Gp Lah! – Page 59 – Get moving lah!

Retirement years are golden years. Do you agree?

For many young people, “retirement” is synonymous to “rest”: You have already done your part, now you can enjoy the rest of your life without working and still get paid. While this notion is obviously overly simplistic and presumptuous, it is partly true that the retirement years seem to promise one with many perks that he or she could only dream of during their working years, such as almost endless leisure time, guaranteed payment and freedom from commitments to do whatever they want. However, in my society in Vietnam, retirement years are never considered “golden”, in fact, they often bring one much worries as they usually mean less financial security and loneliness, as well as lack of healthcare and overall less fulfilling life.

Stressed-out and overworked adults often have the delusion that retirement years would be the end goals of their working life, during which they will have much fewer work commitments and thus would finally be free from such a stressful lifestyle. They dream that they would have all the time and freedom in the world to travel, pursue their hobbies or to simply spend more time with their children and family. After all, who would complain about too much leisure time if they can afford it? This mentality can be seen in the trend of enrichment classes, not for children but retired adults, ranging from cooking to dancing to flower arranging being organized and are very well-received by those with a lot of time on their hands after retirement. More religious people also see retirement as an opportunity to compensate for ignoring their spiritual growth during the busy years, and dream of using this free time to journey to pagodas and churches all over the country in pilgrimages tours tailored specifically for retirees. They also rather naively think that retirement years allow them to spend more time with their family and children to make up for the time that they could not while they were busy working. This mindset is particularly popular in Vietnam, where traditional Eastern values of putting family first are still highly upheld; and it is not uncommon for several generations to stay in the same house, which would certainly allow them to easily care for other members. Overall, many have understandable, but not so realistic dreams about the endless enjoyment in their retirement years.

These dreams, in fact, are overly optimistic and superficial, since they forgot to consider two other very important factors that would allow such enjoyment and leisure: money and health. While it is true that retired people have considerably more time, they might not have the financial capacity and energy to follow through with their plans. The majority (over 80 per cent) of Vietnamese live in rural areas and thus primarily do agricultural works, meaning that for them “retirement” comes when one is no longer capable of such laborious tasks and has to stop working. Certainly, they do not have any kind of pension or guaranteed form of payments, making daily sustenance an issue, not to mention costly leisure such as travelling. Thus, for these people, retirement often means becoming dependent on their children and thus they are no longer able to participate in recreational activities. For city-dwellers, the situation is slightly better cine most people either work for the government or private firms; however, they fail to realize that while their pension is significantly less comparing to their working wages, their living expenses do not decrease simply because they have retired. Prices of goods, house rents and other commodities might even continue to rise due to Vietnam’s growing economy’s vulnerability to inflation. While it is not impossible to carry on with their previous lifestyle, looking forward to a luxurious lifestyle with extravagant trips to exotic places or shopping sprees is simply unrealistic. Furthermore, retirees are often 55 to 70 years old, meaning that their health has deteriorated considerably compared to their prime working years. Those who use to do laborious tasks often face bones and respiratory systems diseases, while office workers have their shares of cancer and heart diseases due to their sedentary lifestyle. Vietnam’s lack of a comprehensive healthcare system also leaves many people without healthcare insurance, making it very difficult for them to obtain affordable healthcare. With such poor health conditions, it is rather difficult for a retired adult to follow the adventurous plans he made when he was 27. Hence, in Vietnam, retirement years are not golden as it leaves people financially insecure and often means poorer health.

Those who still insist on viewing retirement years through rose-tinted glasses might argue that despite the lack of money, a retired adult can still enjoy life through simpler things, such as human interactions and a sense of community, what they might have missed out on due to their previously hectic lifestyle. They would back up this claim by pointing out that Vietnamese society, in fact, has very strong grassroots organizations in residential areas, and would frequently conduct meetings and activities to facilitate bonding between members in the neighbourhood. This community, as they would enthusiastically claim, would ensure that retired adults have companionship and can still lead an active meaningful lifestyle even after retirement.

However, it is still evident that retired adults feel much lonelier after leaving their workplace, in fact, many were in shock and terrified of no longer having work and wish to continue working to have a sense of purpose. These grassroots communities might provide short-term relief for these people, but in the long run, it essentially confines them to interactions with people in the same situation, further drilling into them the notion that they now belong to a “group” of old, non-productive people of the society. Activities carried out become repetitive and superficial a while as they do not have many variations, and thus cannot help retirees find a sense of purpose after they have stopped working. Family-wise, they might find themselves cast aside by other family members who are still working and have much busier schedules to follow. Ultimately, retirees are left falling lonely, unproductive and ignored by society, which severely damages their self-esteem and can even contribute to depression among the elderlies.

Vietnam has quickly moved from a tightly bonded, inclusive and caring society to one that favours productivity, progress and economic development, and this has had clear impacts on the retirees. While it is difficult and not necessarily beneficial to try and make the retirement years “golden years” in one’s life, it is certainly important that the government, communities and every member of society change their views towards retirees and help ensure that everyone is allowed to lead a productive and engaging lifestyle regardless of age and socioeconomic status.

Is it futile to try and save the environment?

In this post-industrialisation era, many governments and individuals have raised concerns over the environment; global warming, loss of biodiversity and land degradation pose threats to our survival and add moral burdens on our shoulders. Many international conferences have been held and environmental organizations’ voices have grown stronger than ever before, giving some the illusion that we can restore the environment we damaged. However, efforts by these institutions and individuals, more often than not, do not produce actual effects, due to profit-centric political agenda, technological limitations and nature’s unstoppable force. Thus, it is true to some extent that it is futile to try and save the environment.

