Leonardo Da Vinci - Dreams to Reality

Leonardo da Vinci was a man who defined his era as much as his era defined him. Born amidst the bustle of the Renaissance era, he drew inspiration from the resurgence of discovery and creativity in the great minds around him, while concomitantly inspiring many others – in his lifetime and beyond – towards greatness.

            Leonardo da Vinci embodied the thirst for knowledge and self-improvement that lays at the foundation of every progressive society. From a precocious young age, Leonardo displayed an abundant curiousity in the workings of the world – in his leisure time, he would explore his village of Vinci, recording his observations in a notebook. Nothing was lost under his observant and critical eye, and these observations helped Leonardo formulate an understanding of the enigmatic world around him. In fact, the empirical approach he adopted towards science is what, centuries later, scientists decades older than him call the ‘scientific method’.

            Leonardo da Vinci is probably best known for painting the Mona Lisa; but his ‘contributions’ to mankind stretches from paintings of noblewomen smiling demurely to soldiers screaming in agony. Leonardo da Vinci pioneered the concept of the modern tank, albeit without large rocket launchers or state-of-the-art armour-plating. He envisioned, in his own words, a ‘covered chariot which is safe and cannot be assaulted’. Simply put, this ‘covered chariot’ was a circular structure protected on all sides by metal plates. Eight soldiers would sit inside this encased behemoth, pedaling furiously to turn its wheels while firing shots out of small slits in the walls.

            The true impact of Leonardo’s revolutionary idea of a mobile fortress was only felt four centuries later, when Winston Churchill commissioned the development of the modern tank during World War I. The tank soon became a crucial weapon in the British army. Its emergence on the battlefield struck fear into the hearts of Germans, Britain’s primary wartime energy, while boosting the morale of British soldiers. British tanks blasted through enemy lines so quickly that British infantry units were sometimes unable to keep up. Today, tanks have become an indispensable part of any modern army – a testament to the impact of Leonardo’s idea.

            Ultimately, Leonardo’s life was as brilliant and inspired as it was ironic and tragic. Despite not having access to the many modern conveniences that purport to make 21^st century living more efficient, Leonardo’s accomplishments in the fields of art, engineering, and research are still astoundingly remarkable, even to the brightest minds of our time. Despite living in an era of pestilence, privation, and protests, much of Leonardo da Vinci’s art depict an idyllic and heavenly world far removed from the suffering of the real world. Despite being a man of such repute and talent, Leonardo never received a proper burial, and to this date, his actual bones have never been identified. Leonardo da Vinci’s physical imprint on our world may have been lost in the folds of time, but his ideas and boundless human spirit ring eternal, continuing to inspire us to this date. 

Taking risks is an essential part of life and should be encouraged. Discuss.

In this uncertain world we live in, the label ‘risk-free’ has been slapped onto just about anything – financial products, medical operations, and, particularly in Singapore, the mandatory national service program. Indeed, the pervasiveness of risk in our lives is matched only by our desire to eliminate it. However, risk is an essential part of our lives, and instead of doggedly trying to avoid it, we should learn to embrace it in calculated steps.

            

From the outset, risks are inevitable, an inherent part of our lives. Life is a tapestry of uncertain choices – from choices as life-changing as who to marry, to choices as minute as what to eat for lunch. Uncertain outcomes, by nature, are risky – as mere mortals with incomplete knowledge, we often have limited control over the outcomes of our choices. When we take a leap of faith in committing to a marriage, for instance, there is little we can do to be absolutely certain of about how the marriage would pan out in the decades to come. This makes the choice to marry someone inherently risky, for we have committed ourselves to a relationship that could potentially fail and result in disastrous consequences. Ironically, however, it is precisely because of the potential ramifications of risks that we should seek to maximise our exposure to them. Increased exposure to risks allows us to accumulate experience about the positive and negative effects of our decisions, helping us build up crucial decision-making competencies. Moreover, experiencing risk – and its associated failures – on a constant basis strengthens one’s resilience, fueling the desire and ability to surmount all obstacles in accomplishing great feats of the human spirit.

            

Furthermore, risk taking stretches human potential, opening the doors to groundbreaking innovations. Revolutionary endeavours are, by definition, unprecedented. To undertake them, therefore, constitutes a certain element of risk, as there are no forerunners to guide the way. In fact, the most remarkable of human enterprises often begin with shot in the dark, a foray into the risky and uncertain depths of the future. This situation is analogous to a team of rock climbers scaling a treacherous mountain. The most experienced mountaineer is often given the most difficult task of leading his team – where others can simply follow and imitate the actions of those above them, the leader has to possess the foresight to chart out a path to the top. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the field of scientific research. Scientific research is only valuable if it presents new information, creating breakthroughs that revoluntionise the world of science. To do so in an industry already saturated with thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of scientists and researchers requires the use of innovative and unprecedented research methods. This presents a huge element of risk – scientists embarking on truly groundbreaking research often have no inkling when, or if at all, they will arrive at conclusive research findings. Yet, research institutes have to make the critical decision to accept the risk of failure whenever they pour millions of dollars into funding a scientific research project. For instance, CERN, a major scientific research institute, received over a billion Euros in funding to build the ‘Large Hadron Collider’. Scientists at CERN had postulated the existence of the Higgs Boson, sometimes enigmatically dubbed the ‘God particle’, and needed astronomical sums of money to pursue this scientific vision. However, for scientists to ascertain the validity of their theories, they have to first receive funding. This made the choice to fund the CERN research project highly risky – if successful, it could bring humanity one step closer towards unraveling the mysteries of our galaxy, if unsuccessful, it would be an utter waste of resources that could have been spent on funding other more promising fields of research. Ultimately, while embarking on unprecedented endeavours may be risky and potentially fraught with difficulties and failure, the paramount glory of being the ‘first’ to scale the peak of a mountain is awarded to those who have endured the risks of being a forerunner and leader to the team.

