The world has done enough to conserve the environment. Do you agree?

Ever since the Industrial Revolution, rapid industrialisation in many countries had caused a lot of damage to the environment. Many forms of modernization have also contributed to environmental problems such as global warming and water pollution. In recent years, things such as the ozone layer depletion and the melting of glaciers in the North and South poles have raised an alarm to the world. As a result, man efforts were put in by the world to conserve the environment such as trying to reduce the number of emissions of greenhouse gases. However, I do not agree to the statement that the world has done enough to conserve the environment as there are contributors of environmental pollution being overlooked and several large-scale projects being carried out which are harmful to the environment.

Recently, there are indeed global efforts to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. For example, there is a treaty brought up by the United Nations to be signed by all countries to reduce their annual emission of carbon dioxide by a certain percentage. This is to try to bring down the global emission of greenhouse gases by a significant amount and is seen as a global effort to conserve the environment. However, it is not deemed as successful as main contributors of greenhouse gases such as the United States of America refused to sign the treaty. The reason for the refusal is because they are unhappy that rapidly industrializing countries such as China are only subjected to reduce by half the amount of that required of USA. Hence global efforts are hard to succeed as many countries are thinking of their own benefits above the benefits on the environment. Projects to conserve the environment may just be an empty proposal as countries are more concerned about their economic growth and are unwilling to compromise. Efforts are not put in enough especially by the developed countries and there is hardly any significant change to the environment through these projects.

In addition, there are many sources of pollution that are overlooked by the world. Underground activities and also activities carried out in rural areas of developing countries are slowing causing deadly harm to the environment as well. However, there are often overlooked by the world and nothing is done to prevent and reduce these activities. An example will be the disposal of high-tech trash. Every day, thousands of used computers and electronic gadgets are transported and dumped in rural areas of China, Indonesia and other developing countries. The job for many people there is usually to sell the copper obtained after burning away the rubber insulation with fire. This is a harmful process which emits carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and many other harmful gases. The process is repeated and carried out at a large scale in the villages as it is the livelihood of many. The consequences of this improper disposal of high-tech trash can be more deadly than those emitted from industries in a developed country. However, no efforts are done to stop transporting the high-tech trash or to stop this kind of trading copper for cheap cash. It will be a silent killer to the environment and conservation efforts are not covered at all in this aspect. In another village in China, waster like high-the trash is dumped into rivers while people living downstream consume the water every day. Water pollution done can be fatal and will increase collectively over the years if countries fail to discover and try to take action to prevent these from happening.

Furthermore, developed countries are still promoting environmentally unfriendly projects for their own economic benefit. Influential countries such as the US are not taking the lead and conserve the environment. This will cause a chain effort and many other countries are increasingly unwilling to compromise for conservation efforts. The adoption of nuclear power is a very good example. Nuclear power is a process where it emits a large scale of harmful gases and causes more environmental problems than the currently used fuel. If adopted totally by the US and put to use at a large scale, the environment will deplete at a faster rate than anyone would imagine. However, the US is unwilling to rethink about it and no follow up methods are done to reduce the number of harmful gases being emitted as well. Hence, half-hearted efforts by developed countries also make conservation efforts seem weak.

In conclusion, there is generally not enough effort put in by the world to conserve the environment. Many contributors to the pollution done are not recognized and dealt with while there is no full support from economically strong countries such as the US. The world is still not fully aware of the consequences that may come. If the countries do not try and start to conserve the environment now, the environment will be even depleted at a much faster rate and the damage done may be irreversible.

Terrorism can be justified. How far do you agree?

The introduction is overly long but the essay has a mature quality about it.

