Is public funding in the arts ever worthwhile? Discuss the question with reference to your country.

“Art is the lie that enables us to realise the truth”, as quoted from Pablo Picasso, the world-renowned artist. This quote represents how art allows and provides us with a perspective to look at the world. Art is a body of the Arts, which is the creative and imaginative embodiment of the distinctive disciplines, be it artwork or architectural designs, brings about both pros and cons. In Singapore, being an economically driven country would rather spend a larger portion of its public funds towards businesses and enterprising which is deemed more profitable towards the economy due to its practicality. However, I agree that there should be public funding for arts as it can attract tourists to boost the economy, allow the freedom of subject choices to groom local talents and to allow Singaporeans to return to their roots.

Some may argue that the Arts is largely only for the rich and spending public money on events would only affect the rich. This is largely a waste of public resources as in Singapore, public funds are supposed to help and push for further growth in Singapore, alongside with those who are less well to do. For example, the Affordable Art Fair and Arts Place are government-funded events to allow local and foreign artists to sell their works. Even though it is named the Affordable Art Fair, the lowest price of an art piece sold is nearly $8000, which in no way is affordable to any commoner around. This means that money spent may not have any returns to the government and only the wealthier are able to participate in such events. This also means that in fact, the less fortunate people do not reap any benefits from the public fund for arts when those funds could have been dedicated towards healthcare subsidies which are necessities for the society. However, this may not be fully true as with such events held locally, Singapore has gained placing in the Arts industry, allowing for the generation of more government revenue to tackle bread and butter issues with greater abilities.

Public money should be used towards supporting the Arts as it would attract tourists, allowing for greater tourist expenditure and thus greater revenue. For example, with the recent Night Festival event, where different types of art installations and performances were staged, it has attracted crowds of tourists to visit and enjoy the vibrant festival. This means that due to such unique events held in Singapore, it would attract tourists from all around the globe to grab a glimpse of the events. This is even more so as it is free to the public. Singapore, being an economy which gross domestic product is largely dependent on tourism of nearly twenty per cent, would reap the benefits of greater tourist expenditure. This would mean to say with such returns, the public funds are not wasted in a sense that it would attract tourists to generate more funds to help the needy.

Next, public funds are not considered to be wasted in terms of expenditure on Arts education in Singapore. This means that with expenditure on Art education in Singapore, students are exposed to a totally different disciplinary in such a heavily scientific education in Singapore. For example, with government-funded art institutions like Lasalle and Nanyang Academy of the Fine Arts, students who are interested in the field of the Arts are given the opportunity to take up Art education if they are keen to. Additionally, with Arts play in place in Secondary School, compulsory subjects like Combined Humanities act as an introduction to students about a disciplinary in the field. This would allow the students to be groomed to have alternative thinking and allow students who are less scientifically inclined to succeed and prosper in this largely scientific educational system. This means that with the expenditure of such public funds, students’ potential in the arts are fully utilised and maximised, allowing students to dwell into their potential and achieve, allowing everyone to be stretched and groomed to their fullest potential. This could not have been possible without such avenues and such talents may go to waste in the long run. Thus, public funds should be utilised in the Arts to allow people to discover their potential and prosper to contribute to society.

Lastly, public money should be used towards supporting the Arts as it would allow us to return us to our roots. This means that the arts in every individual’s culture in Singapore would give descendants a better understanding of one’s race. For example, in Singapore, distinct places of cultural background like Chinatown and Little India, have funds allocated in presenting important and distinct characteristic like architectural designs and religious places of worship that bring individuals back to their roots. This is additionally important for Singaporeans as being the social quilt, where there is a large diversity of races and religions in Singapore, it is important for citizens to return to their roots to have and know their placing in life. Thus, the Arts expenditure in terms of presenting cultural evidence would be largely beneficial to allow citizens to return to their roots of origin in terms of value and faith.

All in all, even though public funds could have been directed towards necessities like healthcare or education, the Arts should be funded in the case of Singapore where most of our bread and butter issues have been settled and where the Arts industry would generate benefits too. Additionally, the investment in the arts may be a sine qua non to my society’s status, bringing my society towards greater heights.

‘Public money should not be wasted on supporting the Arts.’ Discuss this view in light of your society today.

The arts allow people to express, to learn, and to live. It broadens perspectives and fosters understanding among different and diverse groups of people, which is especially essential in today’s society. Government-funded programmes and initiatives provide the youth in Singapore with a more holistic education, creating more opportunities. Additionally, to allow for easier and more affordable appreciation of the Arts, subsidies have been implemented to increase cultural awareness in this modern society. Furthermore, not only is the funding to support the Arts, not a waste, it may also be an investment for the country. Therefore, to improve this society we live in, the use of public money for supporting the Arts should be encouraged.