            

Additionally, taking risks, especially when successful, rewards greatly. There is often a premium awarded to those who are willing and able to bear with the risks that no one else would. People who stick to the conventional and conservative path are greeted with mediocrity, for they soon fade into a faceless crowd, constituting the nebulous mass of people we call ‘the average Joe’. To be truly outstanding is to be bold, to surge ahead amidst all the risks, prepared to start over in the case of failure. The spirit of taking risks in pursuing one’s passion and interests is embodied within the pro-sporting culture. People who commit themselves to a career in professional sports take on a sizeable risk – the cut-throat nature of professional competitive sports means that only a few athletes will ever make it to the top. The majority of mediocre athletes will struggle to forge a name for themselves, but if they fail, there is nothing for them. Therefore, professional athletes who make it to the big league are rewarded with skyrocketing salaries, a life of fame and excess. It is important that we overcome this phobia of risk – if we have faith in our own ability, we should not allow the looming fear of failure to prevent us from actualising our full potential, and winning the biggest purses.

           

However, while taking risks has its merits, there must be clear boundaries established on acceptable and unacceptable forms of risk. In particular, there are two things that must be kept in mind whenever risks are taken. Firstly, risks should only be taken in situations when we have some knowledge or control over how the outcome would turn out. Taking a ‘risk’ in the context of gambling is irresponsible, as gamblers often have neither the ability to influence the outcome of the game nor the knowledge of the probabilities involved in gambling. Investment, on the other hand, is a form of acceptable risk taking, as investors make decisions after analysing the economy, and formulating an idea about how the economy would likely respond in the future. Similarly, scientists base their ‘risky’ experiments on hypotheses that are based on solid research and few rely on the gut. Secondly, risk taking should be minimised where the public welfare is at stake. Different people have different thresholds for risk, and we should respect this. Hence, it would be inappropriate for government agencies to invest in risky financial products with the tax-payer’s money.

            

Ultimately, if ‘risk’ were a drink, it would be a heady concoction of fear, uncertainty, innovation and exploration. There is no escaping risk from our lives, so our best course of action would be to gulp down this gut wrenching cocktail. Bottoms up – and savour the taste of revolutionary achievements. 

Can humour ever be serious?

Humour is the universal language of men, transcending culture, language, and geography; the classic ‘why did the chicken cross the road’ joke is probably more widely recognised globally than a high-faulting Beethoven symphony, or an eloquent quote by the American president. Humour has undoubtedly played a central role in mankind’s history, as punch-lines agitate and provoke punches, and as knock-knock jokes knock many a ruler off their pedestal.            

Jokes are commonly thought of as spontaneous comments passed between friends – inconsequential and forgotten as soon as the waves of group dynamics lead the conversation elsewhere. A humourous remark passed over coffee between a closed circle of friends may seem fleeting and hardly important, but the reality is far from this. Over the years, the hours we spend working and studying have grown while the space and time we have for leisure activities have concomitantly shrunk. This has increasingly created a need for sedentary leisure activities – an escape into colourful fictional worlds after the drab hours at the workplace ends. Comedy in popular culture – in the form of television shows, movies, and cartoons - came as a natural response to this need. Today, comedies are a multi-billion dollar industry, as more viewers are each day drawn to the allure of a light-hearted alternate reality where every word is delivered with comedic relish. As with anything commercial, this has pushed the simple act of laughing into the serious world of profit maximisation and business politics. The spontaneous and blithe atmosphere of commercial comedies may suggest otherwise, but the creation of a comedy which appeals to the mass public involves much serious thought. Sesame Street, one of the most beloved entertainment shows for toddlers, is one such instance of a ‘serious’ comedy. Prior to the release of Sesame Street, the producers conducted extensive market sampling to understand the interests of their target audience, allowing them to distill, with great precision, what was funny and what was not.  Moreover, before each episode of Sesame Street went live, the producers would test-run the show on a small group of toddlers, noting when toddlers would lose interest, and making the necessary adjustments. With millions of dollars invested in creating commercial comedies, it stands to reason that every producer would want their jokes to appeal to as many people as possible, and this often means that serious consideration is invested into the various aspects of a good joke – the timing, the tone of the speaker, the subject matter, inter alia.

            

Moreover, it is the belief of many that laughter is unconscious, and that the best jokes are spontaneous, appealing to people on a very fundamental, even primal, level. There is an implicit assumption that good jokes are funny simply for the sake of being funny, and should not be loaded with weighty societal considerations. However, sometimes the jokes that appeal most to people are the jokes that inject humour into the most depressing of situations; jokes that poke fun at the myriad of societal problems. It is no small coincidence that there was a surge in both the creation and viewership of cartoons during the two major world wars, as soldiers and civilians turned to cartoons as a means of expressing their discontent with the war. Throughout history, satirical comedies have been employed as a potent tool for expressing dissent against the status quo. Satires allow for the impact of criticism to be blunted, protecting dissidents from the iron fist of the ruling regime. Moreover, humour is often more palatable and appealing than harsh critique, generating more interest in the subject matter while packaging it in a convincing way. Humour, particularly in the form of satire, facilitates open thought and discussion, whereas other forms of criticism tend to provoke charged emotions and causes people to become defensive. It is precisely for the aforementioned reasons that humour has been used so extensively as a tool for voicing dissatisfaction to achieve serious change in society. A prime example is the Mr Brown Show in Singapore, which employs humour to illustrate the problems in Singaporean society, and criticise the shortcomings of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). While other dissidents along the ranks of J.B. Jeyaretnam have been sued for defamation owing to their unfettered criticism of the PAP, the Mr. Brown Show remains standing, ever popular among the growing number of Singaporean youth. Hence, it is evident that humour can indeed serve serious aims by provoking thought and expressing one’s voice in socially acceptable ways.

