced being so severe. For example, there is a trend of School of the Arts (SOTA) students and other art students who give up on their dreams and forsake their talents out of fear that they would face the same fate as their predecessors, who have tried and ultimately failed to make a name of themselves due to the lukewarm responses, or lack of appreciation for their work locally. They eventually turn back to conventional desk jobs and ordinary lives. Theatre veteran Ong Keng Sen once remarked in an interview that ‘there is one person, one minister, one civil servant who says something – but in the long run, the other structures in society will actually ensure that these statements, “follow your passion”, really don’t work.’, and this distinctly drives the point that Singaporean society does not make space for artistic talent. Therefore, the fact that these art students are not following their dreams is due to the fact that they have seen the ill-fated nature of the careers their predecessors have faced, and the difficulties they have struggled with in the pursuit of their aspirations. Therefore, adversity and difficulties are not good teachers, as they serve as a blockade and a barrier between individuals and their dreams after they assess the hardships predecessors have faced.

On the other hand, however, difficult situations and setbacks pave the way for people to become more flexible and adaptable, being more open to different ways and routes to doing things. When met with hurdles and walls which seemingly cannot be broken down, it is natural for people to find new ways to overcome them, giving rise to the cultivation of very important skills in the 21st century- flexibility and adaptability. A famous example of someone who did not give up in the face of challenges and instead sought out different ways to work around them, and prevent them from being a stumbling block and getting in his way, is Apple’s co-founder, Steve Jobs. It is remembered that Jobs was a college dropout, but this did not prevent him from becoming one of the world’s most renowned business magnates and from co-founding the Apple, arguably the world’s most influential technology company. By re-assessing his life as a person after dropping out, through a journey in India, and constantly raring to meet his challenges head-on, such as his eventual resignation from Apple in 1985, Jobs exemplified the tenacity and ability to bounce back and try different pathways and alternatives, and he eventually succeeded. His success came in the form of the current prestige and influence that Apple Inc. holds. Therefore, through Jobs’ example, it is clearly reflected how adversity and difficulty provide opportunities for one to be flexible and open to change and become willing to try out different approaches should one fail miserably, or repeatedly. Thus, adversity is a good teacher, in that it is a teacher who inculcates crucial characteristics, as it allows for people to build up adaptability and flexibility, allowing them to become people who can think on their feet, and gain spontaneity.

Furthermore, adversity is hailed as a good and very significant teacher that individuals should not have to go without as it strengthens one’s character and fills them with the strength to overcome any future challenges. It is also through a person’s life and overcoming of adversities when even more people around them are inspired to do the same and find the strength to be optimistic. Rather than purely viewing difficulties as challenges and hindrances, or stumbling blocks, people can instead treat them as learning experiences or hurdles to overcome in order to lead lives happier lives. For example, Jessica Cox and Nick Vujicic are real-life inspirations and are motivational speakers who have overcome their adversities, in the form of physical disabilities as a result of their birth defects. They both do not let their lack of limbs become a lack of fervour and tenacity, instead of pushing themselves to reach greater heights by overcoming their physical disabilities. For instance, Cox is a certified pilot, Taekwondo black belt holder, and Vujicic has done many things even the able-bodied dare not- he has gone shark-diving and embarked on many adrenaline-inducing adventures and activities. Furthermore, Singapore’s Jason Chee recently overcame the tragic loss of his limbs in a Navy accident and the recent loss of his right eye to cancer, to win the gold medal in table tennis at the ASEAN Paralympic Games. These individuals are living testimonies of adversity breeding strength which truly inspires millions of people around the world. As such, adversity is definitely a good teacher, as it inspires change in one’s character and a bounteous increase in tenacity and strength, which goes on to inspire and spur others on.

Similarly, adversity and tough times bring about community spirit and a sense of togetherness, as people begin to learn to put aside their differences and come together, in order to overcome these very challenges. It is through tough times and difficulties that countries have the opportunity to be exposed to standing together in solidarity and unity, which drives and improves cohesion as they teach people to love and care for their neighbours. Adversity and hardships therefore in an unconventional and somewhat ironic way, strengthens the bonds between countrymen and makes way for the overall improvement and building up of community spirit and national identity. For example, after the Manchester Attacks, the bombing which occurred this year, the entire nation and all the people of Britain came together to show their support for each other. They did so through crowdfunding to raise funds for victims and their families who were adversely affected by the attacks and were in need of serious financial aid to tide over following receiving medical help. Furthermore, there was even a concert held following the attack, the We Are Manchester, a charity concert to raise funds for a permanent memorial for the victims of the attack, to gather strength and comfort the entire nation still reeling from the attack. It is therefore through such adversity and difficult situations that community spirit is fostered and tight bonds are formed between communities that exist throughout an entire country. Therefore, adversity plays its part as a good and much-needed teacher, an advocate of community spirit and unity, given that it gives rise to the building up of strong ties and a sense of togetherness which bind people together.