Some sceptics may argue that the Arts industry is very competitive, and only a handful of particularly talented individuals would have the ability to succeed in the Arts, hence many would not support the money being invested in a field whereby only a minority would benefit. For example, there are few local singers who have managed to break into the global market, such as The Sam Willows and Gentle Bones, out of the many who have been in the industry. The small percentage of those who are successful reinforces the stereotype that the Arts is not practical and only talented individuals should have an interest in the Arts. Hence public money should probably be invested in the facilities that benefit the larger majority, such as transport which has been so often complained about. However, in today’s modern society, to ensure that students are all-round and provided with ample opportunities to find their interests, the Government has introduced programmes to create a more holistic education, as opposed to a very rigid curriculum. For example, in publicly funded schools, there is the Arts and Music Elective Programme, which would allow students to have more options in the subjects they can take. In addition, there is the Singapore Youth Festival, organised every two years to take part and compete in. Since these are initiated from a young age, and it is compulsory for all children to attend Primary and Secondary school, approximately 10 years of formal education, creativity is encouraged by young and instilled. These programmes create a more holistic education and encourage youths to dare to pursue their interests, creating a larger talent pool for the Arts. In addition, recently, Nathan Hartono has achieved success in entering Sing! China, a singing competition held in China. He is one of the many local singers going global to pursue their dreams, proving that given the right support, it is possible for Singaporeans to break into the international market. Therefore, public money should continue to be used in supporting the Arts, to allow Singaporeans a chance to realise their aspirations.

In addition, the Arts can be used to increase cultural awareness, foster understanding in today’s society. For example, to allow Singaporeans easier access to the Arts, the government has subsided visits to the National Gallery of Singapore, where Singaporeans are able to enter for free. This would encourage more Singaporeans of all ages to try to appreciate and understand the Arts. There is emphasis placed on the importance of cultural awareness as the Arts helps to broaden perspectives and foster understanding. A single work of art can evoke different emotions and alternative viewpoints, and the Arts is a viable platform for people to interact and understand differences. In today’s world, it is even more essential to rid the tunnel-vision many of us possess, especially with all the controversial issues happening around the world. To ensure that the racial harmony and social cohesion in Singapore is not compromised, but strengthened instead when such controversial issues on discrimination and equality are brought up, the government has very rightfully used money to support the Arts as in the long-run, Singapore would be a more compassionate and graceful society with people who encompass empathy, which is key in the strengthening of a county which has so many different cultures and religions.

Furthermore, today, Singapore is a fast advancing society and with the influx of foreigners, the Arts industry is a viable job sector. Though in the past, when there was a lack of support for the Arts industry, many believed that a job in the Arts scene would not be practical nor sustainable. However, now, with increased competition, the Arts industry can be a considerable option with increased public funding, and the skills picked up in learning the Arts in schools, such as being detailed and precise, freedom of expression and so on, can be applied to many job sectors. For example, doing mass communication and design. Many forget that the Arts can come in many forms, such as photograph, literature, theatre, singing and the list goes on. With public money invested to support the Arts, many Singaporeans are given the opportunity to find their passion and have a sustainable job. With more people being able to find a job, there is less burden on the government to provide financial aid for the unemployed. Hence, though at the beginning, using public money to find the supporting of the Arts may seem to be a waste, in the long-run, the benefits of having a stronger economy and less people having to depend on the government, and hence money originally meant for aid, can be used in other sectors such as healthcare, therefore the government should support the Arts to see the potential benefits the Arts can bring for the people, and the economy. In addition, the government encourages the elderly in society to stay relevant when they take part in free activities such as arts and craft, and Zumba at community centres nationwide.

To conclude, in today’s society, mindsets are changing, and the Arts creates a bridge between the people and the Government’s ideals, such as fostering social harmony. In this competitive we live in, there is still a need to learn new skills to remain relevant, and the Arts functions to do that. Therefore, not only should public money be used to support the Arts, it should be continued, and even more could be put in for a brighter future.

‘International cooperation has no place in this competitive world.’ Discuss.

His name is Omar. A picture of a toddler caked-on with debris and dirt with blood dripping down his head sitting in an ambulance had taken the Internet by storm earlier this month. This gave an alarm and wake-up call to the world to stop the many wars and fights occurring in conflict-ridden countries such as Syria. Similarly, the effect of a single picture on the global community was seen when a picture of a toddler washed up on a beach was taken and posted on the internet depicting the thousands of lives lost at sea as a result of the Syrian Refugee crisis. These pictures had no doubt created an increased sense of urgency and pressure on agents of international cooperation to intervene and collectively put an end to the many events occurring in the world. However, the real question is, how effective is international cooperation in the world today? The questioning of its effectiveness has then led to the debacle whether international cooperation is still relevant in today’s’ increasingly competitive world, which may cause countries to prioritize their national interests over that of global interests. However, this essay argues that some issues are unable to be solved single-handedly and require a collective effort to overcome. Furthermore, the world has become increasingly interlinked as a result of globalization and hence certain internal issues may, in turn, affect other countries. The increased competitiveness has also instead, made international cooperation more relevant as it can bring about economic benefits to be parties involved. Therefore, there is no doubt that international cooperation still has a place in today’s competitive world.