Looking through rose-tinted glasses, those who are overly optimistic may claim that the rising concerns for the environment at the national level will make the restoration of the environment an achievable goal. It is true that environmental issues have been brought up in many international conferences. The World Commission on Environment and Development, for example, was established in 1983, where the concept of sustainable development was first acknowledged by multiple nations. In the later years, environmental conventions in Brazil, Copenhagen, Kyoto and Paris brought together world leaders to discuss strategies to save our environment. Such international efforts to address environmental issues paint a promising picture for the optimists, especially when many countries have consistently met the environmental targets set. France, for example, successfully reduced its carbon emission drastically by using nuclear energy to power 70% of its domestic electricity. Example like this can easily give the impression that our efforts to save the environment will be effective, as the world nations seem to be willing to put in resources collectively and some results have been seen.

However, those optimists fail to recognize that those international conferences and the apparent results have too trivial an effect to be able to save the environment, as the current level of technology does not allow us to achieve our ambitions. In particular, the notion that humans can slow down environmental degradation by changing our energy use pattern is overly simplistic, because the process of producing alternative energy itself deteriorates nature. For instance, although many countries have tied to use solar energy as a green alternative for fossil fuels, the production of solar-energy panels involves mining-specific metals, which are already scarce in nature, and the transportation of materials, as well as the manufacturing process of these panels, emits greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Hence, the so-called environmentally friendly energy is ironically environmentally devastating. Furthermore, the waste generated by nuclear plants and the radiation that affects the surrounding ecosystem has also rendered our efforts to save the environment counter-productive, causing further damages to the environment. Therefore, the attempts taken on a national level to restore the environment are rather futile as the solutions to environmental problems still cause an adverse impact on the environment.

Active environmentalists may argue that the awakening of individuals around the world who now advocate for the environment has halted many environmentally damaging projects and activities. With the maturing of democracy across the world, citizens have used their individual power to try to save the environment, by protesting and advocating. For example, Nature Society of Singapore, a non-government organization, published Master Plan for the Conservation of Nature in Singapore in 1990, which propelled the government’s now institutionalized Green Plan that sets aside five per cent of Singapore’s total area for nature conservation. Incidents like this convince the environmentalists that concerted efforts by individuals can be very powerful in protecting our environment. Nevertheless, they ignore the compelling truth that most of the time, profit-driven companies or governments that prioritise economic development are too powerful to be challenged. The Three Gorges Project in China, for instance, caused many environmentalists to protest due to its potential damage on biodiversity. However, the project was continued due to the strong will of the Chinese government and the multiple corporations involved. These examples show that individual efforts are too insignificant to save the environment when most of the time, governments and corporations overpower these individuals.

Lastly, the environmental issues we perceive can simply be a natural pattern that no human efforts can stop. Global warming, for example, is believed by many scientists to be merely a result of increasing solar activity, which has nothing to do with the faults of human. Researchers also point out that, the earth has experienced a period of warming when the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases was low. Scientific pieces of evidence like this reveal the horrifying fact that environmental issues may not be a result of human activities. If so, our efforts to save the environment will not produce any effect. Furthermore, the still-rising carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is a compelling corroboration that our individual and international efforts achieve a little outcome to stop the possible natural trend. Hence, given the scientific uncertainty about the truth of environmental degradation, it is rather futile to try and save the environment because the force of nature itself is almost unchallengeable.

In conclusion, provided with the current state of science and technology, as well as the socio-economical needs of countries, human efforts to save the environment produce rather negligible outcomes. Moreover, the possibility that environmental issues are merely a natural trend tells us that it is futile to save the deteriorating environment and ourselves from its impacts.

Should the British Empire return the looted artifacts?

History has been witness to the British Empire looting many countries of their precious artifacts. The Elgin’s Marbles from Greece, The Benin Bronzes from Nigeria and many artifacts from countries like Australia, India and Native America. Many believe that these artifacts should not be returned but in reality there is an increasing need for these artifacts to be returned to their respective countries because it is their rightful place and if Nazi-looted art is fair to be returned then it is also fair that the empire returns the looted artifacts.

Many believe that the artifacts kept in the British museums are safe and encourage archaeological research done on them. However, it should not be forgotten that the artifacts stored in the British museums are looted and the countries from which they are looted will feel satisfied if their artifacts are returned to them as they are a part of their cultural heritage. For example, many believe that the Elgin’s Marbles should be returned to Greece as it belongs to them but UK does not plan to return the artifacts. The British believe that if they have the artifacts they can take better care of the artifacts. It is true that, the countries deserve to get their artifacts back.

It is also necessary to understand that returning the artifacts can also maintain the amicable relationships between countries. It is true that if the artifacts are returned to their respective countries, it would help in maintaining smooth relations between countries, while not doing so can lead to countries becoming more hostile towards the British Empire. One such instance can be Egypt declaring that it is going to sue museums in Britain and Belgium and if the artifacts are not returned the archaeologists will not be allowed to continue their research in the country. The artifact issue is not only limited to countries like Egypt and Greece but also extends to countries like India, China Australia and so on. Hence, it is only justified that the British return the looted artifacts to their respective countries because not doing so can lead to spoiling relationships between countries.

Additionally, Britain’s expectation that Nazi-looted artifacts should be returned to them reflects their hypocrisy. On one hand, they are readily accepting their artifacts but on the other hand, they are denying requests of other countries for reclaiming the artifacts which are rightfully theirs. British officials argue that many of these countries are incompetent in preserving their national artifacts. Therefore, according to them, the empire is doing a great service by keeping the important artifacts safe. However, it should not be forgotten that if the British believe that they should receive the Nazi-looted art then it should also be return the artifacts looted from various countries. Hence, even if the countries are not stable and are asking for their artifacts it should be returned to them.

It is completely wrong to believe that the British are deserving of getting their artifacts back while the colonized countries are undeserving. There is an underlying race issue prevalent here; it is evident from the fact that Elgin’s stones are the face of the artifacts return debate. Greece’s request for the artifacts is considered while from another country is completely ignored. One instance of this can be the denying of the request of the return of Benin’s Bronze wherein one journalist even said that Nigerians do not deserve the artifacts as they were bought by selling slaves. Hence, this shows that the British are wrong in their approach where they are constantly denying the requests of repatriating the artifacts.

