Should the death penalty be used to punish violent criminals?

The death penalty’s validity has been debated by many countries for decades. Out of 150 countries, about 80 of them have abolished the death penalty, as these countries often share the sentiment that it is a violation of human rights. Yet others maintain the view that it is necessary for violent criminals, such as murderers, to be put to death, for the good of society. I believe that the death penalty should be used to punish violent criminals since the harm that they cause deserves a fitting punishment.

Firstly, violent criminals should be punished via the death penalty in order to serve as a form of deterrence. By sentencing such criminals to death, it is a demonstration of the consequences of committing the crimes they did and highlighting the severity of their crimes. Thus, it discourages people in a country from thinking of committing similar crimes, or from committing them in the first place, thus reducing the possibility of people becoming victims of violent crimes. Additionally, it serves as a warning to foreigners who are visiting countries that enforce the death penalty to not commit crimes punishable by death in those countries, reducing the probability of foreigners hurting others within those countries. For example, Kho Jabing, a Malaysian man who killed a coworker in Singapore in 2010, was hanged in 2016 despite his Malaysian lawyers pleading for a life sentence instead of execution. Hence, it can be seen as a warning to citizens of other countries to refrain from committing such crimes in Singapore, and as a form of deterrence. Therefore, the death penalty ought to be used for punishing violent criminals.

Secondly, the death penalty for violent criminals can be seen as a form of justice, for the victims of violent crimes, as well as their families. Violent crimes such as murder (attempted murder and actual murder) and rape can cause lasting psychological damage – on victims who survived the violent crimes, and on the families of both living and deceased victims, severely reducing their quality of life and violating their human rights. The death penalty’s usage to punish violent criminals will often be of comfort to living victims and victims’ families, giving them hope that the one who brought so much pain and suffering will not get away scot-free. Humans are often vengeful by nature, and there is a sense of gratification in seeing these criminals get their ‘deserved’ comeuppance. For instance, in the case of Jeffery Dahmer, who murdered and sexually assaulted the corpses of his victims – all of which were young males, aged 14 to 28 – he was not sentenced to death, but instead jailed for life, greatly upsetting the families of his victims. In my opinion, he should have been punished via the death penalty for his senseless acts of violence; his jail term did not do justice for his victims. Thus the death penalty should indeed be used to punish violent criminals.

Human rights advocates, however, often argue that the death penalty, even when used on violent criminals, is a violation of the rights of such criminals. Since they are human, they are entitled to human rights, and the death penalty violates Article 3 of the United Nations (UN) Declaration of Human Rights – the right to live. Additionally, while most methods of execution are designed to be as quick and painless as possible, executions can often be botched, such as in the August 2014 execution of Clayton Lockett, who shot and buried alive a 19-year-old girl (who eventually died) and raped her friend. Although he was to die via lethal injection, as sentenced by the court in the United States of America, he took 43 minutes to die as compared to the normal 2-3 minutes. This was because the first injection failed, while the second injection took over 16 tries due to the executioner being unable to insert the needle – which was the wrong size. As a result, Lockett suffered excruciating pain until death from the chemical coursing through his body, alongside the needle pricking him numerous times. This prolonging of his execution, albeit unintentional, was seen as a violation of Article 5 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, that no one should be tortured. Thus it is often argued that no matter how violent and terrible the crimes were, such criminals should not be executed due to human rights and the possibility of them suffering from botched or prolonged executions.

Nevertheless, I hold my view that violent criminals should be punished by the death penalty since these criminals forfeited their human rights when they hurt others in their crimes. In the case of murderers, for example, since the murderers have taken the lives of others, violating the victims’ human rights in the process, they no longer have the right to be human in the first place. In a June 2016 survey in Singapore, conducted on 1,160 Singaporeans, over 80% approved the use of the death penalty, citing reasons such as the fact that those who commit violent crimes have given up their humanity as a key factor to them showing approval for the death penalty. Even with the possibility of the execution being accidentally prolonged due to mistake, it could be said that this is ‘karma’, since they have hurt others and made them suffer, their own deaths should be painful as well. Hence, violent criminals should be punished via the death penalty for their inhumane actions even (and especially) if they suffer during the execution process.

It has also been argued that the death penalty gives no opportunity for these violent criminals to atone for their crimes, as it takes their lives away – if they were still living, they would be able to repent (if they were truly remorseful). Humans, having the ability to show mercy and compassion, should do so as often as possible, and using the death penalty, no matter how ‘justifiable’ due to the severity of the crimes, could possibly be considered ‘evil’.

While the argument that the taking away of the opportunity for atonement is true, it is also highly unlikely that someone who committed a violent crime would be remorseful – in many cases, their intent to inflict harm was present and thus they would not regret committing the crime. The death penalty can also be considered a ‘necessary evil’, in order to maintain the peace of a society. Since good governments have the responsibility to do what is right and beneficial for the country, using the death penalty to punish violent criminals would be necessary for the good of the majority. Hence I believe that the death penalty should be used to punish violent criminals.

Not all violent crimes, in reality, are punishable by death. For instance, some sex crimes and domestic abuse are considered violent crimes, yet those convicted are not punished via the death penalty. As of now, the death penalty is often used on violent criminals only when their actions caused deaths, and even so, they may only get life sentences. All in all, I hope that it will be more recognised that the death penalty should be used to punish violent criminals and that it will be extended to crimes where severe violence has been carried out and the victims are still alive.

‘Being a politician today is more difficult than ever.’ What is your view?

In democratic societies, a politician is the appointed representative of citizens through the electoral process. Politicians hold an important and pivotal role in the society by voicing out citizens’ thoughts and demands to the country, hence their jobs are often regarded as herculean tasks. However, it is argued that being a politician is no longer a challenging task since they can easily garner support from the citizens through the introduction of populist policies. Nevertheless, it is an erroneous assumption that all will be enticed by such policies – instead, more citizens are well-informed and educated, making politician’s jobs more difficult in terms of meeting the higher demands of citizens. Furthermore, in the modern-day context where the world is hyperconnected, politicians need to deal with economic vulnerabilities, diplomatic relationships and the rising threat of terrorism so as to justify their political legitimacy. Therefore, being a politician today is more difficult than ever.