The characteristic of today’s’ world, which is that of an increase in connectivity, has made international cooperation extremely useful as issues affecting a country can, in turn, affect another. Globalization has no doubt brought about greater mobility of goods and services, labour, technological know-how and capital. As a result of this phenomenon, countries and the global community are more interlinked causing issues that may seem to only affect the internal stability of a country to affect other countries as well. For example, the annual haze that has been occurring as a result of the illegal deforestation in Indonesia has greatly affected its regional neighbours such as Singapore. As a result of the haze that has reached unhealthy and dangerous levels, the non-material standard of living of many in the region has decreased as they suffer from health problems such as breathing difficulties. Furthermore, the bad air quality has resulted in a loss of tourism earnings for many countries such as Singapore whose attractions and skylines were drowned by the haze. International cooperation has played a part in helping Indonesia to alleviate the problem, where regional countries had offered aid and assistance in taming the fires. For example, Singapore has offered assistance in the form of cloud seeding and dispatched many relief helicopters. Furthermore, as a result of the international pressures and attention on this issue, the Indonesian government had recently been able to obtain a sum of money by the company responsible to pay for the damage done. Therefore, as a result of the link between countries, issues that affect one country may, in turn, affect others. Another example would be that of epidemics and diseases such as Ebola that stemmed from Sierra Leone. With greater mobility through great inventions such as the aeroplane and boats, these viral and transmissible diseases could cause a global pandemic and have the ability to wipe out billions of people at once. Thus, with international cooperation playing a part, aid and assistance would be rendered to affected countries to treat and find antidotes to the disease. Therefore, although the world is increasingly competitive, the increased interconnectivity has made international cooperation to be of importance.

However, critics may argue that as a result of a more competitive global environment, cooperation between countries is often hindered by the fact that they may prioritize their national interests over global interests. As we move to a more competitive environment, where the common mindset is that of the ‘survival of the fittest’, countries are often finding ways to outshine other countries and to better upgrade their comparative advantage. This is to prevent other countries from eroding their competitiveness and thus, ensuring their relevance in today’s’ fast-paced world. Due to this mindset, efforts to tackle global problems are often rendered to be ineffective and useless, as many tend to prioritize their own interests even though a greater good could be achieved. For example, in the fight for environmental conservation by reducing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, international cooperation has been proven thus far to be ineffective. In the Kyoto Protocol established in 2002, this idea of prioritization of national interests can be seen as many big countries such as China and Russia had pulled out upon the very beginning of discussions. Furthermore, the USA has yet to ratify the protocol, stating that doing so would only result in great economic loss to the American economy. The ratification by these larger countries is important as these economic powerhouses are the ones that churn out the immerse amount of greenhouse gases but yet, are not willing to sacrifice economic growth for environmental conservation to be achieved. Furthermore, countries play the blame game by pushing responsibility to other countries. For example, developed nations blame developing nations as their current industrialization are the ones greatly increasing the production of these gases while developing nations are blaming the developed nations for their past industrialization. This ‘game’ that they play puts across the idea of unwillingness to accept responsibility, and thus, limit the place and effectiveness of the role of international cooperation in today’s world where countries fight for their economic prosperity and power. Hence, due to this, international cooperation can be said to not have a place in our competitive world.

On the contrary, international cooperation can be said to be even more important amidst a more competitive environment as it can, in turn, result in mutually beneficial results that ensure their relevance in the world. Small economies and countries such as that of Singapore can be said to be a country that can greatly benefit from international cooperation economically. For small countries, the increase in competitiveness of many countries can threaten its long-term survival as larger economic powerhouses have the ability to develop and thus, replace and erode the comparative advantages of these small economies. Since these small economies largely gain their economic prosperity through trade and seek external sources of growth, their economic survival and relevance could be easily wiped out. However, with the role of international cooperation, the setting up of economic groups such as Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Asia-Pacific Economic Corporation (APEC) could essentially bring about lots of economic benefits. For example, through ASEAN, Singapore has gained access to many free-trade agreements and treaties that enable her to expand her industries and obtain growth. Another example of the role of international cooperation in the setting of a competitive world would be the South China Sea dispute. The role of international cooperation is extremely crucial for small countries as amidst larger economies, they may be bullied and ignored. With the discovery of the importance of reefs and sea-coasts as they contain hidden reserves of oil, many countries such as the Philippines, China and Vietnam claimed territories in the South China Sea. However, small countries often face the wrath of bigger economies such as China, which often treads onto their claimed territories. For example, in 2014, China had crossed into Vietnam’s claimed territories with an offshore oilrig, resulting in great protests in Vietnam. However, with international cooperation, these small countries that are part of ASEAN, are able to garner strength and support to stand up against China. Subsequently, the Philippines and many other countries have reported China to international organizations such as the International Court of Justice. As a result of this, recently, China historical claims on the South China Sea due to its nine-dash line has been rejected, as it’s claimed territories were not within 12 nautical miles of its mother-land. Therefore, with the help of international cooperation, the fight to obtain natural resources to gain an advantage in the competitive world can be utilized against larger economies that seek to bully smaller ones.

Furthermore, some issues are unable to be solved solely by one nation and thus, causing international cooperation to play a role in today’s’ competitive world. The sheer extent of some issues are too large for a nation to solve and although the world experiences greater competitiveness, it is often in their moral obligation to help another country. For example, in the situation of natural disasters that may occur, such as that of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster in 2011, Haiti Earthquake in 2010 and the typhoon Haiyan in 2014, international cooperation is said to be extremely crucial. Although America is currently facing debt in the global economy, it has provided humanitarian aids in many disaster-stricken countries and has aided them in their recovery. For example, it is one of the largest donator of aid and assistance in the Haiti earthquake as well as during the typhoon Haiyan, contributing billions of dollars to alleviate the aftermath of these events. Another example would be that Venezuela had helped in the Haiti earthquake by cancelling some of the debt generated by Haiti’s import expenditure. This shows that moral obligation does take form in our increasingly competitive world as many countries had given up economic prosperity to assist many countries that face mass destruction due to disasters. Furthermore, some issues such as terrorism are of such a large scale that international cooperation is often needed to overcome and tackle it. Terrorism as a result of the Syrian Crisis is of such a large scale that international cooperation is needed, as the government itself is unable to control and place an end to it. With the role of cooperation amongst the former Cold-War rivals, America and Russia, they have recently agreed in a proposed plan to counter the terrorist threats such as the Islamic State in Syria. By placing an end to the Syrian crisis, the refugee crisis would then be alleviated and the 2,500 lives lost in the sea by May 2016 would be reduced. Therefore, even though the increasingly competitive world may cause countries to think about their own problems and benefits first, issues that require humanitarian aid and assistance still requires the role of international cooperation to play a part in alleviating unnecessary human suffering.