As a whole, adversity and challenges shape multiple things- the emotional landscapes of individuals, and the subsequent hindrance of their growth, and their future aversion to innovation and creativity. However, adversity more significantly allows for flexibility and adaptability to be developed, strengthens one’s character by inculcating tenacity and strength and ultimately teaches people how to overcome their differences and work together for a brighter future. Therefore, adversity is a good teacher for most people, at least more so than it being a bad occurrence and one which does not bring about any positives with its presence. It reaps more benefits than the tiny seeds of negativity it may sow, undeniably. After all, as Churchill said, the “courage to continue” is something adversity gives rise to and provides opportunities for, in contributing to character development and fostering community spirit and cannot exist without hardships which one will definitely face in life.

A plethora of information is making people less wise. Comment.

In our world today, where we claim to be enjoying the fruits of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, many of us would be better off without it. We are indeed blessed with the ease of access to more information, with the developments and improvements in scientific research coupled with technology that makes it even more convenient for us. However, have we become critical thinkers? Do we really make wise decisions? The privilege to access the plethora of information out there has ironically undermined our capacity to be wise, to be critical and to be knowledgeable.

Optimists may argue that man is more informed compared to the past because we now have access to technology, such as smartphones, tablets and the internet. Indeed, in developed countries like Singapore and the United States, an average person owns at least one functioning smartphone, and households own at least one computer with access to the internet. With that, it is true that man has increased accessibility to information as compared to the past, where one had to go to places such as the library and endure the tedious process of doing research, gathering and synthesizing information from different books. Now, one is able to skip that laborious process, with just a few taps on the smartphone. Also, the quality of education has increased due to this ease of obtaining information. Time is saved by teachers and students and more learning is done, in terms of curriculum planning as well as ensuring that information given to students is correct. Students are also able to be engaged in fruitful discussions, with the hindrance of flipping through dozens of books removed, allowing more learning and application to take place. Therefore, one could argue that technology has cleared the way for us to be individuals that are more informed.

However, this view that technology has made us more informed because of the ease of access to information, is one that is naïve and ignorant. We should inspect the reality of the situation, not just the ideal. It is precise because of the ease to access to information, that a culture of dependency and over-reliance is born. With the increase in ease of access to information, we have missed the joy of learning and understanding. It no longer takes us any effort to clarify information that we are unsure of, the fact that we no longer need to dig out relevant information from books and encyclopedias has made us lazy and uninterested. We no longer delve into information, merely believing what we read on the internet, without any real thought or consideration, hindering our capacity as humans to be critical thinkers. For a classic example, we can look no further than Singapore. International research of students across the globe has concluded that Singapore students, although great scorers in examinations lack the inclination to ask questions. Singapore has one of the world’s highest smartphone infiltration rates, it is no coincidence that our students are not critical thinkers and curious learners, as the natural response to a difficult question would be to “Google it”. Therefore, technology has undermined Man’s capacity to be informed.

Many may also argue that Man should be more informed, because of the improvements in science and research that allowed updating and correcting of information, which will result in a man being exposed to a wider range and more precise information. Indeed, social and physical sciences have evolved over the years, giving researchers the ability to make conclusions that are more accurate. Traditional myths and legends can be corrected through experiments that have more sophisticated equipment than before, improving the quality of information that man has access to. For example, in the study of global warming, many may assume that it is purely due to anthropogenic factors such as industrialization that led to climate change. But with the improvements in scientific technology, Geographers are able to deduce that the Earth is going through a natural phase of warming, and it is because of industrialization that worsened its effects. Therefore, man should be more informed indeed, with access to more accurate information.

However, what is the use of accurate information, if Man do not make use of it wisely? In today’s world, we live with a mindset where we let our feelings rule our decisions. We no longer give consideration to what is true and what is not, a phenomenon known as the “post-truth era”. With the access to more information, the effects of the “post-truth era” is exacerbated. We are baited by information that appeals to our emotions, regardless of its validity and legitimacy. This is evident in Singapore where the government has to set up a state-run website, “Factually”, to clarify falsehoods that have misled Singaporeans. A more classic example would be in Britain, where majority of citizens voted for Britain to be out of the European Union, known as “Brexit”. The ironic thing is however, that most citizens do not have a clue about the European Union, as “What is the European Union?” became among the top searches made on Google. Therefore, in an age where we let our emotions rule our heads, no amount of information can make us informed individuals.