Some posit that being a politician may not be a very challenging task compared to the past, due to the emergence of populism in recent years. Populist policies refer to the set of ‘popular’ policies, which sound attractive yet may not be the ‘right’ set of policies for the country, such as simply reducing the personal income tax without a reduction in government expenditure. Still, it can be seen that more of the populist leaders are supported by the citizens, enabling them to garner support easily from the masses and secure their position as people’s representatives. A notable example could be the new president of the United States, Donald Trump, who pledged to build a wall between the borders of Mexico and the United States. His promises are unrealistic, yet people who were discontented with Mexicans working in the United States and losing their jobs supported him during the presidential elections. Hence, regardless of the implementation of the populist policies, the rise of populism makes it easier for politicians to gain mass support and secure their political position, thus making it seem as if being a politician today is no longer very difficult.

However, such argument does not hold water and it is rather myopic to assume that all citizens are enticed by such populist policies – more citizens are educated and well-informed as the society progresses, which makes politicians’ jobs more demanding. As the general standard of living improves, thanks to the rising affluence, more citizens are discerning and are able to weigh the pros and cons of the policies politicians pledge. Hence, more citizens are able to make the right choices for the nation, as well as to have more demanding stance towards politicians. For example, in Singapore’s General Elections in 2011, the ruling party – the People’s Action Party – has received its lowest approval ratings of 66.6%, a 6.5% drop from the last election. Such huge drop in ratings represented how the educated Singaporeans felt unhappy with the party – the People’s Action Party was accused of having a sense of elitism and not catering to the needs of the ordinary citizens. This, after all, has affected the party’s political legitimacy, and the party had to regain the support by providing more humble measures, such as Singapore Conversations which enables Singapore citizens to be engaged in the policy-making process. Thus, being a politician today is a difficult task, and it is rather challenging than ever before due to the higher education level of the citizens.

In addition, it is more challenging to be a politician as they need to deal with the economic vulnerabilities associated with globalisation. The hyperconnected nature of the modern world resulted in greater possibilities of facing economic crises, such as the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 or the Eurozone Debt Crisis in 2009. Therefore, here is a greater need for politicians to address such economic issues and ensure the country is prepared for such situations so that they can still garner support from the citizens, unlike in the past where the countries had fewer possibilities of facing economic crises. For instance, Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe is implementing ‘Abenomics’ so as to tackle Japan’s deflation issue which persisted for the last two decades. If he is unable to solve this economic issue, it is likely that he is going to step down from his position, just as the past prime ministers, who stepped down due to their incompetencies. Thus, in this world of volatile economic situations where every country’s economy is interdependent of one another, politicians are indeed facing challenges in dealing with the economic crises.

Furthermore, politicians nowadays need to balance international and domestic affairs, which makes their jobs more difficult than ever. In this globalised world, it is important to maintain good relationships with other countries, but it is also absurd to solely focus on international relations as this may result in discontentment of the locals. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, was able to maintain relatively high approval ratings until she decided to adopt an open-door policy towards the migrants and accept the Syrian refugees. Even though her actions were lauded internationally, the locals were upset that they need to bear the high cost and societal problems associated with the influx of refugees. Another example would be the Japanese prime minister visiting Yasukuni Shrine, where the war criminals of the World War II are placed at. Even if his acts can please the Japanese citizens for honouring their war heroes, it provokes anti-Japanese sentiments in other countries such as South Korea and China. Thus, it is more difficult for politicians to either prioritise good international standing or support from their own citizens in this interconnected world.

Lastly, the rise of terrorism across the world makes it challenging for politicians as they need to protect citizens from greater terrorism threats. The rise of Islamic fundamentalists has resulted in rampant terrorist attacks taking place, which makes it difficult for the government to ensure the safety of its citizens. For instance, the latest terrorist attack at Ariana Grande’s concert in Manchester, United Kingdom shows that every civilian is prone to terrorist attack and that no place in the world is entirely safe from such threats. There is the greater task assigned to the government as this issue is difficult to tackle – simply preventing Islamic extremists or the supporters of the Islamic State from entering the country does not help when there is home-grown terrorism, where the people are self-radicalised and commit lone-wolf attacks, such as the Westminster attack by Khalid Masood. Such forms of terrorist attacks are almost impossible to detect. Thus, since the government has the duty to protect its own citizens from threats but it is becoming increasingly more difficult to do so in today’s globalised world, politicians face a more difficult task as ever before.

In conclusion, being a politician is indeed a herculean task as he needs to deal with more demands from his own citizens as well as those from other countries, signifying the importance of good leadership. However, citizens also hold an important role in choosing the right leaders who can combat such domestic and international issues. Therefore, people need to exercise their voting rights more wisely for the sake of the country’s brighter future – the practising of just responsibilities will ensure their rights to be protected.

We Worship the Young and Scorn the Old. What Is Your Opinion?

It is not deniable that today majority of attention is focused on the youth of society. Walk by any bus stop or open up any newspaper and there are young models printed all over the pages and billboard. The emphasis we place on the youth of our society is to an extent that we completely neglect the older generation of our society. There are several cases where the older generation is denied jobs or are discriminated against at the workplace. All this might prove that we scorn the old, however, it is important to remember that the older generations contribute to society in their own ways.

The youth are believed to be the future of our society and this is reflected in our fascination with the young people. It is important that the older generation is given the same importance and the emphasis is shifted from youth to youthfulness. However, this is not being practised in today’s society where people believe that the young are interesting and the older people should be done away with because they do not bring any novelty in the society. The mindset of people and society proves that we scorn the old, and create hindrance in the way of the older generation to prove their worth in society.

The media is also responsible for promoting these attitudes where the younger generation is given too much attention while none is given to the older generation. For instance in Singapore the leading newspaper The Straits Times has a whole page intended only for the youth while there are no such devoted pages for the older generation. One reason for this attention to the youth can be attributed to the fact that they are considered the future of society. On the other hand, the only news which features the older generation is their abandonment from their own homes or lack of job opportunities. This exactly reflects the conditions in our society and how we scorn the old. On the other hand, the younger generation is given significant importance while the old people are neglected completely.