All in all, even though the world is increasingly competitive and countries tend to prioritize their economic priorities, international cooperation still has a place in the world. The world would be a better place with collective effort and cooperation.

To what extent is poor governance responsible for the increasing insecurity in many countries today?

Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, once said, “Leadership is key,” and this was one of the four guiding principles in which he believed would lead to good governance. It is true; governments require people with great intellect and leadership to run a country effectively. That said, the reverse is also very true as well: a poorly run country is due to poor governance that stems from poor leadership. Poor governance also leads to a whole host of problems that will threaten the security of not just that one country, but also every single country in the world. This security refers to not just one’s safety from wars and gunfight, but also secure in terms of sustaining one’s life, being able to roam about knowing you have a job and a stable flow of income, as well as knowing that you would not have someone crazy shouting “Allahu Akbar!” then blowing himself up. As such, I would feel strongly for poor governance being largely responsible for the increasing insecurities in many countries today.

A sign of poor governance is clearly seen from a failing economy, in which comes from ineffective leadership and is completely responsible for the increasing uncertainty of one’s job prospect. A person’s employment status is mainly due to the health of the economy, in which the more flourishing the economy is, the more jobs citizens would have; vice versa, there can also be massive unemployment when the economy fails, as evidently shown in the Great Depression back in the 1930s, as well as the 2008 US Subprime Crisis that occurred not too long ago. A country’s citizens would lose their jobs if a country were to experience a recession, in which the government would then need to attempt rectify it, by spending its government reserves in attempts to start the recovery process. It might sound like the government is doing something to help the people, but it is not the case when the government does not have a thorough understanding of the economy, whether certain options are appropriate or not. The government would have completely failed their job if the country’s economy is unable to recover after so many years; just look at Greece! Their economy has stagnated for such a long time and they owe such huge debts, and even after being bailed out several times, the situation remains as such. This is clearly the government’s ineffectiveness in helping the country recover, and the one’s suffering the most is the people as they would have to live with the rising insecurities of not having a job or fear of losing their jobs if they have one. Hence, the government is very responsible for their own insecurities.

Also, governments are also clearly the ones who are responsible when it comes to the extreme suffering of its people, when their people are uncertain their own lives and fate. People, who are experiencing poverty, do not have access to a constant supply of food and water with some not even a shelter over their heads. A person is considered to be in absolute poverty if he or she lives on under US$1.90 a day, and it is a really miserable amount compared to most of us in affluent societies. It is undeniable that these countries experiencing poverty are receiving help, it is clearly seen that these countries are experiencing poverty even with international help. This would then raise questions about whether the aid received is actually delivered to the citizens, and who is the prime suspect? Without a doubt, it is the government. The government is the first to receive help, as they are expected to distribute it to its people so that their lives can be improved. However, this expectation is not a reality in many cases; for example, Ethiopia receives so much support that almost 90% of their government spending is funded by international aid, but a vast majority of their population is still experiencing poverty. This would be obviously due to corruption going on in the government, as the government is free to usurp as much as it wants. Who is there to check and stop the government? As such, the government is clearly to be blamed, and they are the ones mainly responsible for the suffering of its people due to poverty, due to corruption that leads to poor governance.

However, sometimes an unstable situation in a country may not be completely due to the government itself, as they might not be able to control what is happening hence some might posit that the government is not responsible for the ever growing threat of attacks. When it comes to security in terms of one’s physical safety, a government is obviously a main protector. However, a government can only control what occurs within the country, and not what comes in from other countries. The increasingly globalized world today gives terrorism an easier passport to create chaos in many countries. Terror groups are usually developed and grown under the radar of the government, as evidently seen by the spew of terror groups that have appeared over the last few decades. Governments are unable to deal with them as these groups are just so elusive. The terror groups then carry out their attacks not just in their own country, but also in foreign countries as well. In the case of the Paris attacks in November 2015, the French government is obviously not at fault, as they are neither belligerent nor incapable. The group responsible for the attacks was the Islamic State or more commonly known as ISIS; they came from Iraq and Syria, in which they were able to develop and was also due to poor governance, but rather foreign intervention. In Syria, ISIS was able to rise due to the falling significance and power of their president Bashar al-Assad, which was due to the United States oppressing him. As such, it was not due to poor governance that led to these terror groups rising, but rather it was due to uncoordinated intervention efforts by other countries. Therefore, poor governance is said to be not responsible.

