Should the police have unlimited powers when dealing with crime?

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


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


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


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


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

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

Is ambition always good?

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.

In what ways does a country both benefit and suffer from where it is situated?

A country’s geographical site is something that is of great significance, however, it can never be changed. A country has no way of deciding where she is located. Depending on beliefs, location is decided by a supreme being or sheer luck. Location can be an asset or a liability to a country depending on the exact nature of the location. Some countries have been submerged in water, others have been mired in war for years and some are located strategically along with trade travel hub. However, given the level of technology today, coupled with factors such as good governance, it is possible to mitigate the effects of poor location in certain situations.

A country with a good location would be a country that is not landlocked, is accessible to good trade routes and natural resources.

A country can gain from her location if she is in close proximity with other countries and they cooperate. This being the case helps to encourage trade and security cooperation which are two important factors that help to build and safeguard a country. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) and the European Union(EU) are international organizations that carry out the gains mentioned earlier. To illustrate, to bolster security measures, member countries of ASEAN signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, which spelt out the basic principles for their relations with one another and the conduct of the association’s programme for cooperation. In a similar manner, to maximise their influence on the international scene, on trade matters, EU members speak with one voice. In addition, EU members have removed all tariffs on trade when trading with fellow members, in order to boost trade. These examples demonstrate how countries can benefit from their location if they work hand in hand with the countries that are in close proximity.

However, just as close proximity can help a country, it can also bring about the harm such as increased tensions and even conflict. Such is the case of the boundary disputes between India and China. India and China have yet to resolve their dispute over large land areas such as Aksai Chin, a territory that China seized during the Sino-Indian War in 1962. In addition, close proximity due to the location of countries can bring about conflict over natural resources that are shared. A more recent example is the building of as many as 55 dams along the course of the Mekong river flowing through Indochina. This is especially damaging as the river meanders from China through Myanmar, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia. Thus, the lives of millions of people, not only those in Indochina, depend on it. This problem which will not be corrected in the near future has led to an increase in social and political tension between the lower Mekong countries and those in Indochina. This is an apt example of how close proximity arising from countries’ location can result in the sharing of natural resources and the subsequent increase in problems that the countries have to face.

Moving on, a country’s location determines the climate that the country experiences and the magnitude and frequency of natural disasters. Such factors are vital in determining if a country gains or loses. An example of a country that has prospered due to its good climate is Brazil. Climate suitable for agriculture has enabled Brazil’s agriculture sector to grow steadily over the past decade, positioning itself among the most dynamic sectors of the economy. Certainly, the growth is also fueled by the increase in the use of high technologies such as software to maximise the use of fertilizers and pesticides. However, the climate still plays an irreplaceable role in the agriculture sector. This is because, without a suitable climate, crops cannot prosper or survive even if large amounts of fertilizers are used. Hence this case shows how a country can gain from her good climate due to her good location.

In contrast, a country can suffer due to the geography and climate of the country. Problems include natural disasters or islands becoming submerged underwater and these problems can arise due to the location of the country. As the climate continues to warm, entire islands are sinking below rising waters due to melting glaciers. At least 18 islands have been submerged underwater. This problem is a result of the location of these islands. It is because these islands are located in low lying areas which is why the change in climate has resulted in them being submerged. This has brought about harm as whole communities have to be relocated, bringing about the advent of climate refugees. In addition, this has also caused much land to be no longer suitable for agriculture. This example shows the magnitude and how the location of a country can bring harm and loss.

On a separate note, it is important to note that while the location is significant, in this day and age, it is possible for good governance coupled with technology to mitigate the effects of a bad location. Landlocked countries such as Switzerland and San Marino are among the most stable and prosperous countries in the world. This shows that the most unfavourable geographical locations can be made prosperous by good policy. Apart from this, technology can also make geography irrelevant. Technology has enhanced communication and thus shrunk distances. Bangalore has become the software capital of India, with Hyderabad a close second. Both are land-locked, but satellite communications enable them to link up with cities anywhere in the world at low cost.

Location remains an important determinant of whether a country gains or loses. However, it has been shown that technology with good governance can conquer location. Hence while the location is vital, perhaps the gains and losses a country experiences also depends on the resolve of the people to use things available to their advantage and make their country prosperous.

To what extent does education meet the needs of your society?