Maximilien Robespierre, an influential and instrumental figure in the period of the French Revolution generally branded as the Reign of Terror, formerly affirmed that, “subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty’s repression against tyranny.” In the present day, contemporary terrorists impute Robespierre’s perception that aggression is mandatory to protect and emancipate a population. Given that the number of global inhabitants is projected to multiply to 8 billion by 2025, state and international conflicts will propagate as a root of concern for the human race. The perpetual discussion for an explicit definition of what constitutes terrorism by the United Nations appears to be infinite since member countries are ineffectual to form a bilaterally accepted definition. Although the general public condemns terrorism, there remains a double standard of “us versus them” involved in such beliefs. Terrorism can be justified on one hand as there is an element of actuality to the remark “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”. On the other hand, terrorism is intrinsically corrupt therefore the rationale is to oppose terrorism in the name of ethics.

Terrorism can be accounted for as a reaction of the perpetrator due to subjugation and individuals’ political principles. Those labelled “terrorists” seldom identify themselves per se, and conventionally resort to euphemistic terms or titles specific to their condition such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, militant, guerrilla, and rebel. It can hence be construed that the perpetrators consider their actions to be righteous, perhaps even obligatory. Terrorists launch wars, claiming for just causes such as self-defence as well as aegis of innocents from threats from despotic governments, civil disorder, and external assaults. Due to a disintegration of law and stability, terrorists bear arms in retaliation to suppression of fundamental constitutional rights. By and large, the sense of duty to defend a society is vested in sovereignty clout but the administration may fail. Under these circumstances, a climate of alarm emerges thus the genesis of guerrillas. The case in point, insurgents validate Islamic terrorism as resistance to American policies in the Middle East or Israeli occupation of Palestine. Terror campaigns are also implemented in an attempt to advocate the customary system. Take for instance, Protestant extremist communities in Northern Ireland have exerted terrorism against those supporting a cohesive Ireland. Therefore, terrorism can be substantiated from the rebel’s stance, in response to contravention of one’s societal, parliamentary, spiritual and ethical dogmas.

However, religion is an inexcusable pretext for acts of terror. The Islamic faith does not condone terrorism. Suicide bombers’ actions mainly stem from political conflict, not religion. Terrorist organizations have illustrated their grounds in spiritual and cultural expressions. Nonetheless, this is frequently a blatant strategy premeditated to conceal political goals, spawn widespread fear and silence disagreement. It is fallacious to presuppose religion would typically result in carnage although religion is not totally above suspicion either.

In reality, ostensible religious terrorism transpires only under the coalescence of idiosyncratic political, social and ideological conditions. Religion becomes fused with vehement expressions of communal objectives, personal egotism, and movements for governmental reform. Thus, such heinous acts cannot be justified on tenets of religious beliefs.

Explanations for terrorism are further complicated by the ethical ambiguity that encircles terrorism. Pragmatic theorists and non-utilitarian philosophers hold contradictory opinions on whether particular acts of terrorism can be vindicated as the lesser evil in a specific circumstance. Utilitarian logicians can hypothetically formulate instances in which sin of terrorism is outweighed by significant commodities that cannot be secured with less moral loss. In practice, pragmatists repeatedly rebuff terrorism since it is extremely questionable that acts of terrorism achieve imperative goods in an efficient conduct or that the detrimental outcomes of undermining the pact of non-combatant immunity is considered to prevail over the success of terrorism. On the contrary, Don Quixotes stress that terrorism is constantly amoral unless the society faces the acute peril of absolute annihilation and the sole means of self-preservation is through deliberately targeting non-combatants. Due to ethical inconclusiveness, it is challenging to realize an accord on the settings in which terrorism can be justified.

Terrorism can be justified through the communal, constitutional, religious and moral creeds of the insurgents because in the modern world, there is no absolute right or wrong concept and there is no standard of doctrines. Moreover, terrorism is a pejorative term with intrinsically negative insinuations which are broadly relevant to one’s dissidents. To a large extent, the application of the term is exceedingly prejudiced such that its use implies a moral assessment. If a person empathizes with the victim of antagonism on one hand, then the act is considered terrorism. On the other hand, assuming one identifies with the freedom fighter, the brutal act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not encouraging or at least ambivalent light.