Even though it can be said that foreign intervention led to these rising insecurities, and not poor governance, the very fact that foreign intervention was needed shows that the government was somewhat incapable, hence poor governance is responsible for the rising insecurities. The requirement of countries coming in to help in terms of military aid would already show that the government is ineffective in terms of managing internal conflicts. This would be even more so when foreign military involvement is for the purpose of going against the incumbent government, supporting the people that have been unhappy with government. One responsibility of the government is to take care of the well-being of its citizens and to keep them happy and prosperous. This may not occur in some countries, in which the ineffective government, laden with only thoughts of fulfilling their own personal desires, does not care for its people at all. These governments turn to authoritarian governance, which seeks to completely rule its people. However, try as they might, there is always a possibility of an uprising, that would lead to a civil war. This would be prominently shown in what happened in South Sudan, where the authoritarian government was taken down after fighting against its people during the Arab Spring. What comes after that was even worse, where an attempted democracy for its government did not work out well, and resulted in more civil wars. These fightings claim the lives of not just those directly involved, but also innocent ones, due to the indiscriminate bombings and shootings. These innocent people would live in constant fear as they do not know when a hail of bullets would come raining down on them. These insecurities came from the very fact that it all started with poor governance, which caused unhappiness and led to this whole chain of disastrous man-made events. It is not just South Sudan alone that face such an insecurity, but also countries like Somalia and Iraq that it all began with poor governance. Therefore, incapable governments are to be held responsible for the insecurity in countries around the world today.

Governments are expected to, at the very least, ensure that their people are safe. The security of knowing one can stay alive would be the most crucial and assuring one, as one would know that there is still a tomorrow that can be worked on. If an incapable government cannot even ensure this, then the government can be considered useless and ineffective. Yet sadly, these horrendous governments tend to stay in power for a long time, due to corruption and who knows what other reasons. Therefore, I feel that poor governance is to be held responsible, as they are the ones who have the ability to make a significant change, but they just simply refuse to, due to their own personal agenda, incapability and corruption as well.

Efforts to save the environment will not yield positive results. Do you agree?

There is a quote that goes “The world is your oyster.” Indeed, in today’s globalised world, we are free to travel and explore almost any part of the world. As we savour and immerse ourselves in the beauty of our environment, have we ever stopped to consider that given Man’s current pace of urbanisation and actions, this beautiful environment we have now will soon be gone? Environmentalists may argue that it is not futile to try and save the environment because they believe in the hope that when Mankind mends its ways, saving the environment would be possible. However, I am of the view that efforts to save the environment will not yield positive results due to the nature of our world at large today.

Naturally, in the 21st century, where the majority of the countries are developed and globalised, people will look towards short-term goals to satisfy their needs. As consumers aiming to maximise utility and welfare, we accomplish tasks and do things which we feel will benefit us in one way or another. Some corporations which desire to profit-maximise may also see the futility of trying to save the environment. Though outwardly, consumers, households and corporations alike may claim to try and save the environment, more often than not, many forgo the environment in order to pursue their own interests and motives. For example, the Kyoto Protocol is a case in point that highlights even though countries may have agreed to a particular standardisation of what they will do for the environment, such as reducing carbon emissions and decreasing their carbon footprint, some countries, have broken their word and have continued with their rapid pace of industrialisation to further increase output. Thus, it is clear that Man, in order to meet and satisfy each others’ needs, will likely give up whatever they have promised to do to help the environment, making it futile to try and save the environment.

Moreover, it is futile to try and save the environment because, in reality, our actions have resulted in our environment’s tipping point. This means that we have reached a point of no return and no actions or efforts no matter how redeemable can save the environment, thus rendering these efforts futile. For instance, NASA has already ventured into the Moon to discover and find out more about its environment and deduce the likelihood of its inhabitation by Man. Reports on the Moon’s surface having droplets of water, an essential to life, sparked hope in people globally that there is a chance for us to inhabit the Moon. This mindset comes about because the majority of us acknowledges the dire straits our environment is currently in – that is reality. Hence, given that the probability to save the environment is slim and the outlook and prospects of redeeming the environment that is dim, it can be said that it is indeed futile to try and save the environment.

However, environmentalists argue that it is not futile to try and save the environment. These advocates of our environment consistently emphasise that the effort of every individual count towards saving the environment. In Singapore, the BioGaia organisation advocates for its cause through various channels like social media. Music videos based on the theme of “Save My World” featuring citizens doing their part for the environment can be seen in the video. Other organisations like the World Wildlife Fund also advocate for the saving of our environment through the reduction of deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest. Truly, to these pro-environment groups and organisations, saving the environment might not be such a dim prospect after all.

However, though this view holds true for some groups of people, it is not true for everyone. Though the efforts of these individuals are important and are valued, it is vital to note that the effort from everyone outweighs individual efforts. Some people like environmentalists do their best to try and save the environment as they see the value of it. On the contrary, many of us do not wish to inconvenience ourselves to recycle our drink bottles simply by dropping them into recycling bins. These seemingly small acts to us are the complete opposite of what we perceive them to be. On a larger whole, if everyone recycles, then our recycling rates will surely increase drastically. Singapore’s landfill island, Pulau Semakau, will be completely filled up by 2025, in eight years’ time. This is largely due to low recycles rates in Singapore. Hence, it is evident that everyone’s efforts to save the environment counts towards saving the environment more. This is provided we, as individuals, put in our effort and play our part to save our environment.

In conclusion, there is still some hope that things may change, people may change and become more environmentally-friendly.  However, mindsets take a long while to change, actions take time to cultivate and habits require time to instil. Given the fast-paced nature of our world today, saving the environment is a second priority to many. Thus, given our current state, I feel that it is indeed futile to try and save the environment to a large extent.

We worship the young and scorn the old. What is your opinion?