In spite of this, believing that the older generation is only neglected is completely disingenuous and can lead us to biased views. It cannot be forgotten that media has to feature young and fresh faces in newspapers, TV and magazines because they lead to great profits. On a surface level, these issues portray the youth of society but if one looks closely then there are articles for the older generation sometimes which provide them with plans on how to save money after retirement. One of the reasons for not having a place in these features can also be because of their constant lifestyle which is not very newsworthy. But all this does not insinuate that the older generation is idle and inactive, and therefore completely disregarded by society, it’s just that they contribute to society in other ways and are occupied with activities that do not always feature in the media. For instance, in Australia, there are many activities conducted by the elderly and their pleasurable amity is enjoyed by all. The older generation has abundant knowledge about skills which are lost today like knitting, the younger generation turns to the older generation for learning these skills. Hence, it is not true that we scorn the old, many believe that they are a vital part of our society and are respected.

Though the youth is believed to be the future of society, they are still immature and need the guidance of the older generation. It is often seen that the youth often commit mistakes and sometimes even indulge in anti-social behaviour, this even leads to taint their image as the representatives of our society. The rash behaviour is often criticised by the older generation, these objections are often interpreted by the younger generation as finicky views which obstruct their liberty and preferences. However, the views of the old are not finicky as they speak from their experience and have passed through the stage of youth too. We scorn the old and do not respect their opinions. The older generation has a grain of truth in their concerns but their statements are not taken seriously by the youth today and their concern for the youth is interpreted as troublesome. Hence, older people have a lot of wisdom which if taken seriously by the youth can benefit them in a long term.

In spite of the popularity the youth have gained in society, it is irrefutable that the older generation has contributed to society immensely. Many countries have started to understand the benefits of the older generation and how their skills can be helpful to the youth. Many countries like Britain have policies that safeguard the rights of the elderly. While Singapore Airlines continues to hire young girls to boost its business, there is British Airways which still gives importance to experience and has a staff that has proven themselves these attendants are not young like the Singapore Girl but have more experience and knowledge than them. In times of emergency, the older attendants are considered to be a preferred choice because of their confident attitude and experience. Unfortunately, there are companies that remove their employees once they are not young anymore. Many replace the older generation’s wisdom with the young generation’s new ways in the companies. In this way, we scorn the old, even after their significant contribution to their workplace. It is important that the companies make policies which enable the young generation and the old to work together so that both can learn something from each other. However, many companies do not understand this and therefore not many policies like these exist. Hence, it is important that the old and the young generation are given a chance to work with each other as they both can bring different perspectives to the workplace.

In conclusion, it is important to understand that both the old and the new generations are given importance as both are a vital part of society. The younger generation should understand that the older generation has many pearls of wisdom and should take every opportunity to learn from them. It is also important that the older generation also takes into consideration the views of the young generation to keep up with the new generation and form a fresh and innovative perspective on things.

‘Economic growth should be prioritised over environmental efforts in today’s world.’ Do you agree?

The world has enough for everyone’s needs, but not enough for everyone’s greed.” In light of the fact that nations are increasingly pursuing wealth by compromising the environment’s health, Gandhi’s quote reflects how an endless desire for economic development is simply unsustainable. With the rising number of natural disasters and environmental catastrophes in recent years, there has been a growing debate on whether choosing greater economic development to improve standards of living over environmental conservation is a choice that is still justifiable. Proponents of prioritising environmental conservation argue that reckless economic development unfairly places vulnerable nations at risk of environmental disasters and that urgent action needs to be taken to reduce the future impact of environmental catastrophes such as global warming. However, others believe that economic growth is necessary to raise the standard of living in developing nations, even at the expense of the environment, and that the environment can only be protected with revenue from economic progress. Hence, although the immediate benefits of economic growth may seem to outweigh its long-term harms, it should not be prioritised over environmental conservation due to the undue harm of reckless economic development and the urgency to solve environmental issues before they cause irreversible damage.

Despite the pressing need to take steps to curb environmental devastation, proponents of economic development believe that the economy takes precedence over the environment due to the immediate need of developing nations to raise their citizens’ standard of living. Although developing countries may initially damage the environment when obtaining natural resources for economic growth, the revenue gained from doing so allows them to invest in the economy and reduces reliance on natural resources in the long run. Developing nations have a wealth of untapped resources, such as minerals and wood, which can generate income to provide their citizens with an adequate standard of living. Unfortunately, these resources are often locked away in forests and mountains, making it impossible to obtain them without causing damage to the environment. Hence, in order to extract these resources for the sake of economic development, developing nations cut down forests and excavate mines for goods to export. Although this may come at some cost to the environment, the immediate benefits of increased revenue, which improves the lives of impoverished citizens, outweighs the harm done. With more income, governments of developing countries can invest in sectors that help to improve their citizens’ lives, such as healthcare and education. Better living standards and education equip citizens with the ability to acquire better-paying employment, lifting themselves out of poor living conditions. This improves the economy, reducing developing nations’ reliance on extracting natural resources for economic growth. In today’s world, economic progress is important as it is the key to ensuring a nation’s continued success in the global economy. The falling prices of commodities and growing tertiary sectors mean that countries must move away from relying on raw materials as their key source of income. Causing some damage to the environment to lift millions out of poverty is an acceptable sacrifice, especially for a less developed nation whose citizens are struggling to make a living. This is seen in the case of Botswana, which focused on diamond mining to gain revenue, despite the harm it caused to the environment. The income was invested heavily in education and healthcare, lifting 40% of its population out of poverty. Thus, economic growth takes precedence over environmental protection as it alleviates the immediate problem of poverty in developing nations.

Furthermore, economic growth should take precedence over environmental conservation as environmental protection can only occur with economic advancement. Although economic growth may harm the environment, the increased revenue allows governments to purchase improved technology and to invest in research and development. Hence, economic growth provides nations with the funds needed to restore the environment. An improved economy gives governments more money to spend on environmental conservation, improving its ability to conserve the environment. Conversely, poorer nations have less funding, causing them to be less able to protect the environment. In today’s world, the field of research on environmental conservation is constantly growing, from new sustainable sources of energy to conserving endangered species. Economic growth provides developing nations with the funds to sponsor such research for their own country, acquiring technology to negate pollution. They also have the finances to invest in creating nature reserves for vulnerable species which may have lost their habitats due to economic development. An example of a nation that used economic growth to promote environmental conservation is Austria, where fund accumulated from economic development in the past allowed it to invest in the development of renewable sources of energy, such as nuclear plants, today. Hence, economic growth should be prioritised over environmental protection as it is a prerequisite for effective environmental conservation to occur.