Education has been present in our society for hundreds of years. However, it was only in the 18th century, after the industrial revolution that there was mass education. The purpose of education has evolved over the years from one that produces philosophers and prophets to one that imparts skills and knowledge to people so that they are able to meet the need of the society. The needs of society- peace, economic growth, stability and social welfare- are never stagnant, they are ever-evolving. While the highly regulated education system in Singapore has produced desirable results over the past fifty years, it has been slow to adapt to the changing needs of modern Singapore. The dawn of the fourth industrial revolution will very well render obsolete the rather stagnant system we use today. The nineteenth-century education system we use today will be unlikely to meet the changing needs of Singapore’s economic, social and political landscape.

Firstly, over the past fifty-years of self-governance, education in Singapore has been able to produce a well- educated population to face a rapidly globalising world. In the early 1990s, after Singapore’s independence, the goal of the city-state was to become a globalised country with a strong, vibrant economy with strong bilateral ties with countries around the globe. There was a problem- a lack of an educated population that is able to carry out routine work in factories and other sectors of the economy. To ensure that the island produces individuals with such skills, public schools were quickly built and the educated population rose exponentially, thereby satisfying the demand for workers. Without a doubt, the system was able to churn out highly educated workers to supplement the developing economy back then. By the early 2000s, Singapore has grown to become a sprawling metropolis, attracting large multinational corporations (MNCs) to its shores. Here’s the caveat, with the influx of MNCs, the economy is evolving from one that focuses on manufacturing to one that is diverse and require creativity. 21st  century Singapore not only requires graduates, but also creative intellects who are innovative. The systematic education system that emphasises rote learning developed over the past fifty years has oppressed creativity and exploration. The system is, however, slow to change and right now, it is unable to meet changing societal needs. At Deputy Prime Minister Mr Tharman’s speech at Singapore Management University’s education fair this year, he emphasised the need for radical reforms in the education system. It may be irrevocable that education has met economic needs over the past 50 years, however, without change, it may be unable to fulfil society’s needs over the next 50 years.

In the same vein, education in Singapore has taught Singaporeans the importance of racial harmony, ensuring peace and stability within the cosmopolitan state. Singapore in the 1960s was plagued with racial and religious tensions. Social discord was commonplace, and riots among, different ethnic groups were not uncommon. The Maria Hertogh and 1969 racial riot between Chinese and Malays led to curfews and tensions within the tiny nation. There was a need to promote better understanding between different ethnic groups. The government tapped on education to do just that. Many public schools were set up by the government, providing a place for students of different ethnic groups to interact and learn together. Social Studies is mandatory where Singaporeans learn the importance of racial and religious harmony. The indoctrination of a need to interact with different races in youth created a population that is able to accept differences in the society. Notionally, education is able to achieve social harmony, an essential societal need in early Singapore, but not now, where many have already developed tolerance and acceptance of differences.

Nevertheless, while it is agreeable that education has satisfied the socioeconomic needs of Singapore over the past fifty years, it is flawed to think that it will transcend the next fifty years. The world is changing fast and our snail-paced education system is unlikely to meet the changing demands. Over the past five decades, education has not been able to solve a core problem in our society- equity. Income inequity has been a pressing problem for our government. This is especially so as our government has a moral obligation to ensure that all Singaporeans can achieve a decent standard of living and afford basic necessities in Singapore. Education, once touted as the great social leveller has failed miserably. Back in the early days, higher education was a privilege for only the wealthy. This was especially so as there were few educational pathways and institutes, where placements were limited and prices for education was expensive. Even with subsidies, higher education can cost over $8000 a year- a huge sum for low-income families.  While there were scholarships aimed to develop outspoken youth, they were usually attained by students from better-off families. Furthermore, there were a disproportionate number of students from higher-income families compared to lower-income families. This causes the rich to receive higher education, while the poor are (mostly) devoid of the opportunity. It is quite evident as seen by our increasing    Gini- Coefficient – which measures inequity – increases from about 0.38 in the 1960s to about 0.60 in 2016. It is, therefore, a testament that education failed to address the vital need of society – equity- and instead serves to aggravate it.