Young Offenders should be given a second chance. Do you agree?

In the world of today, the young are subjected to all sorts of influences, be it positive or negative. Friends, television programmes, movies and games inoculate the young with trends, attitudes and thinking. With the mind of the young still undergoing development, such influence affects their actions, and the fact that much of the content of the media consists of violence and crime, it is inevitable that the young commit offences. In recent times, the number of young offenders is on the rise and punishment is employed to reduce crime by young people. Should young offenders be given a second chance? I believe so for the most part.

First of all, these young offenders– first-time offenders no less– are but young individuals aged thirteen to nineteen. Their minds are still undergoing development and are not very capable of rational thinking. As such, they more than likely did not mean to commit their first crime. If they understood the situation and consequences, things will be very different. A study by the American Youth Foundation shows that at least two-thirds of all young first-time offenders committed their crime simply because they were either not thinking clearly, subjected to peer pressure or being unaware that it is a crime, to begin with; reasons displaying a lack of rational thinking. It is unjust to punish one when one was not thinking rationally or did not mean to commit the offence in the first place. It is the same as subjecting chastisement to a toddler for flaunting vulgarities. Simply put, it is not fair. Therefore, young offenders should be given a second chance as they are not very capable of rational thinking since their minds are still developing and it is unfair to punish them.

Secondly, by punishing them when their minds are still undergoing development, a scar will be etched into their minds. In this way, we are forcing them to link the committing of offences to pain and suffering. These methods are barbaric. We can not possibly employ methods we use on beasts of burden to young people. For instance, we whip horses to run faster and beat cows that leave the boundary designated by the farmer. These animals feel the pain and link their so-called “wrongdoings” to the abovementioned pain. Treating animals like this is bad enough; to do the same to a fellow human is reprehensible. Instead of punishing them on their first offence, counselling should be employed. Not only will they be fully aware of their crime and learn from it, but it is also humane. Therefore, young offenders should be given a second chance and not be blindly punished simply because they broke a law.

Thirdly, young offenders should be given a second chance as it is their first offence. By punishing them, we are refusing their right to fully comprehend the severity of their crime. By doing so, they are simply suffering although they do not know why, potentially leading them to a repeat offence, or even leading them to be recalcitrant offenders. The whole point of punishment is to prevent young offenders from repeating their crime. If the young offenders repeat their crime, the purpose of punishment is defeated. A study done by the Juvenile Court in Britain has shown that at least three-quarters of repeat offenders committed their crime a second time as they were punished on their first offence and were not entirely clear why thus spurring them to repeat the same offence a second time. Indeed, it is ludicrous to punish young offenders on their first offence. Instead, counselling should be employed as mentioned above. Only then will the young offender be completely aware of their wrongdoings and prevent history from repeating itself. Therefore, young offenders should be granted a second chance as punishing them on their first offence proves to be an ineffective way of preventing them from repeating their offence.

Still, it is not logical to let them be scot-free on their first offence. It really depends on the offence. Exonerating a teenage boy for committing murder is exorbitant. Therefore, they can only be granted a second chance if their crime is minor enough to warrant a chance, such as stealing or shoplifting. However, since most of the first-time offences are minor, it is logical to grant young offenders a second chance in general. Statistics by the Singapore Police Force shows that at least 2% of all crimes committed by young people are severe enough to warrant severe punishment, such as manslaughter or murder. Therefore, since such a small percentage of crimes committed by young people are severe, second chances should be granted to the first time, young offenders.

In conclusion, I believe that young offenders should be given a second chance for the most part as their minds are still undergoing development which undermines their ability to think rationally, it is their first offence, most of the crimes are minor, to begin with, it is only moral to use humane methods and it is their right to be fully aware of their crime and punishing them on their first offence is unjust. This second chance should be coupled with counselling so that they may be fully aware of the severity of their crime and prevent a repeat in history.