However, although economic development may seem like a sustainable solution to all environmental issues, it should not be prioritised over environmental efforts as it unfairly places vulnerable nations at risk of environmental devastation. Not all nations are created equal, with some possessing much more economic clout than others. The beneficial effects of economic development are limited to a nation’s own populace, but its detrimental effects on the environment are often regional, affecting multiple nations around it. Pollution such as haze and industrial waste is able to transcend national borders, spreading to other nations through the air or shared waterways. A nation’s carbon footprint from industrialisation causes the Earth to grow warmer and sea levels to rise, placing vulnerable island nations at risk of sinking under the sea, despite the fact that they contribute to less than one percent of the world’s carbon output. It is not fair to these nations, which did not benefit from the economic development of the country producing pollution, to suffer from the ill effects of environmental devastation which they are powerless to stop. This is poignant in today’s increasingly interlinked world, where larger countries fail to be held to account for their actions even by international organisations like the United Nations. For instance, the US withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord despite its significant carbon footprint, making it unaccountable for the economic devastation its pollution causes. This responsibility allows more powerful nations to create pollution through economic growth without consequences. An example of pollution affecting other nations is the annual transboundary haze caused by Indonesia when it burns forests to create land for cash crops. The haze spreads to neighbouring nations such as Malaysia and Singapore, affecting the economies of these countries. Hence, economic growth should not be prioritised over environmental efforts as it unfairly places vulnerable nations at risk.

In addition, economic growth should not take precedence over environmental efforts as urgent action needs to be taken to curb the effects of environmental degradation. Economic development is a slow process which happens over years, even decades. However, environmental disasters plaguing the world currently pose an immediate threat, which will only be exacerbated in the future. Hence, there is a greater incentive to take steps to solve environmental issues now, than to wait decades for environmental progress before attempting to solve these snowballing problems. Nations cannot wait for their economies to grow and for their GDPs to increase when their citizens fall victim to natural disasters and environmental pollution. In today’s world, saving the environment is an action that needs to be taken immediately by countries, as waiting for economic growth before trying to solve these issues could lead to irreversible consequences. The extinction of endangered species and loss of entire nations to rising sea levels are devastating outcomes of environmental degradation which cannot be reversed, even with modern technology. One example of a country at risk of vanishing is Kiribati. With islands raised a few metres above sea level, the nation is predicted to become uninhabitable by 2050, when the ocean rises enough to completely submerge the tiny country. The president of Kiribati even made an appeal to the United Nations General Assembly to call for efforts to curb global warming, before island nations such as his vanish for good. Thus, economic development should not be prioritised over environmental efforts, as environmental degradation results in issues that must be solved as soon as possible.

In conclusion, although proponents argue that economic growth is essential to solve the immediate problem of poverty and that it places developing nations in a better position to conserve the environment, they have ultimately failed to recognise that environmental degradation is an issue that must be addressed now and that reckless economic growth unfairly harms vulnerable nations which do not benefit from it. Thus, economic development should not be prioritised over environmental efforts due to the excessive harms that arise from solely focusing on economic growth and neglecting environmental conservation. As Martin Luther King once said, “We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.” Economic development may benefit our own nation, but it is environmental conservation that truly protects the world that we all live in.

How far should artists be allowed to push boundaries?

One of the defining pieces of art of the 20th century is literally a toilet. Marcel Duchamp’s piece of “fountain” was simply a functioning toilet that he had bought from a store. The piece was displayed for just a day, before a cleaner threw it out, thinking it was trash. However, in it one day of existence, “fountain” managed to completely obliterate every single boundary governing the nature of art, instantaneously ignite a firestorm of controversy, and essentially spawn the entirety of the modern art movement, breathing new life into an art form many considered dead. Art is something that needs to evolve or die, and for art to evolve, artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as they want.

Some, however, would argue that artists should not be allowed to push boundaries too far, as they will inevitably push it into the realm of bad taste. These people argue that boundaries in art serve a clear purpose: to delineate acceptable moralities. To these people, for artists to push boundaries too far would constitute an act of moral deviancy and public indecency, and thus denigrate the very nature of art, which they believe to inspire and reflect good values. These are the people who will protest against films such as “Hostel” for its perceived excessive violence, artists such as H.R Giger for his hyper sexually art pieces, or bands like Iron Maiden for their “Satanic Imagery”. To these people, art, above all else, needs to be moral. Without proper morality, the entire piece of art is invalidated to them.

While it might be true that some artists do not reflect very good morals, I also believe that that is entirely irrelevant. Art, above all else, must seek to reflect life honestly. To inaccurately represent life due to boundaries concerning morals and taste is, I believe, a far more grievous sin then not reflecting appropriate morality. Life is hard and scary, and people sometimes are filled with violence and cruelty. These are not things we like to think about, and yet it is precisely why artists need to incorporate them into their work. To forget about the harsher facts of life is not just a failure on the part of the artist, it also does a disservice to the consumer who is no longer challenged and brought out of their comfort zones. This is precisely why we require filmmakers such as Harmony Korrine and Nicholas winding Refn, whose films push various boundaries and are eminently controversial. Without the ability to push boundaries as far as possible, art loses a great portion of its verisimilitude, and hence also its power to engage us. Thus, for art to reflect life honestly, artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as they want.

There is also another group that believes art should not push against political and religious boundaries. These people believe that political and religious beliefs are a private and personal thing, and thus art has no business attempting to influence the use and change our opinions. Art, while entertaining, should, in their eyes, remain apolitical as politics and religion are too controversial and messy to be discussed in such a manner. These are the people who decry filmmakers such as Oliver Stone, or Michael Moore, for making what they consider to be fundamentally biased and untruthful political films. To these people, politics is simply too dangerous a topic for art to tread upon, and thus they believe that artists should not push boundaries, but rather seek to entertain.

While it is true that politics and religion are deeply personal, I believe it is extremely important for art to discuss it, so as to start conversations about it. For us all to be better, more enlightened human beings, we need to be able to confront our biases and prejudices and learn to fully argue for our own personal beliefs. Art, in presenting its own views on politics and religion, creates conversation and forces us to examine our own ideas. This is present in films such as “Four Lions” which presents a harrowingly realistic depiction of how ordinary youths can be radicalized into terrorists, thus refuting the simple caricature many have of terrorists as evil religious fundamentalists. In this way, as we confront our own opinions, we can refine them and thus emerge as fuller people with more informed and cohesive thoughts. This visceral confrontation occurs also in games such as “This war of mine” which through placing the player in the role of a civilian in a warzone, invites one to think about the true cost of war. Art, by pushing boundaries, also causes people to start conversations about issues and thus move to fix them. This can be seen in how Kendrick Lamar’s 2015 album “To pimp a butterfly” intensified discussion of racism in America, and brought awareness to the issue. Thus, for art to challenge, artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as possible.