Additionally, the 21st century requires people with high adversity quotient to face the increasingly volatile and uncertain world, and this is something that education in Singapore cannot provide. Singapore’s notorious education which overemphasises academic results has neglected teaching students survival skills. Our complacency in relative peace for fifty years has bred generations of people who are unable to withstand hardship and adversity. Students are frequently being mollycoddled throughout at home and in school, they never have to face hardship or despair. They have become weak and unable to deal with failure. In schools, students cry after failing an exam, and they succumb to failure, unable to stand up again. In the face of a national crisis- such as a terrorist attack or a financial crisis, which are highly plausible- the majority will be unable to cope. In 2013, when haze due to forest fires in Indonesia made landfall, many were left clueless and unable to make sound choices. Instead of taking action to alleviate the situation, many keyboard warriors took to the net and flamed Indonesia. Only a handful were able to take the initiative to help those affected by the haze. Due to an inability to cope with adversity, when unity was needed most, people were broken. Once again, the bubble-wrapped education system had failed to deliver.

On that note, it may be true that education had solved or at least alleviated some of the socio-economic challenges faced by Singapore in the past, however it is unlikely to deliver for the next fifty years. Education in Singapore has failed to address the pertinent issue of inequity and a lack of resilience in Singaporeans. If education in Singapore is going to meet the needs of the volatile, uncertain and ambiguous twenty-first century, radical reforms must be made to the archaic system we use today.

“The world would be a better place if religion did not exist.” What is your view?

Karl Marx once said that religion is the “opium of the masses”. By saying this Marx questioned the function of religion in society. Even today there are many liberals that religion divides people. To a certain extent, it is true because religion has been a cause of conflict in many societies in the past and the present. This makes it evident why people think that the world would be a better place if religion did not exist. However, this is a myopic view of religion because, despite its negatives, the positives cannot be ignored. Therefore, the world would not be a better place without religion because religion provides people with the necessary comfort, acts as a moral guide and offers people hope in an increasingly chaotic world.

Liberals believe that religion is the root of conflict in many societies. They believe that if religion did not exist, people would have been spared from numerous wars, riots and conflicts. To a certain extent, this is true because people have always used religion as a tool to incite violence. An example of this can be the Crusader war which was fought between the Christians and the Muslims, with an aim to capture the sacred places from the Muslims and to right wrongs done against Christianity. Similarly, other wars like the Thirty Years’ War was also a result of religion. Even in the present times religion is responsible for many conflicts and acts of terrorism within society. Be it in the form of the 9/11 attacks, in the form of atrocities committed against Rohingya Muslims or Hindus being mistreated in Pakistan, religion is at the root of all these conflicts. It is evident from these points that religion is often used as a tool to incite violence and justify atrocities done against people. Thus, liberals believe that religion should not exist in the world because it is the cause of unnecessary conflict in society and does not align with modern beliefs.

Many with liberal views also believe that religion should not exist because it conflicts with scientific ideas. Today many believe in science to the extent that science can be termed as a modern religion. Religion was previously used by many to explain natural phenomena and disasters like earthquakes, floods and famine. However, today many of these natural phenomena are explained by science and are no longer dependent on religious explanation. While religion gives explanations based on superstitions and faith. Science leads to objective truth. Critics of religion believe that religious beliefs if passed onto the next generation can hinder scientific developments. This is evident from the fact that religion even today hinders scientific progress where technologies like CRISPR are opposed by religious leaders and communities. In such cases, it becomes clear that denunciation of religion is necessary because it hinders logical and progressive thought. Therefore, the world without religion would be a better place as it would not clash with scientific ideas.

Opponents of religion also bring forth the fact that religion also influences political spheres. While in countries like the US and UK there is a distinction between the church and the state, it cannot be denied that religion does influence certain political agendas. For example, in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, many laws are created and implemented keeping in mind the religious beliefs of the people. It can be said that these countries violate human rights within their countries. In fact, some of the most oppressive countries in the world use religion to influence and control people. This was also seen in classical times when the clergy were given the role of being consultants to the monarchs which led to the oppression of the serfs in the past. Religion when transcends from personal belief to influence political beliefs can lead to corruption of government and oppression of people. Religious corruption needs to be avoided so as to maintain a healthy and harmonious society. This is absolutely not possible if religion is influencing laws and policies that can affect all the people within the society. Thus, the world be a better place if religion did not exist as it can lead to corrupt and oppressive governance.

