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’.

Is effective farming possible without science?

“Growing plants is both an art and a science”, commented late Californian horticulturist Davis Kennedy. I feel that this also applies to the farming of crops – plants that we grow for food. There are many aspects of agriculture. From the choice of crop, land and fertilizer to the manpower deployment or determination of the time to harvest – these are subsets of various disciplines, both technical and normative. It is rudimentary for any farmer worth his salt to be able to balance these aspects. Failure to do so would result in a less than ideal harvest. The effectiveness of farming is determined by the output harvested given a certain amount of input. In short, an effective farm employing effective farming techniques would be able to obtain a better harvest as compared to a less effective farm that uses less effective techniques. Of course, there are many forms of farming, ranging from growing crops to rearing fish and animals. There is even talk about farming in the context of accumulating contact information through the internet (phishing) or other means. However, this essay will put forth issues pertaining to subsistence farming, use of Genetically Modified (GM) crops and economies of scale. Also, we will be looking at the effectiveness of “effective” farming techniques and whether it is desirable to be “effective” in the first place.

Subsistence farming exists in many of the developing nations such as Indonesia and the Philippines. These farmers use traditional farming techniques that are passed down to them through their parents or older generations. Based on these skills, they go about planting crops for their own consumption, selling their surplus. Over the many years of experience toiling in their small farms, these farmers would devise their own modified techniques based on their experience, in order to improve their crop yield. Given the little education these farmers receive, their techniques do not have any scientific basis and are largely trial and error based.  An article written in June 2005’s issue of the TIME magazine highlighted the plight of Sumatra subsistence farmers. Although the issue in the debate was the problem with “slash and burn” associated with subsistence farming, it has brought to light certain insights about the farmer’s lives that are relevant to this essay. It was noted in the article that many families start subsistence farming in their backyard which ranged between 10 to 500 square metres. They usually do so either because of poverty and hence the inability to buy food or simply because their parents have passed down the farm to them. Given the small size of these farms, it is not feasible to use elaborate machineries like combine harvesters or diesel-powered tractors. . Even if the farmers had wanted to do so, they usually lacked the financial means. Consequently, their production methods cannot be scaled up to be comparable to large commercial farms. Their inability to exploit large economies of scale hence results in these subsistent farms being less efficient. However, if we consider the fixed, minuscule size of the farms, it becomes evident that it is unfair to make such a comparison. Subsistence farmers primarily farm to provide food for their families and perhaps to make a small living out of selling the surpluses. Hence, farmers are able to maximize the capacity of their small plot of land in a manner that produces the most output given the constrained resources. Hence it can be said that these farming techniques, despite not having any scientific backing, are efficient.

Arguably, subsistence farming does in a way use science, much to the farmers’ ignorance. Take for instance the use of animal waste as compost. Unmistakably, such fertilizers wouldn’t even exist without simple biological or chemical explanations. Many of the subsistent farmers are simply unaware that it is the insignificant bacteria present in the compost that makes all the difference. Neither are they bothered to find out since they are by no chance running a research facility. Thus, indirectly, subsistence farming still employs various scientific disciplines.

“Farming is all about economics”, commented Hugh Grant during a press conference about Monsanto’s latest “Roundup” seeds in 2004. As with any firm, the aim is to maximize profits. In other words, the objective of the firm is to operate in a manner such that the highest amount of revenue will be obtained by spending the lowest amount of money or resources. To many economists, this is a perfectly efficient scenario. Although such utopic conditions are rarely, if ever, fulfilled in real life, most large firms with the proper management do get close. Apart from the rudimentary scientific knowledge involved in the farming process, leadership is key. With the right leadership come the right decisions. Key decision-making processes greatly affect how a firm will perform. Likewise, the lack of proper direction and management translates to inefficiency which compromises the farm’s harvests and output. With a farm as large as Monsanto’s, we are looking at hundreds of square kilometres worth of agricultural area. Manpower comes in the hundreds or thousands. With such a vast scope for the management to handle, allocation of resources and deployment of manpower must be nothing less than optimal. Anything less and the consequence is simply the loss of productivity which would imply a loss in revenue due to poorer harvests. Therefore, when large farms are concerned, it is more than just science that ensures effective farming.

GM technology has all the hype of late. To some, it signifies pulling the starvation plug. To others, it is the epitome of disaster. Amidst intense debates in two opposing camps, GM Organisms or GMOs are touted by advocates to increase the quality and quantity of crops or reared animals. While there is scientific evidence of this positive outcome, critics of GMOs cite potential long term potential dangers of GMOs. Improvements in the quality of the crop, such as Golden Rice, which has beta carotene are said to solve problems in third world countries where vitamin A deficiency is a significant issue. Improvements in yield or quantify is evident in BT Corn, where corn is made to be pest resistant, thereby preventing crop damage from pests. This will therefore boost the yield of the crop, allowing the farmer to obtain a better harvest as opposed to normal corn, which will be wiped out by caterpillars. In either case, putting aside problems relating to GMOs, we can see that the use of GMOs can increase the productivity of a farm, thereby making farming effective. Hence, farming can be made more effective with the use of science.

After looking at issues relating to effective farming, it can be concluded that farming can only be effective through the use of science, or be made more efficient through scientific technology. However, we should be cautious not to be obsessed with science such that we examine it as the only factor affecting food supply. In the modern context, the government has a large role to play in ensuring the food supply. Stockpiling is practised in many countries for a variety of reasons. One of the main aims of such a policy is to ensure price stability for farmers since a good harvest leads to excess supply, which will cause prices to dip if left to market forces. The government acts to intervene by buying up the excess to maintain a price such that farmers’ incomes do not fall drastically. These stockpiles will then be put up for sale in a period of crop shortage, such as due to freak weather damaging crops, to prevent food prices from spiking. Sounds like a perfect plan? If only it were that simple. Effective farming would only increase the supply of crops which will force the government to siphon more of its budget for stockpiling. When too many stockpiles accumulate, the government will simply dispose of it as it would be the simplest solution. In summary, we should seek to question the objective of farming in the first place, rather than focusing on making Farming more and more effective. Effective farming may appear to be the ultimate solution to food problems. But in reality, with policies like stockpiling, effective farming through the use of science may cause society to be worse off than when less effective techniques were employed.

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.