In conclusion, it can be said that the British need to realise that they are no longer the colonisers. Today, the world has changed and it is high time that the artifacts were returned to their respective countries. The British should introspect and understand that behind the guise of a beautiful artifact is a long history of violence and subjugation. It is important that these museums try their best to return the artifacts and the ones they cannot return should have an explanation given of how these artifacts reached Europe. In this way, we can share the cultural heritage and maintain amicable relationships with countries around the world.

‘Environmental conservation, not poverty alleviation, should be the priority of developing countries.’ Comment.

Environmental problems, as well as poverty, exist in many developing countries. Environmental problems such as pollution and exploitation of scarce resources may exist due to the country’s desire to advance economically so as to alleviate poverty. Some may say that environment conservation can deprive a country financially and that the funds can be used to eradicate poverty instead. But, by conserving the environment, people in developing countries can be lifted out of poverty as well. Furthermore, the lack of environmental conservation can lead to further damages to the environment and worsen poverty. Thus, environmental conservation should be the priority of developing countries as it can benefit them in the long run and also, likely bring about monetary benefits and reduce poverty.

Admittedly, environmental conservation requires large amounts of funds which can be used for poverty alleviation through means such as subsidising education. Environmental conservation usually involves the transition from coal-produced electricity and usage of fossil fuels to renewable and clean energy. The use of renewable energy such as wind power, solar energy and hydroelectric energy can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions which can help slow down global warming as well as the depletion of the ozone layer. However, the transition to clean energy comes with a huge price. At the 2010 Copenhagen consensus, the UN and World Bank mentioned that the conversion from coal-produced electricity to clean energy requires US$100 billion at least, which is more than 10 times of what most countries’ governments are investing in clean energy now. Electricity from wind power, for example, cost two times more than electricity produced from coal. This is often due to the need to construct direct current lines to transport the electricity as well as storage for energy. Thus, developing countries may be unable to afford to convert to cleaner energy due to the high costs. On top of that, money spent on environmental conservation comes with an opportunity cost as well. The money, arguably, can be used to subsidise education. This can allow more financially disadvantaged children to attend school and thus increase their employability and lift themselves out of poverty in the near future. Education on birth control can also reduce family sizes, which is a factor that often worsens a family’s financial situation due to the need to bring up more children. Undeniably, spending on education can have benefits on poverty alleviation. However, developing countries often lack the funds to do so. Thus, developing countries can possibly use environmental conservation as a stepping stone to eradicate poverty in the long run.

Environmental conservation should be the priority of developing nations as it can help countries to reduce poverty in the long run. In less developed countries, ecotourism is a common way to generate income and thus it is a thriving industry in many less developed countries. For example, countries such as Costa Rica and Kenya, engage in ecotourism and this industry has generated many jobs for locals. This is especially helpful for the locals as many are trapped in poverty and thus are largely uneducated. For instance, local fishermen are often hired by tourists to bring them out to sea for the purpose of ecotourism. Thus, this generates income for the locals who are living in poverty. Additionally, this also creates revenue for the government which can be used to help the poor through the form of subsidies or food aid, provided that the government is not corrupt and hence will use the money to improve the lives of its citizens. Also, the government can use the money to conserve the environment and they are incentivised to do so as by preserving the environment, the country can attract more tourists for ecotourism. Hence, it is evident that environmental conservation can bring economic benefits to developing countries and the wise use of the money generated from it can benefit the poor.

However, by having environmental conservation as the most important goal of a developing country, instead of alleviating poverty, it can also worsen poverty by causing locals to lose their jobs. Although clean energy is known as clean energy, they are not actually “clean”. All forms of energy, including renewable ones, have some form of impact on the environment. For example, biofuels can cause deforestation and hydroelectric energy can cause changes to the landscape. All of these can potentially worsen locals’ lives. In Uganda, ecotourism is a prosperous industry. Many locals are employed in that industry and thus, it is very important as it feeds a large proportion of the locals. The government is also actively engaged in the conservation of the environment. Hence, dams were built to provide hydroelectric energy to the locals, which is clean and allows the country to shift from coal-produced electricity to clean hydroelectric energy. However, the construction of dams, one of which is the Bengali Dam, disrupted the flow of the river, which has a negative impact on the ecotourism industry. Many locals who bring tourists for kayaking and rafting are affected as tourism reduced after the construction of the dams. Thus, this proves that the conservation of the environment has its downside too. However, damages can be mitigated as new jobs will be created as well, following the construction of the dams and locals who are out of a job can work at hydroelectric energy plants. The government can also try to mitigate damages and preserve the ecotourism industry so that poverty is not aggravated in the pursuit of environmental conservation which can eventually eliminate poverty.

It is important that environmental conservation, not poverty alleviation should be the priority of developing countries as the lack of environmental conservation can lead to further damages to the environment and worsen poverty. In the pursuit of economic development, many countries are willing to sacrifice their environment so as to prosper. China is one such example, China is burdened with air and water pollution due to its rapid growth in the recent decade. In 2013, New York-based Blacksmith Institute even ranked Linfen, a China city, alongside Chernobyl on the list of the top 10 most polluted cities in the world. Furthermore, emerging economies such as India and China are rising up the list of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters with China being first and India being fourth. This is evident that several developing countries caused harm to their environment for economic benefits. However, while this degradation of the environment can lead to prosperity in certain developing countries, it may also worsen poverty in some other developing countries. In Nigeria, the transnational company, Shell, has caused damages to its environment which also affected the livelihood of many locals, rendering them helpless financially. The production plants of Shell have caused fires which burnt croplands. This reduced farmers’ crop yield and destroyed their croplands which cause them to lose their tool to generate income. The production plants have also resulted in oil spills which polluted rivers and ponds. This also caused fishermen to lose their rice bowls and thus are unable to make a living which further worsens their financial status. On top of that, locals affected are not compensated for their loss. The corrupt government also further worsens the situation as they prioritised the economic benefits that Shell brought to Nigeria by building oil production plants there. Thus, there are lax or no environmental laws or rules that Shell has to abide by, allowing them to cause damages to the environment. Hence, measures or laws have to be put in place to conserve the environment so as to not worsen the financial state of locals. Due to the corrupt government, foreign presence such as the United Nations may be needed to protect the environment as well as not worsen the poverty in developing nations.