However, despite the negative impacts of religion, one cannot avoid the myriad of benefits it brings to society. Scientific discoveries are necessary and there should be little to no hindrance in scientific progress. However, one cannot deny that religion acts as a balance between science and what is right for society. Through genetic engineering can prove as a boon for people with diseases like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s one cannot deny that it brings along a lot of ethical questions. After all, how can people justify bizarre transplants or the concept of designer babies? Religion acts as a restraint on scientific discoveries that can wreak havoc on humanity if left unregulated or unchecked. It can be said that religion helps to uphold moral and ethical values in society. Religion also acts as a moral compass for people who believe in religions as it is through religious teachings people know that stealing, lying or murdering is wrong. For example, in many religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam there are guidelines for becoming a good human being. Thus, religion acts as a moral compass for scientific discoveries as well as for people within the society and makes the world relatively a better place.

Religion does act as a dividing factor in today’s world. However, one cannot deny that it also brings people together. In secular societies, all communities and religions are respected and people come together to celebrate important religious events. In Singapore, the festival of Thaipusam and Diwali is witnessed and celebrated by all regardless of race or religion. Similarly, around the world, people celebrate Christmas and Easter and participate in activities like Carol singing and dressing up as Santa Claus. In this sense, it can be said that religion fosters a deep understanding of various customs and traditions among people. As a result, people also come closer and feel a sense of belonging within the societies. The majority of the religion also propagates peace and harmony within the society. It can thus be said that it is not religion that leads to violence but the religious leaders who misconstrue religious doctrines to serve their own agendas. Thus, it can be said that religion if properly understood and practised can lead to a harmonious society and make the world a better place.

Religion also meets the emotional and spiritual needs of an individual. In an extremely chaotic world where people are surrounded by negativity, religion acts as an anchor which gives people hope. There have been many anecdotes where people have felt the power of religion impacting their lives in positive ways. Many times, we hear of incidents where the dead came back to life after incessant prayers for people recovering from debilitating diseases. Religion gives people hope and mental peace. From the singing of religious hymns to chanting of aum or meditating people have always felt a tranquillity which they cannot achieve from any other activity. Religion is helpful in improving the well-being of people. It is the religion that has the power to answer metaphysical questions about existence, suffering and the afterlife. Thus, religion is an important coping mechanism for most people and helps in making the world a better place.

In conclusion, despite its shortcomings, the positive impact of religion cannot be undermined. Religion has proved to be an efficient moral guide to people and has given them hope in turbulent times. Religion has contributed to society in moral, emotional and spiritual terms. Removal of religion from society would lead to feelings of chaos, insecurity and excesses.

Democracy is not the most effective form of government. Do you agree?

This is a student researched paper.

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”[1] These fine words by Winston Churchill came in parliament as he attempted to defend democracy while acknowledging its shortcomings. Democracy is the most popular form of government because it is representative, it protects people against oppression and it guarantees the basic rights that people must have. But democracy also has many inadequacies. It is inefficient by design, leading to wasteful practices. Despite the demerits, democracy is the form of government that most countries in the world have chosen to install, in many cases after hard struggles.

Democracy is effective because it is representative of people. Each constituency, depending on the size of its population, can elect a fixed number of representatives to the assembly. The UK, for example, has 650 constituencies.[2] Each constituency is represented fairly, regardless of wealth and status. However, an elected representative does not always represent every community within the constituency. By design, the representative is more likely to belong to a majority group. Moreover, large nations can only practice direct democracy at regional levels. Switzerland is the largest nation in terms of population that still practices pure democracy. With 8.3 million citizens as of 2016 estimates, Switzerland is ranked 99th in terms of population by the UN. On the national level where the majority of legislative activity takes place, nations with larger populations practice a very indirect form of democracy that tends to resemble a republic.[3] USA, India, Finland and Mexico are some examples.(a) Sometimes a conventional government may not have majority support, such as in case of coalitions.[4] Italy, France, Germany and several other nations have had coalition governments in the past. Coalition and representative governments also represent people, which is the reason for their preference over non-democratic regimes.