            

Anyone who has ever been held accountable for making insensitive and offensive jokes has used the same line of defence – ‘It was only a joke’. Indeed, the very light-heartened nature of jokes often seems to suggest that they are not to be taken seriously. For this reason, some may question the efficacy of using jokes to promote serious social causes. However, even if jokes are created with purely comedic intentions, their audience may not share similar sentiments. Racist jokes may be viewed by some as just a humourous outlook on the stereotypical traits of the various races, but to others, they are deeply degrading and offensive. Therefore, it is a serious offence to make racist jokes publically in many societies around the world, as they fall under the category of hate speech. The central problem here is that the intent involved in creating the joke does not align with the actual outcome of the joke – in other words, a carelessly made joke may have serious and unintended outcomes. The Danish cartoons in 2005 which portrayed the Islamic prophet, for instance, brought racial and religious tensions to a boiling point, causing violent protests around the world. Such is the destructive potential of insensitive jokes. We like to think of humour as a light-hearted and carefree attitude to approach the world, but there is no escaping the fact that, if employed poorly, humour can have serious ramifications.

            

If humour is the universal language of men, then we must be aware of the nuances and unspoken rules of the language. Like the chicken who wants to get across the road, we must always be cognizant of how we use humour and the potential impacts it may have in order to achieve our intended aims. Humour is certainly no laughing matter.

How far do you agree that happiness should be considered a key factor in public policy?

A critique of 2 articles about happiness and wealth

Passage A: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/07/society.politicalcolumnists

Passage B: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/04/04/the-joy-of-economics.html

I believe that happiness can be considered a factor in public policy. However, concomitantly, advancing happiness should always come secondary to promoting economic growth.

            

In the fore, the author of passage B argues that raising happiness levels may serve as a convenient pretext to advance dubious political aims, oppressing the liberties of the very people governments purport to make happier. I agree with this argument. Happiness is often a highly individualistic experience – attaining it may sometimes come at the expense of other’s unhappiness. People feel happier if there are less traffic jams, but in order to reduce traffic jams, governments may have to reduce ownership of private cars and encourage more people to take public transport instead – a policy that would certainly not bode well with many aspiring car-owners. Fundamentally, the nirvana of ‘win-win’ is often elusive, even unattainable. Given that public policy should be informed by an utilitarian calculus that seeks to maximise the welfare of as many people as possible, the inherently self-centred pursuit of happiness should not feature greatly in public policy. In fact, governments may use ‘raising happiness levels’ as a legitimising factor to exclusively promote the welfare of the privileged ruling elite. This argument holds especially true in Singapore, a diverse multiracial society. The element of ethnicity and religion factors greatly into how one derives happiness, or unhappiness, for that matter. For instance, conservative Chinese may see it necessary to their well-being to organise extravagant and even noisy marriages, while people of other races who are less appreciative of loud drum music may see such events as a nuisance to their everyday life. If happiness were to be a key factor in public policy, the government would run the risk of appearing to favour a particular ethnicity over another, undermining the very basis of a cohesive multiracial society. Therefore, I agree with the argument that happiness should not be a key factor in public policy.

            

Additionally, the author of passage A argues that an absolute increase in wealth does not relate to an increase in happiness. The presence of income inequality leads to massive amounts of discontent, especially among those less well-off. The author then draws the logical conclusion that economic progress is not central towards achieving happiness. While I agree with the author’s initial reasoning, I do not agree with the argument’s logical extrapolation. From the outset, simply slowing economic growth would do nothing to reduce income inequality. To achieve greater equality in wealth within the country, governments need to invest in a more robust social safety net, and a more inclusive education system that promotes social mobility. These measures are by no means easy to afford, and can only be implemented sustainably if the economy is growing, and the government has sizeable tax revenues. Across Europe, the recent wave of financial instability has forced governments into austerity, causing the social safety net to be drawn in, and large amounts of civil servants to be retrenched. This had the effect of widening the income disparity, which would, by the author’s own admittance, cause widespread unhappiness. In particular, this argument applies in Singapore. Singapore is perched on a precarious economic foothold, facing massive economic competition from rival economic powerhouses such as Hong Kong and Taiwan. Singapore’s local entrepreneurial market is fledging at best – there are hardly any jobs being created locally. As such, Singapore depends largely on jobs provided by large multi-national corporations (MNCs). With the highly mobile nature of MNCs in mind, if Singapore were to lose its economic competitiveness, large numbers of jobs would leave the nation, causing endemic unemployment. Hence, I believe that economic growth should come at the forefront of public policy, above and beyond happiness.

            

Finally, the author from passage A posits that the pursuit of economic growth has left people with less time to enjoy the pleasures of life, as people become laden and encumbered with their demanding careers. Implicit in this argument is the assumption that happiness and economic prosperity are mutually exclusive. I do not agree with this argument. On an individual level, the promise of life-long hedonism is merely a myth spurned by consumerist corporations. People often have to toil hard to afford a brighter future – this is a simple reality that everyone goes through. Just because people choose to work harder to afford a more comfortable retirement does not make their lives unhappy. On a governmental level, increasing economic prosperity is key to maximising levels of happiness. Different people have different perceptions of happiness – some people derive true happiness from embarking on an adventure around the globe, while others are content with a sedentary life surrounded by their loved ones. Therefore, to inform public policy by trying to help each and every individual achieve his unique vision of happiness would be wildly unfeasible. A far more realistic approach would be simply to increase economic prosperity, for money is a great enabling factor that empowers people to truly live out their dreams. This argument applies to Singapore as well. It is superficial to say that happiness lies only in the moment, when people do things they enjoy – lasting happiness lies in the fulfillment of one’s ambitions, and that often involves putting in hard work beforehand. In particular, Singapore’s education system is famed for being as successful as it is stressful. However, instead of seeing the stress as an unwelcome by-product of a successful education system, perhaps the stress is an integral part of driving students towards academic excellence. It is undeniable that the stress may cause unhappiness in the short-term. However, to declare that the entire educational experience in Singapore is an unhappy one would be to neglect the myriad of benefits that being highly educated confers on people. Hence, I do not believe that happiness should weigh heavily on public policy.