Fundamentally, artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as possible in order to evolve. What boundaries represent is a hard limit on what artists can think? To be able to consistently create new material and evolve, artists should and must push the boundaries and evolve their thinking. This has always been how art evolves, from the ’60s when the Beatles released their album Sergeant peppers and ushered in psychedelic rock, to James Joyce’s Ulysses which broke many taboos and define the modernist novel, to 1968’s Bonnie and Clyde, Which completely disregarded Hollywood’s codes of morality, and ushered in the modern filmmaking system. Art always requires pioneers to break the mould and push the boundaries. Only then will the rest follow and new things can be made. Artists thus should be allowed to push boundaries as far as possible or art will simply stagnate and die.

The art throughout history has always held a unique ability to challenge, excite, and entertain us. It has always been changing, yet the only constant is the ability of artists to push the boundaries. As Frank Zappa once said: Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. Thus artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as possible, as that is how art stays relevant.

‘Artificial intelligence (AI) should be embraced, not feared.’ Do you agree?

Today, the idea that robots can take over the world one day as seen in dystopian movies does not seem too impossible. Can robots really take over the world? The advancements in technology have inevitably led to the rise of Artificial Intelligence, now commonly known as AI. Many are voicing concerns and fear that the development of AI may outpace the regulations that govern its implementation. AI also threatens job security all around the world. However, while these are understandable, Artificial Intelligence should not be feared but embraced.

Economies around the world today are restructuring. Many developed countries such as the United States, Japan, Singapore and many other large European economies are transitioning from labour-intensive to high-value added, knowledge-based industries. In fact, this transition has begun more than a decade ago. Not too long ago, automation has resulted in the loss of millions of jobs especially in low-skilled areas. Now with AI gradually easing its way not only into the manufacturing sector but also the services sector, the jobs of professionals, managers, executives and technicians are threatened as well. Hence, opponents of AI are frightened by the prospect that those with limited skills and education are going to be left behind.

There is no denying that being left behind in the future can become a reality for some. However, trade-offs have to be made for the progression of mankind. AI brings along undeniable benefits that can unquestionably boost economies, which will be discussed later. Returning to those threatened by AI, there is in fact a survival guide: Do not fight AI. Fight with it. Instead of protesting its inevitable integration into our lives, embrace it and understand it. By understanding it, we will no longer fear it. This is why governments are actively encouraging workers to upgrade their skill sets to stay relevant by equipping themselves with effective and useful skills and knowledge, and most importantly, to stay up to date. In Singapore, a country with an ambition to become the world’s first Smart Nation, a SkillsFuture Movement was launched less than a decade ago as a means through which citizens above the age of twenty-four can utilise incentives to sign up for courses. Some of these courses offered include computer classes that can help senior citizens to be technologically proficient. By upgrading ourselves, there is no doubt that automation and AI can help create new jobs that are higher-paying and of better quality, when AI takes over simpler ones. As such, there is certainly a case for fearing for our jobs when AI is slowly becoming prevalent. However, it is within our control to decide how AI will affect us. If we choose to remain relevant and fight alongside it instead of against it, we will be able to find better jobs and not be left behind.

Next, many developed countries such as Japan and Singapore are grappling with an ageing population today. AI can, therefore, be part of the panacea to deal with a manpower shortage. For instance, Singapore, a country with a small population, has embraced AI as seen in its services and transport industries. The country is rolling out a pilot programme for autonomous buses and has recently employed AI robots in two of its food courts where the robots, guided by sensors, can move around as a tray return station for diners. Hence, the food court is not only able to cut costs by reducing manpower, but diners are also able to enjoy greater convenience. In Japan, some stores no longer need to employ cleaners due to the availability of robotic vacuum cleaners that can roam freely on the floor with the ability to avoid collisions. These are a few of the many possible scenarios where AI benefits an economy and help countries cope with their problems. As such, AI should be embraced and not feared.

Moving on, one can also expect individual safety and national security to be enhanced with AI. Tesla, a tech giant and car manufacturer, has recently launched its autopilot feature in its cars. Such a feature means that the car itself has its own ability to recognise danger, for example, an imminent collision, and thus warn the driver beforehand to prevent an accident. With drink driving and human error some of the top causes of accidents on the roads today, AI can help reduce accident numbers. Furthermore, when such technology is extended to aircrafts and aeroplanes, the improvement in safety can be enormous. In the future, AI is also able to handle and make use of big data and analytics technology to track, predict and potentially prevent terrorist attacks. With terrorism on the rise, the ability to carry out facial recognition and behavioural matches in large crowds can undeniably enhance national security and thwart terrorist plans. This also extends to the threat of hostile nations especially in times of tensions and wars when AI can aid in espionage missions and track the enemies’ movements. Thus, AI should not be feared but embraced.

Finally, with a growing middle class globally, many of us are able to afford AI-equipped devices to improve our standard of living. With the advent of voice assistants such as Google Assistant, we are close to having our very own Jarvis. To switch on the air conditioner, all we have to do is simply ask, literally. There is no longer a need to lift a finger for simple tasks when all our appliances and lights are connected to a central AI-controlled home system. “Google-ing” on smartphones may also quickly become obsolete when we can ask our smartphones a question and have them read the answers aloud to us. Presented with such convenience, our quality of life is therefore enhanced tremendously. Tasks that were previously troublesome to perform can now be easily completed with AI. While some may view this as laziness, I believe this gives us the opportunity to put our efforts to better use instead.

Perhaps, fear may stem from the belief that AI might become too intelligent in the future and use its data and knowledge against us. Certainly, this remains a possibility. However, we are the inventors of AI. With regulations to ensure that algorithms used to create AI allow for transparent robots to be invented, the future of AI lies in our hands. We are more likely to design AI such that it benefits us rather than harm us.