Progress is Good. Discuss

Progress — the word commonly employed to describe improvements and advancement with regard to the passage of time, invoking positive connotations. Yet is what we typically call progress all that good— for us and the world at large?

The passing of recent centuries, most notably the nineteenth to twentieth, has been described as steps forward for mankind. One would frequently come across commentators talking about the “progress” we humans have made since the 20th century. Indeed, we have been pushing the frontiers of science, making huge break-throughs in innovations and understanding. Average life expectancy globally is and has been on the uptrend with the advent of modern medical science. Previously hugely dangerous and potentially fatal child-birth has been conquered by knowledge gains in gynaecology and measures developed to counter the myriad of hazards. Innovative mechanisation of mundane and repetitive tasks like production lines have been turned over to more efficient robots. Judging by these yardsticks, no doubt we have progressed positively over the years.

Yet, on the other hand, the same period saw the exponential increase in military capabilities. We went from fighting localised contained wars into dreaming of global annihilation. From shooting muskets round by round on horseback in the Napoleonic Wars, we have “progressed” into mowing down advancing waves of each other with machine guns while hiding in the trenches of World War I. World War II saw the spreading of destruction from the battlefield into the population at large through indiscriminate allied airborne bombing runs. The Cold War brought about winds of change bearing nuclear bombs. Opposing sides began threatening each other with the ability to destroy each other’s half of the planet with a rain of nuclear detonations. In light of all these, militaries continue to use “progress” to describe the upgrading of their capabilities when all that does is to spur each other into acquiring progressively deadlier weaponry to keep up. How exactly is this “progress” beneficial?

On the political front, leaders who make little or no change to the status quo are described as conservative, even regressive — as opposed to leaders who make sweeping changes and supposedly help the nation progress. No doubt some positive quantum shifts have been made with regards to women rights and their roles in society. Yet more often than not, progress described as beneficial and introduced by “progressive” politicians are nothing more than policy oscillations between political leaders. Take the Woman’s Charter in Singapore for an example. In Singapore’s formative years, women typically took a back seat to males and the Woman’s Charter was hailed as a huge progressive step in the right direction for woman rights. Yet progress now is defined by the rolling back of certain parts of the Woman’s Charter and implementing the rolling-out of a “Man’s Charter” to enshrine gender equality. As such, how does a person even begin to ascertain the benefits of progress in the political sense when it is nothing more than skin-deep policy vacillations to suit voter sentiments of the moment?

Perhaps one can ask about the global economy – surely, we must have progressed in that aspect? No doubt average incomes and wealth worldwide have generally increased and by western standards, the standard of living has increased too. Yet absolute figures do not tell the whole story. Much of the world is labouring under the umbrella of capitalism despite its inherent imbalances. Capitalism generally rewards the person with the most resources at his disposal, leading the rich to get richer and the poor to get comparatively poorer as the gap widens. This is akin to letting the sprinter who jumps the gun and emerges first to win. In addition, who is to say that leading simple carefree lives by subsistence farming and living off the land, having shorter life expectancies as compared to leading a longer modern life of consumerism, makes a person any less well off? Thus, how exactly can such progress be said to be beneficial, if it can even be called progress in the first place?

Progress, as we know it today, is based upon the western world’s ideas of advancement and can hardly be described as universal. However, going by that yardstick, it is beneficial only in certain aspects where it is ambiguous at best for the rest. In this light, we should be more discriminating in areas for advancement and not progress for progress’ sake; rather, we should weigh the consequences of each advancement to allow the world to benefit from progress together.

Science never provides solutions, it only poses more questions. Discuss.

This essay is presented with the accompanying critique.