            

Ultimately, I do not believe that happiness should be a key factor in determining public policy.  

Disasters bring out the best in people. Do you agree?

           Disasters have long defined the human experience – the cataclysmic eruption of Mount Vesuvius left an indelible mark on the ancient civilization of Pompeii; the two World Wars left deep craters in the economic and political structures of twentieth century Europe; the recent spate of terror attacks redefined the global boundaries of violence and conflict. Mankind is certainly no stranger to disasters – natural or otherwise. While disasters may bring out the best in people when personal interests align to the communal good, in most occasions disaster have the opposite effect.

            In the fore, it may seem that disasters compel people to band together selflessly, in an attempt to overcome great challenges as a collective, united whole. Disasters present a strong imperative for people to cooperate and work together, as the strength of a collective unit far outweighs the strength of lone individuals. However, for people to truly work together, a strong force of authority must be present. The premise of human cooperation is trust, and this arises from a strong rule of law and order. Yet, in the wake of debilitating disasters, it is highly likely that the government would be destabilised, unable to enforce the rule of law. If the government cannot effectively secure the interests of individuals, then individuals will secure it themselves, even if it may harm the interests of their community. In such situations, individuals may in fact act selfishly, with blatant disregard for the greater good of the people around them. This was painfully evident in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake, when street violence erupted as people fought over supplies of food and water. The Haiti earthquake had incapacitated the already weak government, leaving the Haitians with little choice but to fend for themselves, which they, in turn, did, thereby exposing the brutality of human selfishness as looting escalated. Additionally, this same reasoning can also be applied to governments and entire nations. Nations, much like humans, are motivated by an uncompromising desire to secure their national interests. In the fast-changing world of international relations, the only constant is national interests. Hence, during times of economic deficit, nations may act on self-interested grounds, instead of considering the broader peace and security of the international community. For instance, as Iraq’s economy was struck down by a disastrous economic crisis in the late twentieth century, it embarked on an invasion of Kuwait in the Gulf War, eager to extract Kuwait’s bountiful oil supplies. Hence, it is evident that disasters, which tend to destroy the very basis of law and order, exposes a world where individuals and nations alike act selfishly, disregarding the communal good.

            Moreover, it may be tempting to believe that governments do provide assistance to the people severely affected by disasters, reducing the impetus for people to act irresponsibly to secure their personal interests. However, while some governments do provide assistance to their people, there are still a sizeable number of governments that siphons resources and aid away from the people who need it most. In the wake of natural disasters, the sympathy of the global community is aroused, and it is hardly uncommon for millions in international aid to be sent to the affected countries. Yet, where the global community sees thousands of refugees in depilated shelters, the governments of some countries see an opportunity to fatten their wallets. In Ethiopia, after a drought in 2003 left hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians in famine, millions in international aid was gathered and sent to Ethiopia. However, not only did the Ethiopian government not distribute the aid to its people – the aid money was instead directed towards buying weapons, fueling Ethiopia’s civil strife. Disasters, which allow governments to ‘sell’ sympathy for large amounts of humanitarian aid, expose the inherent greed and corruptibility of our leaders, even in the face of massive human suffering.

            In spite of this, to say that all disasters bring out the worst in people would be unrealistic – when personal interests align with the communal good, disasters may bring out the best in people. In situations in which personal interests are inextricably tied to the community, people may be compelled to work together with the community, pooling together their resources and capabilities to tide over a disaster. When people are on the proverbial ‘same boat’, they have no choice but to cooperate and strive towards the common good. If the boat sinks, everyone on board dies – there is no room for personal selfish interests to take root. A case in point is the Chilean mining accident in 2010, which left thirty-three miners trapped underground. During the two months that the miners were stranded, there was much brotherhood on display, as the miners formed a closely knit community. Luis Urzua, one of the miners trapped underground, took leadership of the situation, rationing supplies and drawing maps of the labyrinthine mining shafts. His leadership drew the miners together, ultimately allowing them to survive until help arrived. Confined in the dank and dingy mining shaft, the miners were forced to work together in order to survive this disaster – there was no possibility of any miner escaping alone. Hence, disastrous situations can make heroes out of otherwise nondescript people, heroes who are able to guide and lead people out of a crisis.

            Ultimately, it is evident that disasters can bring out both the best and worst of people. How then do we reconcile this? Fundamentally, we should understand that people are motivated by self-interest – especially during times of pressing need. If people are able to evade the crisis without the help of others, self-interest dictates that they will cast aside the cumbersome needs of the community. Earthquakes do not just reveal tectonic fault-lines – they also expose the deep-rooted fault-lines between people.

Time to redefine academic success

One of MOE’s newly minted mission statements assures the public – particularly parents whose stress levels are matched only by their determination to secure a bright future for their children – that ‘every school is a good school’. Yet, cries of indignation are abound that inequalities persist between the quality of education in ‘brand-name’ schools and lesser-known ones (“Time to redefine academic success”; Thursday).

Perhaps it is time for us to redefine our perceptions of success in general – not just academic success.