To conclude, while there is reasonable fear for our jobs, threatened by AI, we can always choose to do something by upgrading ourselves and progressing with it instead of resisting it. AI brings us greater safety, convenience and productivity and for these, we should embrace it. Perhaps we can overcome our fear of AI by understanding how it functions and always keeping up with its latest development. In this way, AI will no longer seem foreign and intimidating when we are familiar with it.

How important is charisma?

This is a researched essay.

The importance of charisma as a quality for today’s leaders is indicated by the fact that the definitions of charisma and leadership overlap. Charis ma automatically comes with a leadership position. However, charisma is not the most important trait of a leader. Charismatic individuals in leadership positions can bring discredit upon themselves if they lack more important qualities. If all other leadership qualities are given, charisma can be an advantage.

Etymologically charisma comes from a Greek word that translates to grace. The dictionary employs several words to define grace. These include elegance, politeness of manner and goodwill. Charis ma is defined as a compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.[1] Leadership is defined as the ability to channel the actions of a group of people. This can be done through formal authority, logic, or through interpersonal qualities as embodied in charisma. By this interpretation, it can be considered a subset of leadership. However, it is not an inseparable part since leadership can be accomplished by other means. Vladimir Putin is a leader with whom both poise and authority can be associated. In 2014, Putin did not achieve the reintegration of Crimea with Russia through his charms. His actions in Ukraine proved that authority alone can be sufficient for effective leadership. Therefore, while charisma can be a part of leadership, it is not necessary.

Charisma is attributed to all great leaders by default. A prime example is Gandhi. He was a simple and soft-spoken man who wore merely a loincloth around his waist. Gandhi is remembered today as a charismatic leader merely because he was honored as a leader. Stalin did not invade Poland with any compelling attractiveness of character. Hitler did not create the holocaust using personal charm. Unlike Churchill and Mandela, Stalin and Hitler were effective simply by the skilful use of their power. Yet, they are considered charismatic leaders. It is difficult to find examples of great leaders that did not possess any aura because followers automatically attribute it to a person of leadership. This shows that the significance of a charming personality can sometimes be more sentimental than practical.

Charis ma is the not the most important quality of a leader. It is possible to fail as a leader, while possessing charisma, for want of other characteristics. Integrity and vision are far more vital. Dick Fuld, the persuasive and charismatic CEO of Lehman Brothers led one of the largest financial services companies in the world to bankruptcy.[2],[3] On the other hand Microsoft is an excellent example of how charisma can help speed-up the success of a strongly authoritarian leader such as Bill Gates. The two contrasting examples show that charisma may be likened to efficiency. It can help a good leader become great or get a poor leader to ruin faster. Clearly, charisma is not the all-important component of being a leader.

Charisma can help all kinds of leaders. Every leadership position requires persuading, influencing and eliciting obedience. Charisma can help a leader achieve these ends through enthusiasm, goodwill and positive emotions, rather than relying purely on logic.[4] Charisma is ethos and pathos. Charismatic leaders are eloquent communicators and skilled orators. They engage with their audience not only with arguments but also with emotions, values and passion. Charisma persuades followers to buy into a leader’s vision. The workplace has evolved with technological development and globalization. Employees have greater choice and access. Employers need to be more flexible and transparent. Diversity is a fact. Employees need to share the leadership vision in order to have a sense of fulfillment. In today’s world personal magnetism is more important for industry leaders than ever. All other qualities being equal, a charismatic leader can be more effective than one who lacks this quality.

Charis ma can help a leader succeed, but is not a substitute for leadership qualities. Leadership is influence. Charisma is one way to achieve influence, but certainly not the only way. People who are not in leadership positions can also have charis ma; even children can. There are ample examples of leaders who had charisma and failed due to other shortcomings. There are also examples where leaders succeeded without charis ma. To influence people, bold speeches are unnecessary. Followers can be inspired by a leader’s credibility, moral conviction, strength of character and focus on goals. These are valued qualities of leaders such as Richard Branson and Elon Musk. Charis ma is not essential for leaders and it certainly cannot stand on its own. However, charisma is great to have.

[1] Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2016). charis ma – definition of charisma in English | Oxford Dictionaries. [online] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/charisma [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].

[2] Huffington Post India. (2016). Dick Fuld, Disgraced Former CEO Of Lehman Brothers, Makes Public Comeback. [online] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/dick-fuld-lehman_n_7462196 [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].

[3] Telegraph.co.uk. (2016). The collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/6173145/The-collapse-of-Lehman-Brothers.html [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].

[4] Antonakis, J. (2016). Using the power of charis ma for better leadership. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/learning-charisma-sustainability-leaders [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].

People are slaves to technology. How true is this?

A reasonable first draft.

Everywhere we go today, it is a common sight to see people with heads bowed down, eyes etched to a screen and fingers furiously working tapping away. Technology is increasingly integrates integrated in our society, serving almost all functions from entertainment to business. It Technology is what allows us humans to keep up with the highly complex and fast-paced world that we have today. However, there has been increasing concerns with the wide usage of technology with regards to its potential to control us. While some wish to believe that technology today is still taking over humans, I  the more rational crowd believes that many people remain reigning as masters of technology. 

Many may  say that it is not uncommon to see people distracted by the many things that technology has to offer. Technology has caused a democratisation and easy access to information, and entertainment material. This causes has caused people to be highly engrossed with their electronic gadgets. Furthermore, with technology comes great power of the internet to be able to figure out the user’s likes, dislikes, allowing to come up with suitable recommendations. This fixates the user’s attention on technology even more and leads to the vicious cycle.  Humans, suggest the critics, have become subservient to technology. They have gone going on to various lengths at our disadvantage to attain it, but end up only to be distracted by it.

However, It is usually only the youth that are affected by this issue of slavery to technology, having been exposed to it all their lives. They have experienced technology in every minute of their lives. Furthermore, citing only internet technology as a form of human slavery to technology is very limited.  In many other cases, humans remain the masters of technology, using it as a tool to achieve success.

Technology is still used as a tool by many for communication and achievement of personal and professional goals. It is used by scientists in making discoveries, students to learn, teachers to teach, artists to gain fans, elderly to catch up on news, architects and workers for construction, etcetera. Technology is ubiquitous, playing a role in almost everything we use aiding in almost our every action. It makes our work easier or empowers us to do better. For example, scientists were able to able discovery the Higgs Boson with a very complex machine known as Large Hadron Collider. The LHC was used as a mere tool by the scientists to make discoveries.Another example is the use of online tools such as Khan Academy by students to enhance their learning process. Technology serves a wide audience and continues serving as a tool in today’s world.