In today’s world media plays an important role in shaping one’s thoughts and perception. The media today constantly focuses on the young and it is often seen that due to this the older generation is disdained and completely disregarded. Though this is true that this is the case in many scenarios, a closer analysis reveals that this trend is prevalent in the industries where profit-making is the only goal. These industries worship the young so that they can maximize their profits from them.

It is evident that society is fixated with the young; young people are idolized and are seen in many spheres of our lives. The media is filled with young people; they are seen in advertisements, television and are also rule the music industry. The dominance of young people in these areas results from our admiration for the young to the extent that the older generation is completely side-lined. The media is filled with advertisements featuring the young and Apple iPod advertisements are an example of that wherein youth are seen grooving to today’s music. The fashion industry is crammed with models that are barely in their 20s. These examples are a reflection of today’s society which shows that we worship the young

On the contrary, when the question is of the older generation, there are preconceived notions about them in our minds. Old people are often considered to be mentally less acute and are deemed to be unfit in the work sphere. They are often perceived as crabby and difficult people and these perceptions sketch a negative picture of the older generation. These ideas about the old have taken roots in our mindset and therefore, In Singapore, many older people are not offered jobs because people think they are less alert and productive. It’s true that the older generation is not as adept in using technology as the younger generation and technology is an important part of today’s work sphere. One might argue that it is due to the skills that the older people are being denied jobs. However, it is also true that along with our notions about the old, people also believe that the old do not contribute towards society at all. This is also evident from the fact that many elderly are sent to old age homes as they are considered an inconvenience in their own families. Hence, the aforementioned examples reflect our contempt for the older generation in society.

It would be completely wrong to believe that we worship the young over because of their youth and our attitudes towards them are unjustifiable. For example, in the sports field athletes’ youth is desirable because it is the peak point in their careers. It is completely unfair to believe that we worship the youth because there are many instances where the young are subjected to harsh treatments from society. As we celebrate their youth we also criticize their naivety and immature behaviour. For instance, the ‘Yob’ culture in Britain is condemned because of their disruptive acts and is disapproved by people all over the world. When young celebrities indulge in wrong activities they are not worshipped but are harshly disparaged by the media and society. Therefore, Believing that we only worship the young is a flawed statement because when the youth commit any mistakes they are also ruthlessly reproached by us.

Similarly, it is an intense exaggeration when we say that we disregard the older generation. A major part of society understands and considers the fact that someday we will pass through the same ageing stage in life. Many cultures value the significance of the older generation and the importance of respecting them. In Singapore, respecting the elderly is central to its values and was even encouraged by our minister Lee Kuan Yew. The older generation is vital to society because they have experience and years of accumulated wisdom. In the Film industry names like Maggie Smith and Judi Dench are still taken because of their strong acting skills. Many advertisements today have started featuring the old and this has helped in sending across the message that the old are as important as the young of the society.

In conclusion, it is a rushed assumption to believe that only the youth is worshipped in the society while the old neglected. These are extreme views that do not hold true in today’s society where age is just a number. There are some aspects of the young that are celebrated and there are other characteristics of the old which are celebrated. Both the generations’ importance cannot be denied in society.

‘Modern transportation has brought the world closer together.’ How far is this beneficial?

In 1962, when the U.S President John F. Kennedy spoke to the American people and the rest of the world on the American Space Project which aimed to put Americans on the moon and begin a new form of travel, he helped to revive the sense of unbridled opportunity and hope in a tumultuous world arena plagued by Cold War politics. He famously said, “We (the USA) choose to go to the moon and do all the things we do, not because they are easy but because they are hard.” It was indeed amazing to see that something as simple as a new means of transportation being generated by the space race could rally a nation like America, and usher in a revolution upon the already existing modern transportation methods and infrastructure, connecting people, businesses, governments and more, together in ways people never thought was possible just a few centuries ago. Arguably, the latest advent of modern transportation has been drawn into one of the greatest conflicts of modern human history: transnational terrorism, which has in many cases brought the world to its feet. Thankfully, that pessimistic outlook is overshadowed by transportation developments in defense. Also, we should not forget that modern transportation has developed trade, tourism and even systems for commerce, through the effect of bringing the world closer together than ever before. It may very likely be the case that modern transportation is largely beneficial, although we must first dig deeper in order to come to a conclusion.

Undoubtedly, modern transportation has made the world so close, such that transportation itself has become both a target for terrorism, and a vehicle for it. Terrorism is certainly one of the greatest worldwide concerns at present, regardless of whether current approaches are effective or not. Modern methods of transportation such as mass transit through trains for instance, have proven to be alluring targets for terrorists. In an enclosed, moving space, people are put at their most vulnerable. The first thing that one may think of when getting on a train or plane, is not whether terrorists will mount an attack within the vehicle, but rather about simply getting from point A to point B. Too many times, have radical extremists taken advantage of this, as seen for example, in the 1995 gassing of the Tokyo Subway by a cult group known as Aum Shinrykyo, killing 12 and injuring thousands. Modern transportation has actually made the idea of mass transit scarier than ever before. After all, practically everyone will recall the events of 9/11 whenever they pass through airport security today. 9/11 was the most deadly set of attacks on U.S soil thus far. Al Qaeda agents hijacked United Airlines and US Airways planes and deliberately crashed then into the World Trade Center towers in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington DC and into a rural field in Pennsylvania. Certainly, modern transportation methods have brought terrorists closer to us. Despite this, the above effects have motivated governments to step up security throughout transport networks, such as that of stringent security checks at ports of entry and exit. Indeed, while one incident is one too many, transportation in itself has helped to guard against such attacks by creating increased vigilance, and arguably has also contributed to a rise in new methods of warfare against terrorism.