Mankind has always been a curious creature; religion gave him an answer to birth, death and the life after death, philosophy answered his questions on the purpose and values in life but science has been an important tool, which provided him answers to all the basic questions he was looking for, like why an apple would fall from its tree. [_1] The question asserts that science has never brought any solutions for mankind, and that scientific discoveries have merely created more problems for us in our endeavours to find the truth. While one can argue that science does provide solutions, one can’t[_2]  deny that it also poses more questions; for example, vaccinations have helped eradicate diseases that have plagued man for ages, while the same scientific knowledge in the wrong hands can lead to the outbreak of biological warfare. This essay would will focus on how science has brought progress for mankind; although science may pose questions for mankind, it is ultimately the source for the answers to these questions too. It would be a stretch to say that science never provides solutions.

One of the greatest innovations in science has been in the field of medicine. Scientific discoveries such vaccinations for small pox and polio have helped to cure diseases that have plagued us for generations and hence have undoubtedly helped to make the quality of life better. However the solutions brought on by medical discoveries are outweighed by ethical concerns; sometimes, scientific discoveries are made when scientists evade ethical guidelines for their personal glory. In the past a lot of cures for diseases were made through self-experimentation and experimentation on unknowing subjects; for example, both the polio and the small pox vaccines were perfected through self-experimentation first on the scientists and their assistants and then experimentation on children. While these discoveries undeniably were a solution for diseases that would otherwise have claimed much more lives, the disregard for ethics poses the question whether contemporary scientists would follow Jenner and Sabin [_3] in put their lives and the lives of their subjects on the line for the personal glory gained from their discoveries. The solution to this lies in the Declaration of Geneva, a modern-day adaptation of the Hippocratic oath, which most doctors observe today. The Declaration stipulates that a doctor puts his patient’s health as his utmost consideration and that he would practice medicine with conscience. Hence medicine is not just one of the greatest scientific innovations of mankind but the social responsibility of doctors ensures that people are not abused in the pursuit of science. It would be a hard argument to swallow that science never provides solutions.

Sometimes there is nothing inherently wrong with the discovery itself, however inaccurate depictions of scientific discoveries by journalists with little scientific knowledge may lead to people questioning the value of scientific discoveries. A key goal of media companies would be to gain more audience; hence an impartial and subjective media may stress the problems of scientific discoveries without highlighting the benefits. Case in point was Andrew Wakefield’s publication on the MMR vaccine and a correlation with autism; such side effects of the vaccine were not only not replicated in other experiments, but also later proved to be false, simply published so as to gain a larger audience for the publisher. Media as a medium for disseminating scientific discoveries may cause people to question the costs of scientific discoveries as the solutions brought on by scientific discoveries may not be fully represented in the media.

Science is getting more important in our daily lives as we progress into the technological era. Scientific inputs in agriculture and technology helped the previously nomadic man to settle down and develop their civilisations. With agriculture, man didn’t[_4]  have to spend so much time hunting and gathering their food, while technology enabled man to build cities and the infrastructure, from the most basic necessity of sewers to building power and utility grids that help sustain our day-to-day lives. As we progress further into the technological era, we are becoming more dependent on technology to do our daily tasks; almost anyone in a developed country would spend at least an hour a day using a computer or a personal communication device. Technology has definitely made our lives easier, but the ease that technology has brought to our lives also poses the question, whether we have become slaves to technology. Innovations in technology were a solutions to increase our productivity but mankind has started to become overly dependent on computers, sometimes sacrificing personal interaction, because work can be done alone with a computer without much help needed from other people. However, if we are slaves to technology, it is because we ourselves have placed the shackles of slavery on our own wrists. The manifestation of technology as our enslaver is only an illusion that we have made up. In the end, we are the masters of technology, and as such, if we are too dependent on technology we are consequently our own enslavers.