Technology remains a mere tool and has not made humans slaves as it is still not able to achieve what a human can.  Many argue that the plaguing of technology, and taking over tasks taken by humans show that it is able to work better than humans, possibly making humans its slaves where technology  no longer work for humans but humans work for technology. However, in today’s society, technology is still unable to function the way a human is able to.  Though it is probably able to take on many jobs of humans, it is unable to behave like a human especially those which require decisions that involve consideration of political relationships, communication with fellow humans, etcetera. Technology has not rendered humans useless or slaves but has just changed the important skills that humans need to have.  Therefore, humans still remain the masters of technology.

While technology is evident in every single task in our lives, we remain in complete control today. Technology is used as an aid, not as a crutch. Though there is a possibility that the equation might change in the future with research projects such as Elon Musk’s Neuralink project to link human brains and computers, we are eons away from realizing such far fetched dreams. Humans are not slaves to technology today.  Therefore, I disagree that One would be hard pressed to accept that humans are slaves to technology.

A scientist is successful only if he has made a great impact on society. Do you agree?

This essay was not written in timed conditions.

Scientific development has constantly been redefined by paradigm shifts, from mystic worship of the stars, to Aristotelian study of natural science, to Newtonian physics of deterministic laws, to Quantum physics and relativity, and cutting edge biomedical technology. Inspired by such advances, mankind has gone on to create a variety of applications, from new materials for car windscreens, to sophisticated supercomputers, from tracking devices to satellites. Most people regard science as a tool which they can use to improve their lives. However, it is my belief that by doing so, and thereby creating the misconception that science is only useful when its findings have application, the score of scientific study becomes severely limited. Science, by definition is an explanation of natural phenomena, and a scientist by extension is one who attempts to explore and explain how the world works against us. The successful scientist therefore should not be defined as a person whose inventions improve our standard of living. Such a focus, while important for various reasons, should not be the be all and end all, and should include other aspects.

In order to provide a more nuanced view of the issue, one should first draw distinctions between types of scientists, mainly the theoretical scientist, who attempts to provide conceptual explanations to certain phenomena, the fundamental researcher, who does research to validate or invalidate work by theoretical scientists, and the applied researcher, who attempts to make use of such validated theories to create devices or techniques that can be used by others. Indeed, such a distinction quickly reveals the complexities of science, and a person who makes a claim that success in science is defined by one thing or another ignores the possibilities for varying levels and scales of success. However, one consistent determinant in measuring the success of a scientist is the degree to which he contributes to the field of knowledge from which he hails.

Like any academic field, the development of science is facilitated by the exchange of knowledge; it is then through intellectual discourse and discussion that news ideas are developed. The success of a scientist can therefore be measured by how significant his contribution is to the field. This is currently the case, where the number of citations, and frequency of reference to his ideas usually is a measure of the success of a scientist, rather than how much money is earned from his inventions. Einstein is regarded as an icon despite the fact that his theory is relativity has not had direct application to our lives. Rather his success has been defined by his vast contribution to the field of knowledge, and his ability to explain natural phenomena in the most elegant manner. Notwithstanding the current controversy if particles can actually travel faster than light, Einstein still continues to be a beacon for scientists. Hence should we define success as the sum total of the number of inventions a scientist produces and their resultant impact on humanity, and hold other scientists up to this standard, we change the way science progresses, or is seen to progress. While this might bring us economic and material benefits, it might also be detrimental for mankind in the long run.

Defining success as having a great impact on society also widens the scope of possibilities for future developments. Applied science provides immediate economic and social benefits, but it is fundamental studies that are instrumental in opening up new field for study and large scale development, usually without any intention to do so. Quantum physics for example, first started when scientists noticed properties of materials that did not square with conventional scientific knowledge of the 1900s. The theories and experiments were fascinating, and even shocking, in that they revealed a different set of laws, which seemed to operate on a small scale. And yet, this knowledge was not put into application until nearly fifty years later. If the reward system revolves around the visible impact the scientist has on society, and the scientist works towards that goal, then targeted fundamental studies will not be carried out on the same scale as before, and the rate of exploration of the realm of the unknown will definitely decrease. It is essential that we keep this in mind when discussing the role of a scientist.

It takes a long time to apply scientific theories to the world of consumers. As such, by attempting to measure and focus on the visible accomplishments of a scientist, we are blindsiding his actual contribution and ignoring the general scientific community that is extremely important to the field. Scientific research is a collective effort, and not a domain for stand-alone heroes. Noted that there are many Nobel laureates, but even they have a small team of researchers that aid and assist the greater discovery. Cell and molecular science wa simply a property of the human body until which time the collective efforts of doctors, engineers and scientists created new ways to approach medicine. Case in point is key hole surgery, a non-invasive surgical procedure that causes less trauma to the patient and facilitates in recovery. The multi-disciplinary nature of the field reminds us that it is difficult to pin success to specific individuals and by narrowing the definition of success, we are possibly discouraging co-operation across various fields.

Some might wonder why such a discussion is important in the first place. Does the definition of success smatter? In a capitalist society, the answer is yes. One must note that a main driver in the scientific field is funding, both from the public and private sector. The definition of success therefore affects which area receives more funding and which area languishes. By placing economic value on science, the scope for research has been greatly restrained and this trend may probably continue in the future.

The United Kingdom faces issues of cutting funding for their observatory programme. While astronomical observation does not have immediate economic returns, it is extremely essential for explaining phenomena of physics that cannot be replicated on earth. While some might argue that we should focus on areas that provide economic returns in hope of betterment of our lives, one must note that it is not the role of science to determine how technology should be applied. Its impact on society is facilitated by new technology and amazing discoveries, but is mainly determined by how such applications are used in society. In an ideal situation, therefore, we should attempt to maximise our research in a variety of areas and allow society to choose how these discoveries should be utilised.

Based on the synthesis of the above arguments, we can safely conclude that we need to re-examine the definition of a successful scientist. We cannot afford to choose a narrow definition that focuses exclusively on one area of study, and not the other, since such a move limits our ability to explore areas that have yet to be understood. In the same way, governments and funding institutions need to take into account his expanded definition of a scientist and not to simply individual fields that have monetary potential. It is only when we take a holistic perspective that we can fully appreciate the benefits of science, not simply as a tool to enhance living, but also to make use more enlightened and more aware of the world around us.