Ignorance is a part of Man’s original state of mind, and it is in our nature that we are not informed. However, ironically, it is the increased convenience to access information, and the amount of information itself, that makes us less able to be informed. According to the professors at the University of Colorado, in the Leeds School of Business, they concluded that the sense of understanding is contagious. In the experiment they conducted, these professors fabricated a theory about a “glowing rock”, to two groups of people. They told the first group that scientists have yet to come to a concrete conclusion of the theory on these “glowing rocks”, and these people showed no understanding of the theory at all. However, they told the second group otherwise, that is theory has been tested and proven by scientists over many years, and their response indicated that they seemingly understood what the theory on these “glowing rocks” was about. Knowledge is built upon the understandings made from observations by many individuals, and by himself, one is not able to create knowledge alone. But with the wide range of information available today, Man is more likely to establish the false sense of understanding. Therefore, more information does not make Man more informed. In fact, it increases the chances for us to be misled.

In a nutshell, it is ideal that more information has made Man wiser, more critical and more knowledgeable, but in reality, things are not so simple. There are many out there who abuse this platform to spread false information, which makes it unreliable, and it is in human nature to be gullible. It is my hope that Man will be able to approach information more critically, and through that, truly enjoy the fruits of being more informed.

The young are valued more than the aged today. Discuss this in relation to your society.

The young are not valued more than the aged in Singapore.

Recent developments in Singapore’s strategies to encourage parenthood, celebrate the achievements of young Singaporeans while providing them with greater opportunities to do so in different areas seem to reflect that the government is diverting more attention, time and capital to the young. However, it would be unfair to claim the Singapore government values the young more than they value the aged. In fact, it has always aimed for a clear-sighted balance to ensure that the nation is a home where the young have exciting opportunities and bright futures and where the old lives their silver years with grace and dignity. Beyond the government’s efforts however, the society can also play an even larger part in supporting elderly individuals such as through positive employment practices and work cultures and eliminating stereotypes. It is not true that the young are valued more than the old in Singapore.

Over the past few years, the Singapore government has developed various elderly-friendly facilities and infrastructure. This is in line with the government’s focus on developing an inclusive society where Singapore would be a place where all Singaporeans, regardless of age, can call home. The integration of elderly-friendly facilities like anti-slip tiles and bathroom railings in the homes of the aged are initiatives undertaken by the Housing Development Board. Also, in order for more seniors to age gracefully within the community and remain close to their loved ones, the Ministry of Health has revamped various neighbourhood areas like Toa Payoh and Bedok so as to locate aged care and support facilities in these areas. These initiatives show that the government is committed to ensuring that the aged can still enjoy quality living.

In tandem with the above, the young are not left out as well. The continued development of educational and sports facilities shows the government’s keen intention to nurture the interests and talents of the younger generation. Programmes like Young Change Makers and SHINE Festival are just a few of the many initiatives planned by the National Youth Council to engage young Singaporeans. The multitude of programmes and initiatives for the young and the old shows that it is myopic to compare the value placed on both groups.

In some instances, there is preferential treatment of the young compared to the aged. This is due to the belief that the aged are less productive, lack innovative ideas and are prone to fall sick. As such, some firms prefer to recruit young workers. Nevertheless, the Singapore government sees the aged as assets in the workplace and has taken steps to change institutional structures to support older workers. For example, it has subsidised the wage bills of companies that they hire older workers through Special Employment Credit and continuously enhances its Retirement and Re-employment Act to help eligible elderly employees stay in the workforce for a longer period of time. Many local companies have been encouraged by the Ministry of Manpower to modify job specifications and operations or redesigning the work for older employees. The perception that the society favours the young more than the aged is thus a flawed one.

The practical nature of Singapore society and the constant desire to further our socio-economic development would lead some to assume that the government tends to invest more in developing the potential of young citizens. But the truth of the matter is that the Singapore government has focused on ensuring that the older workers remain employable and are well taken care of. In fact, it is precisely our practicality that drives the government to see the value in every member in the workforce regardless of their age due to limited manpower. The young are not valued more than the aged in Singapore.