In conclusion, developing nations should prioritize the conservation of the environment instead of alleviating poverty. The conservation of the environment may be costly, but there exist many protocols which developing nations can take part in and receive help from stronger nations or agencies. For example, the Montreal Protocol which provides funds to needy developing countries. In the long run, environmental conservation will affect poverty positively as it can generate jobs as well as provide the government with funds to improve the citizens’ lives and lift them out of poverty. Since solving environmental issues can have benefits on alleviating poverty, developing countries should prioritise it to benefit their people.

‘A good leader should always be popular’. How far do you agree with this statement?

The concept of a well-like leader has probably never been concretely established such that everyone can agree with it. History has seen many leaders revolutionised the world with their set of beliefs, be it good or bad, and thus not everyone has the same perception of a leader. However, in more recent times, we have seen heads-of-state and premiers with their fair share of proponents and opponents around the world, therefore bringing up the question of whether good leaders should always be popular. Many believe that popular leaders are definitely better for our society but others do think that leadership is amoral in nature. While both sides of the contention have validity, I believe that a good leader should always be popular mainly due to the fact that their influence can transcend geographical boundaries.

Detractors of my stand argue that it is important to go back to the reasons why leaders are elected in the first place; to the governor to inspire a group of individuals to specific goals. Such opponents adopt the pragmatic view of leadership and believe that above all, good leaders ‘get the job done’ efficiently, and therefore it is inconsequential whether or not their people or colleagues admire them. By a simple definition of a leader, my opponents believe in leaders serving their purpose first, as people may support politicians who are true, bad. A converse of this, however, is the incumbent Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who with his strong anti-corruption and crime rhetoric, is making headlines. Famously nicknamed ‘The Punisher’, Duterte has been slammed by leaders around the world for his extra-judicial killings. However, from another viewpoint, he is a hero in the eyes of a local contingent for his low tolerance of corruption, which would see the Philippines progress as a country. While his actions are condoned by many, people do believe that he is moving his country in the right direction. To the pragmatics, doing right is better than what is popular.

This claim is no doubt valid and does show a reflection of the beliefs of a practical audience. However, I opine that doing what is right is not the only purpose of a leader. Being ruthless even for a supposedly good cause, like how Duterte does, has its repercussions. Such aggressive approaches can lead to hostility and political uproar initiated by the public. This was evident in Libya in 2011, during which a political rebellion led to the end of the reign of Muammar Gaddafi. From this, we learn that gaining the approval of the people is important, and support is crucial. Rodrigo Duterte is at large due to the fact that he is well-supported but may see an end similar to Gaddafi is he angers his people as well. With popularity, comes power.

Astute leaders should be popular as the combination of good leadership and the public vote has the potential to unify a society. Good leaders are, of course, venerated by many across the planet, but popular leaders have the power of influencing their people as well. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is arguably one of the most renowned and favourite world leaders of many today. In the wake of neighbouring head-of-state Donald Trump’s stance against Muslims, Trudeau has publicly announced his respect and acceptance of immigrants of different ethnicities. At the same time, he was seen dancing along to Indian music and giving intellectual discussions, making him a favourite and a common topic of discussion amongst Canadians. This goes to show how a popular leader can get his country buzzing about politics and life under his leadership. In a so-called ‘angry place’, good and popular leaders are the beacon of light that motivates millions around the world to believe that the world can be a happy place. They bring in a new air of positivity that stimulates optimism and the best in individuals. While there are many examples of good leaders, the people’s leaders leave more profound impacts on the world, as illustrated by former actor-turned USA President Ronald Reagan who chose to be positive while dealing with the threat of the USSR.

From a socio-economic perspective, good leaders ought to be popular in their quest of seeking cooperation with other countries and governing bodies. A popular leader firstly gains the support of the country, making his or her nation stronger through social cohesion. Secondly, a leader who can make a positive mark around the world prompts other countries to seek partnerships. Thus, the influence of a popular leader has worldwide can lead to greater economic cooperation. Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew is respected by many for the robust fortress he moulded Singapore into, which has seen great economic growth in the country. His popularity in Singapore made him a potential ally to many other countries like China. Thus, there is a solid advantage for a good leader to be popular in that, in a world of distrust and rapid globalisation, economic benefits can be reaped.

Additionally, popular leaders make the foundation of a strong political society that is immune to internal conflict. As popular leaders resonate with their people and share their voice, they can help solidify the political foundations in their country, giving her people contentment and no reason to rebel. Nations such as Bashar Al Assad’s Syria and, back in time, Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya have been on the receiving end of the spectrum. It may take a new leader, in Syria’s case, to rid the nation of political insecurity and fear instilled in the people.

In a nutshell, there are several social, political and economic reasons for a great leader to be in sync with his or her people’s beliefs. However, it is paramount for leaders to be popular for the right reasons as the inspirational Martin Luther King and the draconian Josef Stalin have shown. In line with Jeremy Bentham’s belief of consequentialism, it is essential for the leaders of today to possess the blend of doing what is right for the greater good, hearing and acting on the public’s concern and of course being the moral compass for the world to follow.

Do you agree that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation?