Democracies succeed despite imperfections because they create the impression, true or false, of being protective of the people. This is not true of other forms of government such as monarchic, aristocratic or totalitarian regimes. Democracy protects human rights and encourages civil liberty. Democracy is participative and gives voice to each citizen. Democratic nations with universal adult suffrage offer more freedom of speech than other types of regimes. A notable historic example is India and all the other colonies of the British Empire. Post independence, these nations allow a range of civil liberties that the British Raj did not.(d) There is also more accountability for decisions, since a democratic government is liable to be replaced during elections if their policies are unpopular. One political party may not necessarily be better than another. However, the purpose of democracy is that people must have the power of choice. With the reasoning for government decisions made public by the media, democracies tend to be more transparent. Certain historic examples prove that all the positive effects of democracy can be achieved within a non-democratic system. Hong Kong under British administration is one good example.[5] Pre 1997 Hong Kong, Even though it was not a democratic setup, was lauded for low taxes, low corruption, full freedom of speech, rule of law and a free market economy.(b) However, instances of autocratic regimes that abuse human rights and restrict civil liberties also abound. Democracies are effective and desirable because they enjoy the support of people by protecting the rights of citizens and by being accountable.

Naysayers opine that democratic regimes suffer from much inherent inefficiency. Election campaigns are expensive and wasteful. In 2016 one of the US Presidential candidates spent billions of dollars on campaign advertising.[6] Influencing voters with paid advertisements should be considered opposed to the ideals of democracy, because it allows only the wealthy and influential to participate in politics.(c) Excessive campaign spending also goes to show that reelection depends more on good advertising than good deeds while in office. Some countries allow political candidates to campaign for months and even years.[7] Voters need to put-up with mass media saturated with political messages. To avoid media overuse and due to consideration for voters, Campaigns in countries such as Canada and Mexico last no more than 90 days.(a) Post election, new governments often have markedly different views on various issues, from the previous ones. This leads to changes in policy, creating an environment of instability. One example is the Affordable Care Act, better known as ‘Obamacare’.[8] 75 years in the making, the act was signed into law by president Obama in 2010 and already faces an uncertain future after the 2016 election. In democracy, accountability resets with every election cycle. Moreover, due to multiple levels of decision-making it takes longer to implement bigger projects, creating delays, more waste and inefficiency.(a) By comparison military juntas can be very efficient. Libya under Gaddafi, a military dictatorship, was the most prosperous African nation of the time. Citizens had access to free electricity, education and healthcare. Gaddafi’s Libya implemented the world’s largest irrigation project of the time.[9] Some forms of monarchies also work efficiently. The Saudi King exercises complete political authority. In addition to being among the top quartile of countries ranked by HDI, Saudi has implemented several engineering mega projects.(d) Due to the structure of democracy, inefficiency is one of the system’s innate attributes.

Democratic regimes are effective because people are willing to support them. Democratic governments protect civil rights and provide the various freedoms that people need. At the same time democracy is rife with inadequacies and inefficiencies. Compared to autocratic systems, democracies take longer to make and implement decisions. Election campaigns can be unreasonably long and wasteful. The interests of democratically elected representatives do not align with long term national interests as well as those of autocrats or dictators, who are destined to rule for life. In an 1881 letter, Lord Action stated, “The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.”[10] It implies that governance is a job beyond any person’s capacity. Democracy remains more acceptable than any other form of government by virtue of being the lesser evil.

[1] Richard M. Langworth. (2016). “Democracy is the worst form of Government…” – Richard M. Langworth. [online] Available at: https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[2] UK Parliament. (2016). Parliamentary constituencies.

Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/constituencies/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[3] Volokh, E. (2016). Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?. [online] Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[4] Mason, R. (2016). Coalition governments: what are they and how are they formed?. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/coalition-governments-what-are-they-and-how-are-they-formed [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[5] http://www.washingtontimes.com, T. (2016). Liberty vs. democracy. [online] The Washington Times. Available at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/feb/4/20060204-103048-1254r/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[6] NPR.org. (2016). 2016 Campaigns Will Spend $4.4 Billion On TV Ads, But Why?. [online] Available at: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/19/432759311/2016-campaign-tv-ad-spending [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[7] NPR.org. (2016). Canada Reminds Us That American Elections Are Much Longer. [online] Available at: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/21/450238156/canadas-11-week-campaign-reminds-us-that-american-elections-are-much-longer [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[8] Affordablehealthca.com. (2016). A short history of the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare drama. [online] Available at: http://affordablehealthca.com/history-affordable-care-act/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[9] http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-ten-things-about-gaddafi-they-dont-want-you-to-know/5414289

[10] Acton, L., 1877. The history of freedom in antiquity. Selected Writings of Lord Acton, 1, pp.5-28.