New methods of transportation have helped greatly in the war on terror, providing a safer and more collaborative method of warfare. Many of such transportation methodologies have existed prior to the outbreak of international terrorism, while other are more recent developments. Take drones, unmanned artillery vehicles as an example. By being able to transport weapons and use them remotely has arguably saved a lot of the costs incurred by flying F-35 jets into war zones, although the latter is still being used frequently. It reduces the potential for casualties by targeting specific areas or people that should be eliminated. B-52 bomber planes have also returned to the Middle East zone of conflict in a bid to sustain the war efforts. Unlike commercial jets, these military jets not just transports military personnel, they can also hold great amounts of ammunition, weapons, bombs and other military equipment. Couple this with the international resolve to defeat terrorism by countries like Britain and France, and even to some extent, Russia, militaries have been able to execute their missions more effectively than having boots on the ground. This resolve shows the hope of all countries to finally putting a stop to terrorism can be put into efficient action. In that light, international terrorism has become less of a problem when we know that there are also good stewards of modern methods of transportation.

Moving on to the economy, modern methods of transportation has most certainly helped to forge new business ties between countries, and even between countries and firms themselves. This can ultimately be linked back to the globalization of economic activity, where transportation technologies have increased global connectivity and are still slated to continue improving. We see this manifesting thorough the growth of international trade and flow of Foreign Direct Investment. The European Union for example, allowed the free movement within the 27 countries that it is made up of. The elimination of border checkpoints allows a smoother commute either via air or train, allowing businesses to move their staff ever more easily from country to country to maximize productivity. Modern transport methods have essentially made the possibility of various countries becoming cores of economic activity a reality. Singapore itself is a transportation hub with the world’s best airport, as rated by Skytrax, and one of the busiest maritime ports in the region and the world. Even methods of transporting commodities, such as undersea oil pipelines or oil tankers have given rise to the oil refining industry in Singapore, which generates a huge part of our GDP. All these methods of transportation bring long-run benefits, as business will continue to develop wherever it is conducive and physically connectable to do so. Hence, we are seeing that modern methods of transportation are indeed beneficial to a large extent.

Modern transportation has likewise created or improved new commerce systems that create a more personal connection between customers and firms, thereby bringing about greater consumer experiences that fuel the growth of the retail industry, particularly online. The rise of e-commerce is perhaps, another phenomenon of this increasingly close world. With methods like airfreight and containerized shipping, transactions have become more efficient, cheap and fast. Take Amazon.com, the world’s largest airline retailer for example. As a result of business deals with air freight carriers like UPS and DHL, Amazon is able to get their products into the hands of their international customers in as little as 2 days. This inevitably creates greater efficiency and productivity for the firm. Recently, Amazon even introduced its own brand of air freighters known as “Prime Air”. Such a development was meant to improve shipping reliability for its “Prime” customers, just one of the many modes of transport that they are taking advantage of in order to provide a better and more competitive customer experience. As modern methods of transportation further connect the world, ecommerce is likely to keep booming, and that has a profoundly positive impact on the world economy.

Finally, modern transportation has transformed the tourism industry, bringing people across the world to learn and experience the different faces of the world, thereby leading to both economic and social benefits. The development of tourism not just has to do with improved aircraft, but also maritime vessels, which serve as means for holiday cruises. Now, people can get up close with the glaciers of Alaska, or the majestic coasts of South Australia, places which are generally harder to get to on foot or via automobile. With ports of call at many locations, it increases the accessibility of many more locations. Moving on to commercial jet aircraft, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is one of the most fuel-efficient planes in the world at present, and has grown to be to backbone of many airline carriers’ long-haul operations. Greater fuel efficiency and customer-centric amenities have not only made unconventional air routes more profitable, but also enabled the connection of culture. In 2016 alone, U.S-based United Airlines has launched a plethora of new routes from their hub in San Francisco, California, to places like Xi’an, China, Singapore and Auckland, New Zealand. This is enabled the phasing out of stopovers, transforming the way people travel long haul. We could still argue that tourism “broadens one’s mind”, but ultimately, the onus of that is on the tourist, not the method of transportation. Certainly, tourism may not always be beneficial for all. Take African Savannah vacations and their effects on natives as an example. Nonetheless, new transportation methods have still managed to make that trip more sustainable, from increased consumer experience, to lower carbon emissions. Hence, it could very well be the case that modern methods of transportation bring the world closer than ever before is indeed beneficial.

In conclusion, modern methods of transportation have greatly affected all of our lives, in one way or another, and the world has never been brought closer together than before. From a pessimists’ point of view, this would open the door to threats unimaginable. Still, as history and reality have also proven to an even stronger extent, the effects of new methods of transportation have brought tremendous economic and social benefit, and from the way, transport is still developing now, a new sustainable future of transport awaits on the horizon.

“Is freedom of expression always desirable?” Comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should freedom of speech be protected no matter the cost?

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

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

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

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

The popularity of a leader is necessary. How far do you agree?