The United States of America is the shining beacon and bastion of liberal democracy and has successfully exported this very ideology to most countries around the world who chose freedom of expression instead of oppression as their way of governance. The freedom of expression is said to propel a country to its heyday through the progress of all aspects of the country, be it political, social, cultural and technological aspects. This is because it gives people the opportunity to share opinions, think out of the box and work towards the progress of a nation. This is evidenced by how civilised and well-perceived countries are when they subscribe to freedom of expression, like the US and the Scandinavian countries. However, underneath the veneer of its merits, some incidents that have come to the fore recently strengthens the validity of this notion that the freedom of expression actually hinders the progress of a nation. Nonetheless, I beg to differ. It does not hinder the progress of a nation, so long as it is regulated.

Freedom of expression does not hinder a nation’s progress because it brings about a more vibrant culture by rehabbing a country’s cultural scene. As cultures provide a country with a sense of identity and its citizens, a sense of belonging, freedom of expression serves as a vehicle to forge these important traits at a time when the westernisation of countries have started to amalgamate cultures into a homogenous one. It allows for artists and creative people to illustrate or express the country’s’ roots, way of life and thinking without prosecution. This is crucial for a country to make cultural progress because possessing a vibrant culture strengthens the social fabric of a country and fills them with pride and motivation to help the country progress. For example, the freedom of expression has enabled the publishing of literature like ‘Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry’ and ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ which reflects on America’s wretched past on racial inequality. These works allow citizens to better understand their country’s roots and learn from mistakes of the past so that they become responsible citizens. On the other hand, if a country curbs freedom of expression, it will most certainly hinder its progress, as seen from the consequences of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, where the teachings of renowned scholars, religions and people who preach them have been purged. This resulted in the majority of the population, unable to generate significant cultural progress because they have been indoctrinated and have not been given the freedom to express the right to practice proper moral values. Despite its rich cultural heritage, the Cultural Revolution brought about by draconian restrictions on the freedom of expression has had China regressed culturally. America however, has matured into becoming a more civilized society with a vibrant culture, proof that the freedom of expression leaders to the progress of a nation.

I do not agree that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation because of engenders technological innovation and progress. It lets innovations thrive because new concepts and schools of thought can be created for the betterment of countries. Taking these concepts further is the improvement in technology to solve the world’s problems and safeguard nations. It is only through the freedom of expression can scientists save lives with stem cell research and the 3-D printing of organs because they are backed by no boundaries to experiment. Through these experiments, new ideas and improvements could be made. Scientists can also solve hunger by creating GM food, which genetically alters the genes to make crops more resistant to diseases. This increases crop yield such that it is hoped that it could meet the quickly escalating demand for food as the world population is projected to hit 9 billion by 2050. Furthermore, the freedom of expression also gives rise to a nation’s military progress, allowing it to safeguard its borders. A country’s productivity, infrastructure and various interests can only be protected if there is a competent military to deter aggressors. Freedom of expression lets engineers developed advanced military technologies like stealth, cruise missiles, drones and laser weapons never before accomplished. These advanced technologies allow for a military to gain unparalleled situational awareness on the battlefield through information sharing and therefore, more potent warfighting capabilities. Not only will military technologies increase survivability, but it can also protect a nation’s borders through deterrence. All this progress can only be achieved if the freedom of expression was in place to bring about, and not hinder, progress.

The freedom of expression does not hinder the progress of a nation because it ensures that the political situation is uncorrupted and that the government can be kept in checking such that it serves its citizens well. It forms the bedrock of a country’s progress. By having a free press, leaders who commit wrongdoings can be held accountable as seen by the impeachment of South Korean President Park Geun Hye, whose confidant’s meddling with state affairs has seen her political career unravelling into shambles. This is only possible and the freedom of expression creates windows of opportunity to do research and dig deep for information to expose wrongdoings. By exposing corrupt leaders can new, more righteous ones be elected. The country can then progress politically. Freedom of expression does not hinder a nation’s progress insofar that citizens can provide feedback and air with their discontentment through dialogues and online forums. Governors and diplomats, are after all, also human and will make mistakes. Some governments may be blindsided to certain issues and when this happens, it is a citizen’s responsibility to express his opinions so that their governments can correct policies to allow a nation’s progress.

Alas, events of recent times have juxtaposed with my stand that the freedom of expression does not hinder the progress of a nation, especially in a social aspect. The massacre at Charlie Hebdo, where Al-Qaeda terrorists struck the offices of a satirical cartoon magazine who drew derogatory depictions of Prophet Muhammad, and the Muslim ban in which Donald Trump has imposed has given rise to a surge in Muslim discrimination across America. These are just two instances in which freedom of expression leads to social regression because it testifies to the abuse of this freedom bestowed on the populous. Vilifying and cracking jokes about religion will tear the ever-widening social fabric that has held liberal democratic counties for years apart with its relentless wave of immigrants assimilating into these nations. These incidents hitherto unseen before will cause racial vitriol, disunity in society and potentially, social, economic and political instability. Terrorist organizations like the Islamic State could up the ante by ramping up propaganda to victimize disenchanted Muslims to join to fight as martyrs. These exploitations have manifested themselves with the rise of lone-wolf terrorist attacks around the world. Far-reaching implications like these will undermine the security of nations. As a result, people living in liberal democracies will soon sell down the river, the social principles they have stood by for so long.

Though it may be true that the freedom of expression can at times hinder the progress of nations, betraying principles like these will do greater harm than good. Look at how far nations which have espoused the freedom of expression have come. It is through these freedoms can positive changes be realised. It is through these freedoms can citizens, the building blocks of society, have a say in how to govern their country and not instead be politically apathetic. It is through the freedom of expression can the ideas of society be shared, mistakes are corrected and progress is achieved.