           

It is particularly telling that a key decision-making criterion for parents when it comes to choosing secondary schools is the number of Overseas Merit Scholars and medical students among the school’s alumnus. Evidently, our perception of success, and by extension, what constitutes a good school, tends to be shaped with an exclusive focus on academic excellence.

            

I think that such a view of success is unnecessarily restrictive and stressful. A person’s ability cannot and should not be quantified in a single number, be it a PSLE tee-score, or the number of A-level distinctions. Rather than trying to fit a square peg into a circular hole, we should embrace the multitude of human talents, and allow people with abilities that stretch beyond academic achievement to also succeed in life.            

            

This is precisely why polytechnics exist alongside junior colleges (JCs). Some students are more suited to an academically rigorous curriculum, while others prefer a more technical and hands-on approach to learning. Given the divergent nature of diverse human talents, different paths to success must also be divergent – not convergent in medical school. Not all roads lead to Rome – as we adopt different paths to success, we can only expect that we will end up at completely different destinations.

          

Ultimately, I believe that the fundamental problem lies in societal norms and prejudices. We cannot wait for the government to tell us how success should be defined, for it is a highly personal issue that we as a people must decide for ourselves. We should learn to capitalise on our unique abilities, broaden the definition of success, and not blindly trudge along the path which promises the best monetary gains or which is most popular in society. As Robert Frost famously declared in his poem ‘The Road Not Taken’: “I took the [road] less traveled by, And that has made all the difference”

The media can never be impartial and balanced in the reporting of news events. Do you agree?

In today’s modern information age, the proliferation of the mass media has shaped in into a towering beast, its claws stuck deep within the pie of public opinion. This immensely influential monster has been named the ‘fourth estate’ of the government, to be separate from the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches government. Such is the power and influence of the media. However, I believe that the media is hardly impartial in reporting news events, because of its political affiliations, highly commercialised nature, and the variegated nature of news events.

            It is first important to characterise the nature of media. The media, in the scope of this essay, refers to any entity which discusses news events and societal phenomenon on any platform – be it on print media or on online portals. Internet access is rapidly becoming ubiquitous and high-speed, especially with the advent of smartphones and optical broadband fibres linking up Singapore. This has aided the mushrooming of ‘citizen journalists’, who note down amusing events occurring around them, and post it on online platforms. One such example is the website ‘STOMP’ in Singapore, where it has become a societal culture to post pictures of people not giving up their seats to the elderly on public transport. Now, journalism has become a democratic activity, with every citizen being able to contribute to the development of the media.

            It has been argued that the media, especially in democratic countries, is often not directly controlled by governments or parties, and this helps it to maintain impartiality in reporting news events. However, it is often hard to find media sources which are not political affiliated. This problem may even be more acute in strongly democratic nations. In a democracy, there are often two or more parties in direct competition with each other, and voters can only support one party. In America, there is a clear line between Democrats and Republicans, and many citizens are self-declared Democrats or Republicans. Therefore, many media sources have a clear political slant. For instance, The Washington Post is generally acknowledged to slant towards the Republicans, while The New York Times tends to have a Democrat slant. After all, publishing companies are run by people, who are likely to hold certain predispositions about certain events. This phenomenon is even more evident on online social media platforms, where people often are blunt and direct with their personal opinions, and are not subjected to self-censorship. With this in mind, it is hardly surprising that the media often interprets news events in a way which adheres with its personal political affiliations. The influence of political parties on the media is not direct, but instead subtle and on an ideological level. Additionally, in some countries, especially those run by a single parties, governments choose to control and censor the media, reporting news events with a slant advantageous to them. This would definitely affect the partiality of news reporting. Such a situation can be seen in China, where the government has a tight control of what the media publishes in order to keep tabs on public sentiments. As such, some events which highlight social disorder are played down in the newspaper. In these countries, the social media then suffers from the opposite problem – the bubbling of social sentiments results in people becoming frustrated and disenfranchised with the government, causing them to post rash, defamatory remarks about the government.

            It has also been said that the media has a vested interest to be accurate in news reporting, as this would establish credibility for the company, and increase viewership. However, while it is true that it is not within a company’s interest to falsify news events or report inaccurate information, most publishing groups would, within legal limits, try to spice up news events to entice a larger audience. The fact is, most media sources are not non-profit organisations dedicated towards creating a more informed society. Most media sources are commercial organisations, whose primary goal is to make money and gain a good reputation. No one enjoys reading boring facts on a black and white newspaper. What interests people, however, are sensational interpretations of otherwise boring news events. In an attempt to make news events more interesting, journalists often fall into the trap of over-reading and over-dramatizing minute events. Just how many times have the newspapers claimed that the ‘collapse of the Euro was imminent’? Recently, the News of the World scandal brought the spotlight upon the media’s tendency – and more worryingly, their willingness, to go to extremes to bring out an exciting news article. Reporters working a ‘News of the World’ hacked into the phone of a murder victim, viewing the voicemail messages, and even deleting some messages. The result? The police were unable to track the murderer in time, resulting in tragedy and grief for the victim’s family. To think that all of this was done in order to craft a page of sensational news just shows how far the media will go to create an exciting news story. It is then no wonder that the media, with its strong desire to create enticing news articles, have no qualms about twisting facts and details about a news event.