How effectively is diversity managed in your society?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘The media today has no interest in telling the truth.’ Do you agree?

The scores of fake news circulating the internet on various social media websites and forums such as Facebook, Twitter and Reddit during the 2016 American presidential election are a sobering reminder to us that perhaps it is time to start questioning the veracity of the news that our venerated news outlets churn out each day. Headlines such as “Ted Cruz caught in yet another scandal” and “Sanders condemned of slander” were widely seen across the Internet; yet when one clicked on the link to view the “latest scoop”, the story turned out to be fabricated and sometimes utterly fictional. Before the advent of new media, the vast majority often believed that the press delivered the truth and nothing but the truth. And a few decades ago, most traditional news outlets were actually reputable and reliable. That is a far cry from what the media industry is today. The issue definitely begs the question of whether the media today is even the slightest it interested in delivering the truth anymore. Personally, I believe that amidst all the complaints of fake news and “alternative facts”, the media has no interest in telling the truth

 To begin with, believe the media today is often deliberate in delivering the truth to the public because of the fear of being caught and condemned if it doe otherwise. The invention of the Internet in the 90s gave individuals who owned a technological device the opportunity to get their news from various sources, trawl through all the facts presented about an issue and gain access to a trove of information about current affairs. Since the early to mid-2000s, when the Internet was further developed and more information could be circulated on it, people began to perform fact checks on various traditional and new media news sources to ensure that whatever they reported was reliable and factual. Thus began the rise of the online vigilante, who lurks on the Internet and has the power to mobilise hundreds or even thousands of netizens to criticize a media platform for its poor and inaccurate reporting when need be. For instance, when the renowned news company the British Broadcasting Corporation(BBC) inaccurately reported on the Palestinian conflict, online vigilantes and other netizens were quick to notice the biased news headline and cause an uproar on social media websites such as Twitter and Reddit. The BBC swiftly took down the article and replaced it with one with a more neutral standpoint. This indubitable bruised the BBC’s reputation and credibility and shook the faith of many of the BBC’s loyal listeners. Many media corporations fear the same or a worse consequence the BBC suffered due to the inaccurate reporting, and thus it is this fear that makes them ever so deliberate in getting the truth out to the masses.

          Some cynics will disagree with my stand and argue that the media today lacks any interest in telling the truth because the media has been known for delivering sensationalistic news instead of the cold hard facts. These critics will assert that the rise of the internet has resulted in new media outlets, namely social media platforms, profiting more than traditional media outlets due to greater accessibility and social media being a cheaper alternative. The decrease in revenue of traditional news sources over the years has caused many of them to resort to, as some call it, the most disgusting and low-grade news reporting: sensationalistic news reporting. Sensationalistic media outlets such as Vice and the Sun have the same ethos: “If it bleeds, it leads; if it roars, it scores”. These media outlets rarely deliver the truth, rather, they exploit real news by exaggerating stories, adding extra juicy information and most often highlighting only the violent, raunchy and eye-popping bits. For example, the Breitbart News, one of the most biased and sensationalistic media corporations, cooked up a story of thousands of Muslims burning a church and chanting “Allahu Akbar” on the streets on New Year’s day in Dortmund, Germany. They gravely exaggerate the news and delivered only what their viewers wanted to read, instead of delivering the truth of the matter. Hence, some cynics will argue that the media today has no interest in telling the truth.

          Although I concede that many media outlets have adopted sensationalistic reporting to boost viewership, I believe that the vast majority of media outlets still believe in delivering the truth because ultimately, the truth is what will make them reputable and recognized globally. Everybody wants to know the truth behind an issue, some say the facts of a matter are a valuable commodity. And I believe that there is truth in this saying. A multitude of media corporations such as the BBC and The New York Times still engage in investigating journalism and shun sensationalistic reporting because everyone, even those who partake in sensationalistic news, still wants a place where they can find the facts of a matter and the truth of an event that has occurred. This desire to differentiate fact from fiction keeps many media corporations up and running. Furthermore, delivering the truth will propel media companies onto the global stage and garner them recognition and respect instead of infamy like sensationalistic media corporations.