To end off, I do not believe that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation. In fact, it makes a nation’s collective experience more colourful by experiencing the best of times and the darkest of hours. That said, we must never forget that we are the masters of our own destiny. We can influence, direct and control our environment, to allow humankind to progress as one. To do so, it is of paramount importance that liberal democratic countries regulate the potential negative effects that may accompany the use of freedom of expression, especially with regards to sensitive racial and religious matters, so that these nations can progress towards their future utopia.

The Media has exaggerated the importance of sport. Do you agree?

Sport was once considered to be the reflection of sportsmanship and team spirit. Sport was taken seriously by the athletes who used to practice and train themselves immensely. But today, sports have a completely new meaning; the seriousness regarding sports which athletes once had has diminished in the present times. Sports were once about making the country proud and representing the country in Olympics was a dream of every athlete but all that has changed in the present times. Sport today has become extremely commercialized and this can be attributed to the presence of media. Media gives too much attention to sports, to an extent that many issues of greater gravity are completely neglected. All the media attention towards sport has made sport distasteful in today’s world. Though it is not that sport does not deserve attention, it is true that media attention increases the self-esteem of the athletes and makes them perform better. However, the increasing commercialization of sport is harmful as it makes it over-hyped and the importance of sport exaggerated.

Sport has become a profitable field for many industries; many companies spend a lot of money on these sporting events. The commercialization of sport has also diverted the athletes from the sporting ideals and has made them extremely money-minded. Many athletes are used as a spokesperson for many brands and millions of dollars are spent on advertisements during these sporting events. An instance of the growing commercialization of the sport can be that during the Olympics where Coco-Cola and McDonalds had spent a considerable amount on advertising and were unhappy because not many spectators were allowed in the stadium. Many sports brands use athletes to promote their sports gear by wearing them during a tournament. The commercialization of sport has led to the deterioration of sporting ideals. The media has created a culture where athletes are considered to be heroes; media creates celebrity athletes so their news channels get more audience.

Sporting events have gained too much attention today, winning or losing has become more important today instead of the fun for playing the sport. Sport has always been looked at from a nationalist perspective, where winning is deemed to be a victory in combat. This is evident during the cricket matches between India and Pakistan or rugby matches between South Africa, Australia and Britain. The media often highlight these matches and overhype about them. One instance of this can be China winning more Gold medals than the United States during the Olympics. It was counter-argued by the US media that the US leads in overall medals in Olympics and Chinese athletes are under-aged and the medals should be snatched away from them. Therefore, the importance of sport is exaggerated.

Sports have also been portrayed exaggeratingly by the media because of the inclusion of politics in sports. There has been a relationship between sports and politics even before the initiation of media coverage but media has made sports and politics seem indivisible. A sporting event boycott of apartheid South Africa was given a boost by the media. The media also highlighted instances wherein athletes chose to play in the sporting event which led to anger among the people from their home countries. China too was challenged with the argument over the organizing Beijing Olympics and the Olympics committee was heavily criticised for giving a country like China was given the responsibility of holding such an important sporting event.

In conclusion, media has given too much importance to the sport and by doing this has reduced its importance. Today, media has made sport a highly commercialized sector and the athletes less interested in the sport. The media has turned sport into a money minting machine and the athletes as Gods.

‘In spite of more information, man is not more informed.’ comment.

In today’s world, information is everywhere. Be it in schools, online, on television, on social media and even on posters placed on subway stations and toilets. However, how many of this information serves the purpose of enriching us with the knowledge to nurture our emotional and psychological wellbeing? It is hard to believe that an advertisement placed inside a subway telling us that Marigold milk is the best and healthiest milk choice out there in the market or Burger King’s two dollars ninety-five cents nuggets are the best value meal you can get out of fast-food restaurants is going to be potentially informing us with useful and purposeful information. Some may argue that the vast amount of outlets currently available for man to seek and obtain information makes man more informed as they are presented with countless opportunities to garner useful information. However, I beg to differ as even though there are numerous amounts of ways and outlets for man to retrieve information, plenty of the information provided from these outlets are unreliable or too shallow to truly make man more informed. Hence, I believe that in spite of the plenty amount of information available, man is not more informed.

To start off, the absence of parameters to define media discourse has undermined the quality of information. Media companies are highly profit-driven and would thus play up and dwell on the sensational, tantalizing news that they know will sell. This can be on car accidents, murders, sexual assault or controversial scandals. Media companies only report on such sensational news simply because they are interesting, not because they are important. In the 20 months between September 2012 and March 2014, Fox News aired an astounding 1,098 evening and primetime segments dedicated to the Benghazi attacks. Despite there being no basis, Fox News and other outlets claimed that the Obama administration knew that the terrorists had planned the attacks 10 days in advance. CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell criticised Fox News and the media at large for habituating scandalising the Benghazi attacks with incomplete or unsupported claims. In fact, Fox News often used the Benghazi attacks as a shorthand, as a symbol of a lying corrupt, tyrannical and possibly murderous Obama white house. Hence the information that is fed to man today through the media may not even be based on solid facts and we run the risks of being influenced by false information provided from the media. In fact, according to the World Health Organization, 28,000 people who die daily can actually have their deaths prevented if basic care was provided to them. Yet we hardly see the media reporting on such pressing issues, on how little we give and how we are avoiding important issues happening around the world. When the media does report on such issues like foreign aid, they often tend to paint the image that we are giving substantially and in proportion to our means to people in need. Therefore, the media is actually providing us with an excess of information that deludes us and causes us to be actually more ignorant instead of more informed with the issues happening around us. Therefore, even though the media can give us so much information. man would still not be more informed.