            Finally, on a more optimistic note, it is indeed notable that today, with the rise of citizen journalism, online media sources have a multitude of people, with varied political affiliations, editing and commenting on news articles. This has been claimed to advance the reliability and impartiality of news reporting. However, even if it is possible for a news source to steer clear of political ties and resist the temptation of sensationalising news events, the media would still not be completely impartial, as many news events innately require a level of personal interpretation. The international relations of today’s world is highly complex and intertwined, and inter-nation conflicts have become a multi-faceted issue, with each sides having their own grievances. Therefore, it is very difficult for a news source to represent all sides of an issue accurately and equally. Certain events, such as the American bombing of Vietnam, or the Israeli-Palestian conflict, find their value and importance informed by the emotional and psychological pull they have on people. Therefore, it is pointless to report these news events without appealing to the viewer’s sentiments. Consequently, as media sources play to emotions in a news article, it becomes hard to represent all sides of the picture coherently. For instance, when you read that Israel has implemented the Gaza blockade, preventing essential supplies from reaching refugee shelters; when you read that Palestinians are deprived of essential supplies in the Gaza strip, our sympathy goes to the Palestinians. No matter how hard a media source then tries to represent the Israeli point of view – that they need to ensure their national security, the reader would be likely to walk away with the view that the Israelis are the aggressor, and that the Palestinians deserve our sympathy.

            At the end of the day, media sources are hardly ever impartial and balanced in reporting news events. They each have their unique affiliations and concerns, and this subtlety informs the way they present a complex news article. However, while rejecting the media as an unreliable source of information, it is worth thinking about whether media bias is a problem at all. After all, who does not like to hear a little gossip once in a while?

National Day Rally 2012

            As the national day rally drew to a close, the emphatically expressed slogan – ‘Hope, Heart, Home’ – rang resoundingly in my mind. This was in part due to the fact that these three words had elegantly embodied the three cornerstones of national development – especially for a young nation struggling to find her national identify.

            However, the main reason why this mantra struck a chord within me was its focus on the ‘softer’, more emotional aspects of nation building. This year’s national day rally seemed to be a marked shift from the past – where speeches were crafted around key national issues, such as housing woes, concerns about education, and remedying the economic recession. I appreciated the fact that the national day rally this year was focused on the less quantifiable, less concrete, and more personal aspects of what it means to be a Singaporean. ‘Hope, Heart, Home’ had a very optimistic, up-beat ring – some might say that it promised little in the way of concrete governmental action – but I feel that the key messages outlined in this year’s rally are highly important and relevant in Singapore.

            One of the main concerns flagged out in the rally was that Singapore was becoming insular in rejecting foreigners. Indeed, the wave of anti-foreigner sentiment in Singapore has only risen in the past few years, with numerous disputes between Singaporeans and foreigners. Even among Singaporeans, there has been a rift between the self-proclaimed ‘true-blue’ Singaporeans and those who are new to the family. However, I believe that this problem is, by far, not only exclusive to Singapore – many other societies also experience similar sentiments. Countries like Australia, where racial tensions led to the murder of Chinese students, and Japan, where xenophobia is displayed openly, albeit quietly, come to mind. However, as Mr. Lee pointed out, attracting foreigners is key to solving one of Singapore’s main troubles – an ageing population. This viewpoint had been augmented on numerous occasions by references to the number of jobs being greater than the number of workers available. The hidden implication of such a statement, of course, is that foreigners are not directly competing with Singaporeans for jobs. In any case, it seems that for the foreseeable future, foreigners will become an irreplaceable part of our demographic. In this case, I fully concur with Mr. Lee urging all Singaporeans to develop an inclusive society – one that accepts everyone in the community, Singaporean or otherwise.

            Singapore enjoys an enviable international repute, having shown stellar results at international competitions. However, I firmly believe that what will truly determine the future of Singapore is not how many mathematics competitions we can win – but rather, the finer details of how cohesive we are as a nation; how we define our national identity; and how much we feel we belong to Singapore. The towering heights of the distinctive Marina Bay skyline were made possible only by the cohesiveness between individual grains of sand that form the Marina coast. 

Attempts to curb global warming start at home. Is this a realistic or naïve view?

Mankind is on the verge of a global apocalypse. The polar caps are melting, the ozone hole is depleting, and global temperatures are rising. Sea levels and international tensions have risen, threatening to overwhelm and submerge islands like Singapore. Amid frustrations that global union has failed to combat global warming, it has been suggested that individual nations should take their own steps to curb global warming. However, this is ultimately a naïve view, as such an initiative would be hard to implement, and ineffective in combating global warming. Instead, focus should be targeted towards achieving global cooperation to solve this crisis in unity.

Throughout the past decade, global warming activists have been furiously attempting to convince citizens and governments to take active measures against global warming. They advocate the need for someone to start taking action against global warming, even if others are not doing so. However, trying to curb global warming alone will, at best, only achieve a symbolic outcome. From the point of view of the average Joe, measures to curb global warming are time consuming and sometimes more expensive. Having to turn off the air-conditioner during summer to reduce carbon emissions may be unbearable and extremely trying. Having to bring your own recyclable bag during grocery shopping may be troublesome and irritating. Having to take public transport instead of driving your own car may be time consuming and tiring. Evidently, measures to stop global warming come at a considerable cost and effort – which is hard to maintain for the average individual. Therefore, I believe that it is important for governments to legislate regulations on such matters, to create an added moral and legal impetus for citizens to act against global warming. However, it will be difficult, and highly unlikely that governments will produce strict and necessary legislature against global warming, if international pressure is non-existent. Very often, preventing global warming comes at the cost of economic progress or citizen welfare – to force companies to add pollutant filters to their factories would increase the price of producing goods, which in turn would increase the cost of living. Without pressure from other nations, it would be an extremely unpopular decision to act decisively against global warming. This would be a common mentality – if my neighbouring country isn’t doing it, why should I? Such a line of reasoning would make implementing tight regulations on global warming very difficult in strongly democratic countries, where governments have to respect voter sentiments highly. The trouble is, global warming is an externality. This means that the impact of global warming is not directly felt by a nation would pollutes more. The carbon dioxide released to the environment does not only destroy the ozone layer above the country which released it – it travels all around the globe to destroy the ozone layer of some other country. Therefore, to many governments, there seems to be little direct punishment for contributing towards global warming. In the status quo, nations such as China which pollute heavily are only reprimanded by the international community – a small cost to pay for maintaining its economic growth at the cost of the environment. As such, it is necessary for the world to unite and create a legally binding treaty which would punish and place pressure upon nations which contribute to global warming heavily.