International cooperation is necessary in this globalised world. Do you agree?

With recent events such as Brexit and the rising resentment against free trade in the United States as shown by the fierce opposition against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement, we see that there is a rising trend of nationalism that is against the idea of international cooperation. While they might justify such a choice as an excuse to stay competitive, I disagree with the notion that international cooperation has no place in this competitive world, because such cooperation is still crucial in providing humanitarian aid, allows countries to tackle global issues, and lastly, is arguably necessary for a country to advance certain domestic interests in this competitive world.

Firstly, in times of disasters, international cooperation is still needed in order to provide temporary relief to those in need. In the event of an unfortunate natural disaster, chances are it is going to cause great damage to that area, and such damages often cost the countries millions, if not billions of dollars. For developing or less developed countries, they simply do not have that much money in order to repair their infrastructure, so it is the duty of the international community to come in and provide the necessary humanitarian aid. Even if the world is highly competitive, as human beings, there is still a moral imperative for us, the international community, to step in and provide them with the most basic of needs so that they would not be deprived of their most basic human rights that many regards as inalienable. This is why when the earthquake struck Haiti in 2010, countries all over the world stepped in to provide aid for that country thorough various means, even though the world at that time was just as competitive as it is today. With that, it is hard to justify why, even in this competitive world, should there be any reasons to denounce international cooperation in terms of giving aid.

That being said, nationalists would still argue that a country should prioritise their national interests first before anything else including international cooperation, especially since the world today is so competitive. They argue that in a world with such cut-throat competition, they have to think about how to benefit the country first and foremost, and to them, international cooperation would do more harm than good. Similarly, the concept of realpolitik would also mean to them that countries should do everything in the name of self-interest in such a way that they would get to benefit the most. Because of these two ideas, nationalists have often forgone international cooperation in order to further advance their own interests. That is why the USA refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol which could have been a crucial step in slowing down global warming. The Bush administration refused to ratify it because they did not want to lose out economically with countries that do not have to cut down on carbon emissions such as China. Their national interest in having an economic edge over countries like China had made them decide against ratifying that treaty. With national interests at stake and the competitive world we live in today, these nationalists would argue that international cooperation has no place in the world today. However, what these nationalists failed to realise is that international cooperation is still essential even if a country only did something in the name of protecting and advancing their own national interests.

For one, there are certain global issues that can only be solved with international cooperation, which means that in order to get it done, countries have to put aside their competition and work together in order to solve it. That would then benefit the cooperating countries themselves. When there is a pressing global issue such as global warming, the outbreak of infectious diseases or the rise of terrorism as we know it today, countries have to work together in order to solve that problem to protect their national interests. With the sheer scale of these problems, it just simply is not possible for any individual country, no matter how small or how big and mighty it is. To solve these issues, international cooperation is the one and only way, even if it means that certain aspects of a country’s national interests might be compromised. For example, countries around the world knew that the depletion of the ozone layer is bad not just for the world, but also their own country in particular because the radiation entering the Earth as a result of the depletion of the ozone layer can negatively affect the health of its people. Because of that, they are willing to come together in order to stop this with the Montreal Protocol. Almost all countries then went on to ratify the treaty, and as such, chlorofluorocarbon (the chemicals that deplete the ozone layer) in the atmosphere has fallen by over 90% since then, and the ozone layer is starting to ‘repair’ itself. This is just one of the many examples that show how international cooperation is still relevant in advancing national interests even in this competitive globalised world. Countries vying for global power like the USA, the (then) British Empire and the Soviets came together to fight off Nazi Germany because the very existence of their countries was at stake. Many countries all over the world today cooperate together despite the intense competition to ward off ISIS because their terrorist attacks can be extremely harmful to the countries themselves. The list goes on. Thus, because of how big certain problems are, international cooperation is still a necessity even in this competitive world, even if a country is guided by the principles of realpolitik.

Moreover, those nationalists also failed to realise that international cooperation might be the only way for them to advance their national interests that do not require international effort as well. Domestically, a country has several objectives they want to achieve, including security, social stability, and a healthy economy. Internationally, they would also want to improve their standing amongst other countries, especially in this competitive world where every country is vying for some form of influence, and in some cases, countries have to work together in order to fulfil these goals, and this means that even if a country is guided by realpolitik, it is only natural for them to work with other countries because doing them would benefit themselves too. The world is not a zero-sum game. When one party stands to benefit, the others do not have to suffer. There is a point for countries to cooperate. Doing so can bring about mutual benefits. When these nationalists argue that international cooperation has no place anymore, they are only saying so because they have a myopic view on global affairs and they assume that everything is a zero-sum game when it, in fact, is not. For instance, many countries including Singapore have signed free trade agreements with each other because they know that doing so is mutually beneficial. The economies in Western Europe grew significantly when they removed trade barriers between each other and started to trade freely between themselves. Today, those countries are amongst the richest in the world, and their free trade benefitted every country in that region. It does not stop there. These European countries do not trade freely with anyone and everyone, they just do so between themselves. This shows that they know that they could not fully cooperate internationally because it hurts their economic interests, but they still cooperated with themselves to ‘maximise’ their national interests. Many countries across the world have also contributed to the fight against Ebola so that it would be effectively contained within Africa itself and that it would not spread and cause a pandemic within their own countries. Countries like Russia and Iran are cooperating and supporting the Assad regime in Syria not because they are doing the government forces a favour on purely ‘humanitarian grounds’, but because they want to exert their influence on the global stage and force others in the national community to acknowledge them. These examples prove that in this competitive world, international cooperation does indeed have a place, and on top of that, is essential if they want to fulfil their national interests.

Hence, in conclusion, even though there are some reasons to believe why international cooperation have no place in this competitive world, the fact that some problems cannot be solved alone and the fact that cooperation is essential to improve one’s own standing suggests otherwise. Moreover, when it comes to relieving a disaster, it is our duty as part of the international community to help a country struck by a disaster. As such, even though the world today is highly competitive and when countries across the world do things in their self-interest in order to stay competitive, international cooperation still has a place for various moral and pragmatic reasons.