Secondly, even though a majority of man are able to obtain basic education that serves to enrich man with useful knowledge and skills, it does not necessarily mean that man is able to apply the knowledge learnt in a real-life context. Education serves as a tool that enables people to broaden their perspectives and understand things that are happening around them. However, the reality is that most schools today bombard students with bucket loads of content and knowledge, expecting them to ingest them and spew it out during examinations. What students pick up are answering techniques and skills required for them to ace their examinations. Therefore, they are learning how they can apply the tons of knowledge that they learnt to answer examination questions. However, does this guarantee that they will also be able to learn how to answer real-life problems when they occur? The answer is most probably no as the real skills that students actually pick up in their education is the ability to memorise knowledge and the ability to answer questions on paper. To further substantiate my point, according to the United States (US) Bureau of labour statistics, only 26.1% of young people aged 16-19 and 18.7% of those aged 20-24 have volunteered to do volunteer work. Students who have received basic education have more or less been exposed to the growing need to help the needy and they would know how much impact they can make on the lives of people if they choose to lend out a helping hand. However, this point has obviously not been ingested by these students according to the low percentage of young people willing to volunteer. This is a real-life problem that despite being more educated to know the answer to solve the problem on paper, is not solved in real life. Hence, even though man is receiving more and more information through the means of education, they are not able to fully utilise this information to apply to real-life situations, making man not more informed.

Critics may argue that man can be more informed through the means of social media due to its extensive reach. An example they would state is the viral ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge’s aim is to raise awareness about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Over 2 million people on YouTube were tagged in ALS Ice Bucket Challenge videos on YouTube and the campaign was very successful in raising awareness among the public about ALS and it also raised a gargantuan sum of 220 million dollars for the ALS Associations. Thus, proving that the increase in social media platforms has provided more information for man that can make them more informed about previously uncommonly known diseases and issues existing around the world.

While it is true that new media can be a powerful tool to spread information to the general public about current affairs and issues around the world that require our attention, media can also enable individuals to abuse their rights and use social media as a tool to instigate hatred and sow discord among people, societies and nations by posting controversial comments and posts which only have the purpose of evoking tensions among people. For example, The Real Singapore (TRS) website was asked to shut down as it published content that was objectionable in the field of public interest, public order and national harmony. The Media Development Authority (MDA) also added that TRS had fabricated articles and inserted falsehoods into their articles that were either plagiarised or sent in from contributors in order to make the articles more inflammatory. This goes to show that despite the gargantuan amounts of information that new media provides us with, the information may either be fake or have no basis. Such information provided only make man grow hatred for each other and arouses tensions among people and serves no purpose in actually making us more informed and knowledgeable about the world around us. Man is not more enriched and is not able to better understand the world around them. Hence, despite the growing amount of information given to us, man is not more informed.

In conclusion, even though more information is made readily available to man, it is the quality of the information and the way we use the information that makes man more informed. The greater quantity of information provided does not necessarily make man more informed. It is high time we start refining the information we make available to the public in a way that allows the general public to be enriched and enlightened from the high-quality knowledge. This can enable man to be more informed and also potentially start making positive changes to the world with this newly found information.

Do you agree with the view that, eventually, technology will always solve the problems it creates?

A glimpse into human civilization a century ago will reveal a stark difference in the way we lived then and now. Technology – scientific technology, communication technology, transportation technology, media technology, nanotechnology etc, has permeated every aspect of our lives inevitably due to the rapid enhancement and modernization in the science. Technology has been widely claimed for the disastrous impacts on the public health, ethical issues, environment as well as social issues. The pivotal concern is whether technology can solve the problems it creates. In my opinion, at the present condition, technology can solve the problems but not all the time. Nonetheless, I strongly agree with the view that technology can eventually alleviate the problems it poses with the help of Man in centuries to come.

Technology poses an increasing threat to public health due to the development in scientific technology which allows Genetically Modified (GM) food to be produced in recent years. HM food which is also named ‘Frankenfood’ has caused the spread of antibiotic resistance in the body, according to a recent study in Newcastle University. The consumers of GM food are more prone to illnesses as their antibiotic resistance gets stronger with excessive consumption of such food. This can lead to increased health risks such as stomach and colon cancer, according to Dr Stanley Ewen, a consultant histopathologist at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.

However, with modern technology in medical science, cancer is no longer as fatal. The patients who are found to have cancerous cells in their body do have to face death. Take for instance; lung cancer which was previously incurable is now made curable with enhanced technological surgery or radiation therapy. Despite the arguable fact that GM food can cause cancer, cancer is increasingly less feared due to the high success of being healed from such a ‘deadly’ disease.

Besides the trouble in public health, technology has perverted the ethical code. Genetic Engineering technology produced Dolly, a female sheep that was created in 1996. Many religious groups like the Catholics and Muslims raised concerns that it was a wholly unnatural process of asexual reproduction. They assert that it was against the ethics and moral values as we are human being, thus we should not ‘play’ God by intercepting God in the process of life and death. This issue has been furiously debated as cloning was considered to corrupt our morals.

Yet, it was largely rebutted that it was a mere exaggeration of ethical issues. Who is to say that it is not God’s will that we clone ourselves? The religious groups assume that they know God existence and intention. Even today, there is not even a single scripture to that support anti-cloning. Therefore, the argument that technology has subverted ethical issues is not justified in the first place for it to say that technology has harmed our ethics.

Opponents of technology posit that it has created severe environmental degradation in recent years. The swift betterment in communication technology like the internet and transportation technology like faster planes has increased industrialization processes that cause increased pollution in the air, land as well as water. In places like China, this is a severe problem especially for the individual who stays near the industry. These pollutions have directly and indirectly affected the human race as well as the flora and fauna. Air pollution has caused respiratory problems and breathing difficulties that can cause lung cancer due to the excessive toxic gases releases from the industries. Land pollution causes the soil in the region to be poisonous that cause fruits and vegetables grown in the region to be hazardous for consumption. Water pollution that is very common in Third world countries like Nigeria and Somalia can cause birth defects and skin problems. As such, the environment has been sacrificed with the use of technology for economic progress.