It may be easy to say that a single nation which goes the extra mile to curb global warming can inspire other nations to act similarly – even without international agreements. However, this effect is far from pronounced. Nations are sovereign entities, which have the ability to act independent from each other, based on their individual interests. Therefore, it is unlikely that just because a neighbouring country is taking steps against global warming, a nation would be compelled to combat global warming, against its national interests. At best, influence from other nations would serve as fodder for environmental activists and posters, but not drastically or even substantially affect the course of a nation’s action. Despite the fact that Australia, a country that places paramount emphasis on environmental protection, is relatively near to Indonesia, Australia’s influence has not seemed to affect Indonesia – pollution is rife in the country, with farmers who notoriously ‘slash and burn’.

Additionally, it has been proposed that it is advantageous for nations to act individually, as this allows them to choose their own course of action, and customise their path towards a greener future. However, while this may seem to work theoretically, such a policy falls into the trap that countries may shirk away from implementing necessary and decisive measures, in the absence of international regulation. Large nations, such as China, India and even America, are unlikely to act seriously against global warming if left alone. America and China were two of the few nations to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. There seems little reason that these nations would fight against global warming if not subject to international control. In America, some Republicans, which comprise half of the political system, do not even acknowledge the existence of global warming. How then can be trust them to legislate against an enemy that they do not even thinks exist? Additionally, global unity and synchronisation is needed to effectively combat global warming, especially in today’s interconnected world. For instance, a carbon tax will only be useful if it is applied in most major cities. If a carbon tax is implemented in only one country, multi-national corporations (MNCs) might migrate their operations to other countries, and continue polluting there. Furthermore, global cooperation would foster the sharing of best practices on how to fight global warming across nations. Green technology, carbon tax models and legal frameworks can be shared between nations, something which would not happen if only a few nations were interested in fighting global warming.

We stand at the turning point in history today – with the fate of the world in our hands. Whether we live to see 2013 or whether the world crumbles under the wrath of global warming may very well be contingent upon the presence of stronger global unity and resolve. True, such a resolution is hard to achieve in today’s polarised world, but we have to try – or face a destructive global climate never seen since the Ice Age.

The rising number of foreigners has made Singapore’s search for its identity every more elusive. Do you agree?

We live in a world of flux today – with mass human migration across national borders, time zones, and continents rapidly becoming as convenient as taking a trip to the supermarket. Amidst this ever shrinking world, foreigner have pervaded and invaded every cosmopolitan city, including Singapore. It is thus hardly surprising that managing the influx of foreigners has become a prime concern for many governments. In the 2011 Singapore general elections, the issue of foreign talent quickly became a major sticking point, almost ousting the incumbent party PAP who had been in power for over four decades. This, however, seems to be much ado about nothing – foreigners have not, in fact, diluted Singapore’s identity, but actually diversified and enriched it.

Some critics have purported that foreigners remain tightly insulated within their secular communities, isolated from Singaporeans. Consequently, Singapore’s society has become very heterogeneous, comprised of many groups of foreigners and not a united, homogenous collective whole. However, it is unwise to claim that foreigners are unable to assimilate into society just because foreigner communities, such as Chinatown and Little India, exist. In Singapore, it is not uncommon to see foreigners helping out their local community centres as volunteer workers. Through such experiences, foreigners get to interact with society on a personal level, and come to become a part of Singapore. Even if a foreigner does not voluntarily participate in such activities, it is almost impossible for them to avoid coming into contact with Singaporean life. Foreigners can be spotted everywhere in Singaporean life – be in on public transport, in local hawker centres, or at community centres. In these thriving hotspots of Singapore culture, foreigners will definitely learn about the ‘Singaporean way’ of doing things – such as reserving seats with a packet of tissue paper. Additionally, many foreigners come into Singapore to work. Working in Singapore, in and of itself, will help ensure foreigners assimilate into society, as they are forced to interact with their Singaporean colleagues through the course of their work. Moreover, working in Singapore makes foreigners feel that they have a personal stake in the country – they have contributed to the development and rise of Singapore. This might help to establish national pride, and consequently a sense of belonging in Singapore.

It may also be tempting to believe that foreigners, who have been accused of ‘stealing Singaporean jobs’, create tensions and rifts in society, which in turn hinder the development of a collective Singaporean identity. However, this proposition fails when we acknowledge that foreigners are often not in direct competition with locals for jobs. It is important to understand that many foreigners, particularly those who come from poor, undeveloped countries, do not often compete with Singaporeans directly for jobs. These foreigners mainly work as construction workers or cleaners – jobs which fall under the umbrella of unskilled labour, and which require long hours put in with little pay. Many Singaporeans, even unemployed Singaporeans, do not wish to work in such jobs, in favour of higher-paying jobs at the managerial level. Therefore, it can be said that foreigners play a highly crucial role – that of physical national building – which Singaporeans are often unwilling to do. If anything, Singaporeans should be thankful to these foreigners, who make cheap hawker fare and affordable housing possible due to their cheap labour. It is particularly notable that Singapore’s unemployment rate is close to zero, and that almost every Singaporean can find a job. Under such circumstances, it seems unjustified to complain that foreigners stealing our jobs have causing a significant societal issue. Instead, it seems more plausible that the real reason for tension between Singaporeans and foreigners is due to an inexplicable sense of xenophobia. Analysing this issue from this perspective, it then becomes apparent that the root problem is not an influx of foreigners, but a sense of insecurity on the part of Singaporeans. How then can we blame foreigners – who have contributed much to our nation building – for destroying the Singaporean identity?