Sometimes[_5]  science is used to gain political leverage over a country with the promise of economic gains for that country. Scientific breakthroughs that happened during the 20th century were funded by a western push. For example, nuclear fission as a source of energy and as a weapon was discovered in the 1940s and 1950s by both America and the Soviet Union. As part of the Atoms for Peace program, nuclear power plants were built in Iran to ease the burden on fossil fuels to provide energy. The US attempt to gain political leverage in Iran failed however when the US-allied Shah was overthrown. The solution of using nuclear fission for energy turned into a question whether Iran would use enriched uranium for weapons instead. As we move into a more globalised world, science would unquestionably be used to gain political allegiances of less developed countries. Yet the solutions given by science could pose problems if, like the case of Iran, this scientific knowledge falls into the wrong hands.[_6]  Hence it would be myopic to say that science never provides solutions when the problem is actually political.

Sometimes[_7]  scientific discoveries may tell us the truth about something but not provide any meaningful solution for us. Science research institutions help to foster scientific research by providing a conducive environment. These institutions provide scholarships to promote discoveries, which could be helpful for mankind in the future, yet they also pose questions for the layman, what if the discovery is not beneficial for mankind. Case in point, the Large Hadron Collider in CERN, . while the experiments in the LHC are meant to benefit the field of particle physics, they could also produce black holes that are potentially dangerous for earth.[_8]  The research done may not provide any solutions for us in the field of particle physics and may simply just pose more questions in our search for the truth.

Gustave Le Bon[_9] once said, “Science has promised us truth. It has never promised us either peace or happiness.” Science as a means of acquiring knowledge is pure, but the desires of mankind, be it personal glory, political leverage or commercial gains through media have corrupted science merely as a tool of finding solutions without thinking of any possible consequences. One would have to agree with Le Bon in saving that science does not promise peace or happiness, yet the discoveries made by science can indeed help make our lives better. Many scientific discoveries are irreversible; once they have been made, there is no going back. Therefore, we have to learn from our past mistakes of not thinking about the questions posed by science, so that we would know where our new discoveries would take us and we would be more prepared for the outcomes of these discoveries.

 [_1]Good lead in statement. (Science never provides solutions).

 [_2]Avoid all Contracttions. OK for American styled writing. Contractions are casual terms.

 [_3]You need to introduce authority.  Who are they? Just listing them is not enough to justify a reference.

 [_4]Avoid contractions

 [_5]Avoid subjectivity.  Historical accounts shows that science has been used to gain political leverage…

 [_6]Nice example. Do you know of AQ Khan from Pakistan?

 [_7]Avoid subjectivity and never start a new paragraph using the same word as the previous para.

 [_8]If you have read the story about black holes being potentially created during the experiment, the scientists have said that they would be too small and minute to cause any damage. So you might want to tweak the idea of science never provides solutions.

 [_9]Gustave Le Bon, the famous French social psychologist and amateur physicist…

To what extent does the migration of people have a positive effect?

While this is a good essay, by today’s standards, the introduction and conclusion are excessively long.

Migration of people has become a collective norm, such that it is an ascendant characteristic of the contemporary society thus regulating international and cross-provincial migration is a prime concern on the policy agendas of developed and Third World states. The term “migration of people” refers to the movement of individuals such as refugees and economic migrants. This phenomenon is chiefly pertinent at present, taking into account the projection of unceasing global and regional migration animated by ageing of First World populations, mounting labour shortages in numerous developed states and urban provinces, as well as chronic disparities in income and standard of living across industrialized and developing civilizations. The modern unparalleled degree of migration incites substantial demographic, ethnical and socio-cultural reforms in many communities. Camps are divided on a myriad of issues and the aftermaths of resettlement. Consequently, there is an emerging consensus that migration of people, supposing appropriate policy measures are implemented, may engender crucial merits for expatriates, host nations and motherlands. However, given that immigration can be perceived as a double-edged sword, it does not emphatically imply propitious outcomes. Hence, migration of people has a positive effect to a large extent.