In the wake of 2016’s Trump’s road to the Presidency of the United States, many are now left questioning whether a good leader should always be popular as populism has shown us that popularity can result in decisions that are likely to be deemed as unwise in the future. Whether or not a leader is deemed to be good should be measured by their popularity but by the actions the individual display and his or her own conduct. Hence, I am a strong believer the popularity of a leader is necessary and do not agree with the statement.

            Opponents of my view would argue that popularity reflects the will of the people and the leader is thus considered good because he is their voice. They even exclaim that a good leader needs to be popular to push forth their agenda against dissent from other sections of society. In the case of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his popularity allowed him to stand firm against the backdrop of an ever-increasing dissent towards migrants and even push through with his desire to welcome more migrants into Canada. Of course, the fact that his father was also a former Prime Minister surely also helped elevate his position against opponents calling for a more conservative approach to their immigration policy after witnessing the backlash in other western countries as a result of a lax immigration policy. Yet his popularity with the masses not only ensured his policy is not jeopardised but it also reflects the warm welcoming attitude of Canadians towards migrants. In this aspect, he is a clear example of a popular good leader as his actions are not affected by xenophobia and also represents the will of the people who elected his party into power. Henceforth one can see why these opponents would argue that a good leader should always be popular.

            However, Trudeau is a rare case of a popular good leader in the world today as populism tends to pick candidates that much differ from the definition of good, let alone a leader. While a good leader may have been popular at the start, changing sentiments during the leader’s time in power may result in their popularity dipping. Yet it would be unfair to brand them as poor leaders simply because they were not as popular as before. When former US President Obama came into power, he was very popular among the majority of Americans, even among Republicans, as he was the first black President which symbolised a new era where politics is not dominated by white males. During his governance however, he enacted bills such as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and blocked the construction of the Keystone Pipeline XL. His decisions made him fall out with certain members of society as many did not like the idea of having to pay more premiums on insurance due to the ACA and subsequently led to his popularity diminishing from those who, otherwise, would have paid less on insurance. Even though this act was not popular, it has helped to insure many Americans, so much so that by the end of his Presidency the number of uninsured Americans were at its lowest ever in history, at around 7%. He also saved the American economy from the brink of collapse in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis by increasing government spending and thus national debt, something many fiscal conservatives such as Bill O’Reilly detested and lost popularity within these segments. His actions may not have appreciated by the rich who would have been able to weather through the storm but it helped millions of Americans to get back into the workforce. He is, in this case, undoubtedly a good leader as the forsaken his popularity in exchange for policies that helped the people. The effects of his decisions may not have been appreciated then but surely in the future we would look back and say he has done well. In fact, the recent rejection of ‘Trumpcare’ by Republicans themselves shows that they understand how beneficial the ACA is to their voters. Hence a good leader need not always be popular as some of their decisions to do the right thing will inevitably rile up certain segments of society despite these decisions being done in the best interest of the people.

             A good leader should also demonstrate valued qualities such as empathy and being determined, and popularity in this case would be relative to whoever is being asked an opinion of the leader. A local example would be that of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Yes, he is a figure worshipped back here as he is someone seen by many as the sole person who oversaw the rapid transformation of Singapore into the metropolis it is today. However, on the international stage opinions differ as to ensure the smooth transformation of the country, he and his party stifled political dissent and created a one-party state to rule over the masses. This is something frowned upon by many foreigners and critics overseas, especially in liberal western countries, as they value the freedom of speech. Although these critics may condemn his for such atrocities against the right to free speech, they cannot deny that he has been an effective leader as his iron-fist rule helped him to push forth is will for a corruption-free governing body while also one that seeks to include rather than exclude. The government he set up and ran focused on racial cohesion and the betterment of the lives of Singaporeans and made sure leaders are held accountable through being as transparent as possible. It is these qualities and policies that defined him as a good leader for not only was he responsible but also planned for a future without him in control and ensured successive leaders as equally good as he were, if not better. Thus, good leadership is not defined by popularity as it is the quintessential traits of integrity, empathy, and transparency – and the ability to turn words into action – that defines a good leader.

            Finally, a good leader could be one which may not need to be popular at all. These are leaders a society needs rather than wants as they would push forth reforms that other would shy away from for it could jeopardise their careers. These are leaders that may go against certain conventions deeply embedded in society. For example, President Xi Jinping is one feared by many political elites for stamping out corruption in the Chinese Communist Party, something many officials benefitted from before he came into power. He further irritates the affluent in China by criticising their extravagant lifestyle. His governance is one which started out as highly unpopular for the incumbents in the politburo as many elites who benefitted from corruption were under close scrutiny. His strongman persona is one feared by the many other countries contesting in the South China Sea. This level of unpopularity does not mean his is a bad leader, rather the converse as he sought to stamp out corruption internally while externally pushed forth China’s national interest with unwavering might. He could be unpopular now with both outsiders and insiders alike but his actions surely benefitted China and is going to further benefit China in the future. Outsiders could potentially come to like him as he started many initiations such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank aimed to support the building of infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific region. Insiders will find that a less corrupt government is one which offers more opportunities that one can grab based on merit rather than based on connections. Hence through this example we can see that a good leader need not be one who is popular at all now.

In conclusion, although there are cases of good leaders being popular with the masses, these cases are far and few. This is simply because the desire to do good would inflict short term pain on those who have been wrong all this time and many would resist change, even if it is for the better. However, given time and greater understanding, I am sure we can come to appreciate just how good these leaders were and can disagree with the statement that ‘a good leader should always be popular’.