However, opponents of technology have failed to realize the aspect of green technology that is developed recently ad advocated strongly through the media. Green technology is the use of environmentally friendly technology that uses the minimum amount of energy, produced minimum waste and produce the same or even better products. These products such as hydrogen car and ‘green’ light bulbs have been increasingly evident in first world countries like Singapore. Moreover, some buildings are made green too like City Square Mall in Singapore. These efforts of green technology and government have pushed down the level of pollution significantly as it uses minimum fossil fuel. With the presence of this technology, it is thus able to tackle the problem that it causes.

Last but not the least, technology has been arguing to have brutalized the social aspects of the individual, especially in developed countries like the US and Singapore where they can access communication technology easily. Communication technology has insulted the word ‘society’ itself that comes from ‘socialisation’ – the idea of interaction and communication. With the advent of inventions such as the internet with Youtube, MSN Messenger, Facebook and Twitter, we are now communing with a lifeless collection of microchips, not each other.

However, proponents of such technology agree unequivocally that communication technology has in fact increased the ability and opportunity of people to communicate. In the past where there was the absence of these ‘lifeless’ microchips, people have to travel far and waste numerous precious time just to socialise with their friends. Yet, nowadays, people can even socialise with many friends on the net with few clicks away. This technology has allowed people to have a greater social boundary as well as saves time on travelling. Therefore, technology can solve the problems of socializing that many of the people in the past faced.

Upon closer scrutiny, technology has increasingly been able to solve the problems it creates in spite of challenges. Nevertheless, up to the ninth year of the third millennium, it has been pervasively claimed that technology fail to solve the problems it creates upon the religious matter. However, I strongly believe that it is the matter of time that technology coupled with Man brain to explain the conflicts between them as seen from the increasing trend that technology solves problems that was unsolvable in the past.

It is a fact of life that science and religion will always come into conflict. Is this true?

To quote Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist and mathematician, “Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but both look out at the same universe. Both windows are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.” There are disparities between science and religion, such as the nature of factualness and neutrality against subjectivity. To elucidate, religion is defined as a set of beliefs and practices often organized around supernatural and moral claims, and often codified as prayer, ritual and religious law. Contrary to widespread conviction, there is congruence between science and religion as well. Given that there are points of comparison, it is hence a misleading fact of life that science and religion will always come into conflict on one hand. On the other hand, just as there are dual surfaces to a coin, it is almost positive that science and religion will arise to conflict. Science and religion may perchance suffice as supplements to each other then.

A derivation of conflict between science and religion ensues from the contrasting traits of legitimacy. In science, validity is incessantly revised. It is such that the more one discerns of the universe, the more interpretations one constructs, thereby drawing nearer to actuality. In contrast, religious facts are consistent and absolute. Gospel truth is printed in the Holy Texts, which hails from the mouth of the Almighty Himself. Therefore, science is based on an empirical study of the material world whereas religion hinges upon individual or cultural assumptions, and divine revelations. The case in point includes conflict over cosmology, geology, astronomy. A mass of devotee within the conservative wing of Christianity claims that the earth is less than 10 000 years of age. They deduced that the creation and universal flood stories in the Biblical book of Genesis as being literally accurate although 95% of scientists reject a literal analysis. These scientists consider the earth to be approximately 4.5 billion-year-old, that no global flood has befallen, as well as that humanity evolved. Given the discrepant nature of reality, it is a precondition that science and religion will results in conflict.

Science is more objective proportionate to religion which is more idiosyncratic. Maximum communicability is the hallmark of scientific truth. As a result, science consists in great part in the endeavour to convey by means of a bureaucratic apparatus or medium such as mathematics that is altogether vulnerable to the scrutiny of any mathematically educated person. On the condition that an individual carries out a stringently classified experiment or manner of calculation that is non-comprehensible to anybody else, then it is questionable scientifically. However, religion is more intuitive, pertaining to one’s intimate soul of respective attitudes and emotions. It seeks to satisfy the desire for personal salvation. Therefore, the subject of impartiality will lead to conflict between science and religion.

In addition, science and religion pose conflict over themes including human sexuality, medical issues. For example, plenty of conservative Christian communities school in that homosexual behaviour demeanour is anomalous, is perverted, is preferred, is not genetically determined, and can be corrected through prayer and counselling. Nonetheless, researchers into human sexuality by and large are convinced that homosexual orientation is normal for a modest percentage of the human race is innate, is undesired, is influenced by one’s genes to some degree, and cannot be changed through worship and guidance. Take euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, for another instance. Some faith groups champion that only God bestow life and hence solely God should reclaim breath. The opposing factual faction conjectures that when a terminally ill person is in intractable suffering and wishes to depart, physicians ought to be sanctioned to lend a hand in dying. Albert Einstein stated that “For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to and conditioned by, each other… yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what it does not open the door directly to what should be.” Thus, it is a fact of life that science and religion will always come into conflict over ethics.

Despite the numerous disparities between science and religion, both are an ambiguous contradiction of each other as there still remain similarities such as science and religion are ‘learned practices’ as well as both carry out significant purposes in Man’s life. No individual is born with an instinctive knowledge of the divine, likewise as no one is born with a hard-wired knowledge of science. They have their specific set of books from whence all information is inferred from, mentors acknowledged as scientists and pastors, philosophies of entity, directions and jargon. Albert Einstein also cited, “All regions, arts & sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed towards ennobling Man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” Therefore, it is fallacious to postulate science and religion will always come into conflict since there are grey fields of harmony.

Religion can exploit science as its tenet whereas science can facilitate religion with its findings. While religion can critique science for more clarifications, sources, or significance, science should mull over religion and human morals. Science and religion work together to form adequate explanations to figure out the genuine meaning of being thus prompt awareness of our insight of realism. Having the status of being complements, in a way, science and religion depend upon each other. They merely call for receptive minds to what both are assembling and explaining but without the other, their elucidation for gist remains superficial. Therefore it is not true that it is a fact of life that science and religion will always come into conflict. As Pope John Paul II highlights, “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish… We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be.”