In a gradually more diverse world, where migration is repeatedly discerned as a menace to national and provincial identities in addition to social cohesion, it is fundamental to stress the positive stimulus migration initiates in host states and regions, with regard to workforce, creation of affluence, ubiquitous poverty decline, innovation and fecundity. On one hand, there is proliferating belief that immigration precipitates growth. Migration tends to boost employment in host societies, draw an influx of foreign capital and investment, beget a cosmopolis, and heighten the capacity for modernism. Several economists claim that the import of cheap labour has trifling bearing on incomes and trade openings for domestic workers since migrant workers are frequently employed in low-wage unskilled practices for which there is a lack of local supply of manpower. Therefore, the migration of people is beneficial for the receipt states and districts. 

On the other hand, sceptics assert that immigration would intensify public welfare strain as well as hostility between the migrant population and the locals in host communities. One Centre of Immigration Studies (CIS) repudiated the advantages of immigration, stating the case of Mexican migrants in the United States. The study alleged that Mexican immigrants have spawned a five percent regression in wages for the poorest ten percent of the American households. Furthermore, impecunious immigrants exploit social services at twice the rate of native Americans. Thus the detractors argue that migration is detrimental. Despite the element of legitimacy in their approach of analysis, I consider their deduction to be too sweepingly pessimistic. The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) elucidated findings such as the majority of immigration trends illustrated modest or zero influence on employment and earnings of residents. Although economic theory suggests that in the short run, and on the assumption that the skill composition of the immigrant inflow diverges from that of locals, migration may be adverse, the net effects of migration are generally positive over the protracted period.

Concurrently, Third World countries and rural provinces may experience the “brain drain” phenomenon which describes the loss of trained and educated individuals to emigration. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), there are more African scientists and engineers in practice in the United States than in their homeland. The United Nations Population Fund, 2010 State of the World Population report determined that Africa merely retains 1.3 percent of the globe’s health care practitioners despite having over a quarter of tuberculosis cases worldwide. Moreover, Chinese farms are observing a scarcity of labour as rural-urban immigration level rise to a prodigious high. With escalating reliance on agricultural imports, China’s food security is increasingly threatened. Nevertheless, source states also reap benefits through remittances, both cash and societal, in the form of declines in fertility, child mortality rates, higher school enrolment rates and the empowerment of women. The exodus of highly skilled workers should be reflected as a symptom instead of a rationale behind failing public systems in those regions. Therefore, migration is advantageous on the whole, for the sending societies.

It is temerarious to form elementary assessments about the benefits of migrant flows from developing to developed states, and from rural to urban provinces. For poverty-stricken countries, the migration of a sizeable fraction of their talents imperils those remaining behind. The underlying reality is that communities necessitate human capital to ensure progress, assemble institutions as well as implement guiding principles which are the strategic pillars of sustained development. The central factors of intercontinental and domestic migration lie in the inequalities which exist in stages of development. Since the significant magnitude, doggedness and flagrancy of the gaps are likely to reinforce the pressures for migration in the imminent future, this migration trend is probable to increase. Given the considerable and multifaceted aftermaths of migration, the global community should seek a more impartial recruitment of less skilled, greater emphasis on provisional employment with incentives to return, and accent on remedying the institutional malfunctions which motivate talents to leave. With these rudiments in place, migration would be more advantageous for development.

Dominance of Asia is inevitable. Discuss.

A ten year old essay that still reads fresh!

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew gave a piece of his advice to the US administration when he was there to receive the Lifetime Achievement Award in Washington. He opined that if the US does not recognize that the Asia-Pacific is where the economic center is going to be, US would lose its influence worldwide in decades to come.  Once considered a poor continent from the devastations of the World Wars with little or no influence (with the exception for Japan) on the global economy, Asia is now seen as playing a leading role on the global stage.  The dominance of Asia in decades to come will be more defined as a shift in new economic global order sets in.