There is also a striking irony that the people who complain about the influx of foreigners were the same people whose parents, barely forty years ago, migrated to Singapore. Singapore is, at its very heart, a new society comprised of immigrants and foreigners from various parts of the globe. Therefore, instead of arbitrarily creating a divide between ‘new foreigners’ and ‘locals’ – who are actually just ‘foreigners who arrived in Singapore earlier’, we should try and establish a Singaporean identity which embraces different cultures. A national identity is built upon the culture and beliefs of its people – which in the case of Singapore, its foreigners. Singapore’s population has a large percentage of foreigners, and to exclude them from the construction of our national identity would be foolish and arbitrary. For proof that this model has succeeded, we only need to look to America, a nation which a particularly strong national identity and spirit. America was, in its early years, an immigrant society, comprised of individuals who flocked there during the Gold Rush. By embracing and accepting the cultures of their immigrants, America has successfully created a national identity which is not only very strong, but also extremely inclusive – their citizens, regardless of race or religion, all feel that they are part of the American movement. Isn’t that what Singapore wants? Actually, roots of such a model taking place in Singapore have become evident. Singapore celebrates the national holidays of all major cultures – Christmas, Chinese New Year, Selemat Hari Raya, and Deepavali, for instance. Singapore’s local cuisine, a major part of any nation’s identity, has become a potpourri and a literal melting pot of different cultures. In the same hawker centre, Nasi Lemak, a Malay dish, Roti Prata, an Indian dish, and Char Kuay Teow, a Chinese dish, may be sold. This is living evidence that Singapore is on its way to building a unique national identity from the combination of diverse cultures.

Ultimately, Singapore is a migrant society, one which was run by the Europeans, financed by the Indians, built by the Chinese, and protected by the Malays. It is undeniable that foreigners form the very pillars of our nation, and define our very existence today. To therefore reject foreigners as a detriment to our national identity would be unwise and divisive. At the end of the day, we should relish the myriad of cultures flourishing within Singapore, accept them, and move on to create our national identity.

Science is a threat to humanity. What are your views?

We live in a paranoid world today. In Hollywood movies, we see sinister robots taking over the world. In classical literature, we see hideous monsters, constructed from the flesh of the dead, ravaging the earth. In video games, we see an apocalypse, left behind after nuclear winter. Ultimately, the power of science and technology poses a significant threat to humankind – both physically and emotionally.

However, it is indeed hard to reject the benefits which science has enlightened humans with. Since the discovery of farming in the Neolithic age, innumerable progresses in science and technology has advanced the way humans obtain food. In the past, humans used shovels and hoes to manually till a small plot of land. Today, humans drive large tractors, farming hundreds of acres of farmland in a day. This momentous development in agriculture, dubbed the ‘Green Revolution’, has allowed us to feed a global population of 6 billion people – an impossible task if not for science and technology. Apart from physical comforts which science has offered humans, science has also offered humans much emotional comfort. Undersea broadband cables has allowed for ubiquitous internet access, which in turn has aided the rise of social media platforms – such as Facebook and Twitter. Such social media platforms have effectively shrunk the world, by allowing for transcontinental communication – instantaneously. What are its implications? It allows for people to converse with overseas friends without much effort. No longer do pen pals have to spend time and effort finding stamps or locating a mailbox. As a result, people can now maintain friendships easily, ‘at the click of the button’, as the cliché would have it.

Despite this, science, especially with its perverseness in today’s world, wields a significant threat to humanity. While, admittedly, the dystopian futures painted in sci-fi movies about an android-takeover of Earth are rather extreme, it is unmistakable that technology’s impact on mankind has sometimes been insidious and harmful. After the Industrial Revolution, robots and machines were invented and manufactured on a large scale. The introduction of machines to factories has resulted in the displacement of thousands of factory workers, as the jobs of workers were increasingly being replaced by machines. This problem is especially acute in the manual labour industry, where the jobs of humans are easily replaced by machines who will accept no pay and work long hours in dangerous conditions. As technology progresses, and more sophisticated forms of machines are created, who knows which jobs will be next to be rendered obsolete by robots. Already, advanced software is being harnessed to replace the job of teachers, by marking the essays of students.

Additionally, the employment of science and technology has led to severe damage to our environment. Today we face a global crisis – global warming, which threatens to bring humanity to its knees with freak weather and dramatic floods. This crisis was brought upon ourselves by the large emission of carbon dioxide, caused by the proliferation of cars and factories – a scientific invention once hailed as revolutionary. Moreover, science and technology generates a demand for natural resources, which has led to the destruction of our environment. In search for resources, mankind has plundered the world mindlessly and unsustainably, often leading to irreversible environmental damage or a resource shortage crisis in the future. During the Industrial Revolution, the European nations needed large amounts of natural resources such as rubber and tin to fund their sudden spike in production. As a result, they looked towards weaker African nations, which had large untapped reserves of natural resources. This started the era of New Imperialism, during which many Africans died resisting foreign invasion. More importantly, New Imperialism left lasting rifts and tensions between African tribes, which eventually culminated in armed conflict around Africa, mostly notably, the Rwandan Genocide. Evidently, humans, in their search to advance science and technology, has gone to extreme lengths, sometimes even harming themselves.

Ultimately, science and technology is very much like a double-edge sword – it can help us to cut down problems such as famine and disease which plague mankind. However, as gleaned from history, the temptation to raise the sword too high – to go too far to advance science – always exists, and this has often led to dire consequences.