           In conclusion, I believe that the media today still holds an interest in telling the truth. Ultimately, we all have to be discerning and be cautious of what we read.

Do you agree that the problems of poverty can only get worse in the current climate?

 Many people have thought that globalization will bring about the end of poverty, as countries and people gets richer. While this is certainly true for many countries, such as Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, there are many countries that are still in poverty even though we are currently still in the age of globalization. In fact, I think that the problems faced by those in poverty will escalate further, as the poorer countries are manipulated by the richer countries, the current global financial crisis that affects everyone and the widening relative income gap between citizens in a country. In this essay, I would be focusing more on poverty in poor countries.

The problems of poverty can only get worse in the current climate because of the manipulation of the poorer countries by the richer countries. With globalization, many countries become wealthier due to the improvements brought about by technological advances and trading. The rich countries have outsourced their labour to overseas countries to reduce their cost of production and hence increase their profits. Some of these countries which the rich countries have outsourced for labour are China, India and also the continent of Africa. The people often worked long and hard, and they are paid meagre wages. Children exploitation occurs as a result of parents roping in their children to help to contribute to the family income. Child labour is hence common in India and Africa. Instead of being educated, these children are forced to work and they are denied the opportunities to improve their quality of lives as they do possess the academic qualifications to pursue a suitable career. This causes a never-ending cycle of poverty as they are unable to break out of their poverty. In addition, many rich countries have exported their goods to these poor countries. Many times, the goods are heavily subsidized by their government, and therefore the rich countries are able to export their goods at a low price to other countries. It would seem beneficial to those foreigners, as they are able to purchase cheap goods. However, the producers of the same goods in those poor countries would suffer as they are unable to compete with the cheap imports from the richer countries, and this would result in a huge amount of losses, and hence aggravate the condition of their poverty.

Besides being manipulated by richer countries, there may be some countries that are unwilling to embrace globalization and technology. These countries may feel that globalization and those technological advances are harmful to their society, and they would prefer to continue with their own way of life than to accept the changes brought about by globalization. In my opinion, countries that are unwilling to accept globalization could be because they fear that with globalization, it would become “Americanization” and their countries would lose their own identity. It is not surprising to see that countries envision globalization to be “Americanization” as America has been at the front line of technological advancements. Fearing of losing their own identity, these countries may end up worsening the problems of poverty in their countries because they would lose out to the other countries which have accepted and embraced globalization as part of their way of lives. With globalization, communication and transport have become faster, goods of higher quality are being produced at larger amounts and in shorter times, and hence trade volumes between countries increase tremendously. Without globalization, countries’ efficiency and output would be of low quality and takes a long time to produce. This will then worsen the problems of poverty in those countries as the people’s quality of lives did not improve at all.

This situation would only occur if countries are unwilling to adopt globalization into their lives. However, in this present time, it is rather unlikely that any country will fully reject globalization altogether. The only difference is that the extent of globalization varies from countries to countries. The world is much more interconnected now with each other; via the internet and the trades with each other, and countries affect each other in more than one way. If poor countries open up their economies more and specialize in what they have a comparative advantage in, these countries welfare will improve for the better. It might not happen in the short run, but in the long run, there will be some rewards for these countries, in terms of skills, labour or revenue gained. Therefore it is not entirely possible that the problems of poverty can only get worse in the current climate, as long as people are willing to see things from a different perspective and change their lifestyles. There are also many foreign aids from other countries to poor countries in present-day lately. These aids usually arrive with the aim of liberating children from labour and grant them education opportunities, providing the people with basic necessities and also for the adults’ chances to find jobs. Hence, there might be a chance that the problems of poverty can improve in the present climate.

Poverty can also be defined as relative poverty when individuals within a society are compared to each other, and relative poverty usually refers to citizens of the lower-end of that society’s income group. In this current climate, with the global financial crisis, the recession has hit many countries, including Japan and Singapore. Many individuals become unemployed and hence add to the problems of relative poverty in their society. In addition to the benefits, globalization has also brought about many problems as well. This is due to the fact that mostly those who are able to afford technological advances are those who truly benefit, while those who are unable to do so are crowded out. Hence, the income gap between the relatively richer and the relatively poorer widens. If this trend continues, there would be more people who will be relatively poorer and this increase the problems of poverty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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