Intrinsic integration of economies has opened up markets in Asia which has widely benefitted it. Compared to the developed continents of Europe and North America, Asia is largely still a developing continent which strangely is working in her favour. The opening of emerging economies like Thailand, Vietnam and the two economic superpowers India and China has seen low wages being offered partly due to an abundant supply of labour and partly due to lower skills of these workers. As a result, these had led to many multinational corporations to outsource production of their goods in Asia to take advantage of the low-cost of production so as to be able to retain global competitiveness. China known as the world’s largest manufacturer has seen surge in demand for its labour that led to its economy to be overheated.  India too is known to export IT services to countries due to her level of competency in that field, many Indian expatriates have been working in Silicon Valley, making up 30 per cent of the workforce. Due to greater demand from corporations it too allowed Asia to grow at an accelerating for the world to straighten up and recognize the rising dominance of Asia due to her economic prowess. 

A downside to this though is that as Asia expands at an accelerating pace internal problems have become more poignant. In large parts of Asia, rural developments still persist. People in these areas tend to be illiterate and still engage in the cradle to grave employment – farming. They do not benefit from economic growth that other sectors do arising to the microeconomic problem of widening income inequality. China’s Gini coefficient is relatively high which signifies that if Asian government do not address the bipolarity in developments within its boundaries, the dominance of Asia may just become a passing fad. 

On the entertainment area, Asian movies have been making its mark globally.  Mention Bollywood and immediately one would conjure up an image of constant song and dance that revolves around a tree.  Several Asian movies have received international awards such as Mother from South Korea, My Magic from Singapore;  the Japanese movie The Departures won an Oscar award for best foreign film. Cross-border collaborations are rising as well. Westerners see Asia rich in culture and its diversity appealing as more Hollywood movies direct their movies in Asia.  Even remakes of Asian films such as “My Sassy Girl” and “Departed” illustrate the growing influence of the Asian entertainment industry. 

The myriad of traditions able to blend together in a melting point allows many Asian films to the created derived from the cross-cultural experiences in Asia which is its triumph card in the international market. Models too known for their “exotic looks” are making waves on in the fashion industry. Its dominance yet is not obvious but in decades to come, its rippling of waves would turn to full tides.

Education – a vital, necessary tool to equip are with the necessary knowledge to be able to command a higher wage for skills learnt to provide a comfortable life for one has seen Asian university rankings rise in the annual QS list. The desire to be taken seriously by their competitors have witnessed an immense hunger in Asia to strive for the best or so to speak. Asian education system is known for its rigours and is clearly evident in the number of international maths and science Olympiads Asians win. Compared to the US education system, where school days follow the 19th century agarian calendar which has become irrelevant in today’s world, pale in comparison to the Asian school system, Japan has 242 school days, South Korea 220 and Singapore 200. This has provided Asians a competitive edge in consistent production of highly skilled workers.  This, coupled with low-cost labour, creates an ideal investment environment. Academics aside, athletes too are becoming serious competitors in international competitions. It is no wonder then that Asia will lead with an army of well educated scholars that can shape policy and industry.

However, a crucial limiting reagent that can potentially undermine the dominance of Asia is that it is the most vulnerable continent to climate changes that can adversely impede the growth of Asia. The Java coastline of Indonesia has the world’s most fault lines, making it most exposed to earthquakes. To recent surge of fury of mother nature all occurred in Asia.  From typhoons rampant in Philippines to Taiwan to Japan, it creates havoc, destroys buildings and more importantly creates casualties. The economic aid into reconstruction from the damage is huge. As Asia constantly experiences such calamities, resources have to be diverted to aid devastated neighbours. This would hinder the capacity Asia has to grow. It is of utmost importance and only circumspect that Asia weaves a social fabric to truly become a domineering force. Lack of aid in times of need would result in a fallout as a whole.  Increasing dominance will be diminishing in decades to come instead.

Boasting multi-ethnic groups, multi-talented individuals and large domestic market, Asia is a force to be reckoned with. Its buzzing nightlife and rising social entrepreneurs has sent a message to the world. It is said to be the makeshift of new economic world order. These are transparent signs of rising dominance but to see it turn to actuality, only time will tell.