Can poverty be ever eradicated?

Whenever I come across pictures or stills depicting the suffering of people under the poverty line, it just brings tears to my eyes and reminds me of how fortunate I am to be who I am and where I am today. Sometimes, I would wonder if there are any ways to put off poverty and bring happiness and hope into these people’s lives. However, I personally believe that we can eradicate poverty although it’s a long way ahead and difficult to achieve.

To solve the problem of poverty we must think of the reasons behind it. Some of the causes of poverty include corruption, poor leadership and of course as what Kamala Sarup states the geographical location and technological accessibility of a country too.

If we observe the world carefully we will find that it’s in those countries where poor leadership and corruption are ripe does poverty prevails in. Corruption creates inequality and worsens the state of the poor. A wealthy person would easily have dealings under the table and get hold of opportunities which might have been otherwise available to the poor. As life’s opportunities are taken up by the rich, very little chances are given to the poor to progress in life. Even if they progress, it is very insignificant compared to the rate of progress seen in the rich. Since the progress in the poor never or rarely equates to the rich’s there will always be widening income gaps and poverty as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Poor leadership would also fail to eradicate poverty as its under the management of a nation that a country progresses. If the government leaders concentrate in filling up their pockets in lieu of the Nation’s surely the country will not get far. Furthermore, the ability to steer off the country from downfalls and to revive it when it falls into economic downfalls relies upon the capabilities of its leaders. As such the leaders of a Nation play a key role controlling its wealth.

The issue of corruption and poor leadership can definitely be tackled as we can see from living examples of countries like ours and Britain where the percentage of these detriments are very small and insignificant.

As stated, technological advancements are based on capital which is based on technology. This forms a vicious cycle disallowing the poor nations to penetrate it. However, this problem can be tackled. The nations of the world are obliged to help one another when in need because we are all interdependent. Thus if the richer countries help the poorer ones by giving financial aid, poverty can definitely be eradicated. Of course this would not prove to be successful in the long run as we cannot possible expect the richer nations to carry and share the burden of supporting the poor for lifelong. It is definitely more lucrative to teach man how to earn money and support himself than to support him for life. Thus even if countries help the nations in need by giving financial aid the poorer nations must be proactive in learning about ways to stay in good stead and be independent.

Of course those countries poised near landmarks and seas have an added advantage over countries not within the vincity of water bodies. For example, countries like Singapore is able to use its geographical location to its advantage by making it into an attractive port. This has helped the Nation to experience economic growth due to trade via the sea.

As such it is clear that though there are factors hindering the attempts to eradicate poverty and the issue seems to be a mix of unimaginable complexity and difficulties, it is certainly possible to save the poor from poverty if we all work together. Nations must, as promised, donate o.7% of their income to the welfare of countries with widespread poverty. However, we must not forget that every country, even if it is world powers like America, has its own set of poverty and this would give these nations a valid reason to use the promised money for their own welfare because to them they are experiencing poverty in their country too. Since, poverty is a relative concept it varies widely but I am sure we can clearly see which level of poverty or poorness is unacceptable and appalling and requires immediate attention from the world.

For now I start it, look at Nepal, Africa and Calcutta to get a real taste of poverty.

Are you for or against the death penalty?

Death penalty is perhaps the cruelest form of retribution in the world.
It is usually issued for First-class murders in most of the countries and can be often given for cruel rape cases involving child abuse. Though it may seem appropriate to punish by capital punishment for crimes like these, I personally disagree with the death penalty and reasons given to justify it.

A punishment is often given to deter more crimes and if a punishment fails to fulfill this criterion, can it be doomed as being ineffective? Well it can, because a punishment is not given to seek revenge or to vent our anger. It is given for the benefit of the society as a whole. According to Amnesty International, capital punishment does not deter crime as much as other punishments do.

In fact, in Iraq, where capital punishment is still in use, the number of deaths and homicides has increased largely compared to two years ago when the capital punishment was not in use yet. Supported by the passage, criminologists have shown, statistically, that in US states where convicts are executed, serious crimes have not diminished. Moreover, recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition has harmful effects. In Canada, for example, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2006, 30 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.85 per 100,000 population, 40 per cent lower than in 1975 and the second lowest rate in three decades.

From this it is clear that death penalty is failing to achieve concrete results.

Some people might argue that it is a beneficial trade off if by the execution of one we can save three lives. However, what we must ask ourselves is although in the short term it may be beneficial however in the long term death penalty will still fail to serve it basis for implementing- to deter crimes. Thucydides, in recounting the Athenians’ discussion of what penalty to impose on the rebellious Mytilenians, noted that “the death penalty has been laid down for many offenses, yet people still take risks when they feel sufficiently confident; it is impossible for human nature, once seriously set upon a certain course, to be prevented from following that course by the force of law or by any other means of intimidation whatsoever.” This clearly indicates that death penalty is not the way to go if we want to deter crimes.

Moreover, death penalty holds the serious danger of executing the innocent.

Since 1973, 124 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. There were six such cases in 2004, two in 2005, one in 2006 and one so far in 2007. Some prisoners had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defense representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt. The state of Florida has the highest number of 22 exonerations.

Execution of the innocent is not only confined to the USA. It is found in almost all nations which still implement it. As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.

Of course some people would say that if that is the case, give the death penalty to only people convicted of murders and supported by strong evidences. What is more, it is unlikely that innocents will be executed now that we have sophiscated technologies like DNA finger printing in helping us to indentify convicts. But by doing this, are we near anywhere deterring crimes? It is more like seeking revenge using the law, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” it seems. Killing a life is an ungrateful and degrading thing to do. Doing it via the Law is not going to change it.

Reference: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng

www.project-syndicate.org

The Morality of Capital Punishment by Gary S. Becker

Beyond the Death Penalty Debate by Antonio Cassese

‘I am a millionaire. That is my religion.’ To what extent has the pursuit of wealth become the modern goal? (2000)

Man is now looked upon with respect for the wealth he holds in terms of money, education and skills. All of which cost a lot of money to gain in the world today. It has become a honourable thing to pursue wealth and wealth alone. Though this mad craze for wealth started with the West ‘s conquests of the rest of the world, to rob them of their wealth when Industrial Revolution first sprang up, it has taken firm root all over the world as well.

A successful man can take any form. He could be a writer, a great sportsman, an artist and so on. However, most often the purpose of a person becoming successful as a sportsman, writer or artist is to enjoy the wealth such achievements will bring. The main distinction of Tiger Woods is the millions he earns, the main claim to greatness of Bill Gates is that he is a billionaire (although he is not the first in the list; second to Carlos Slim who is the current wealthiest man in the world) and the main thing we know about Stephen King is the millions he earns per book.

However, this was not the case just a century ago. Actors and sportsman and writers had to work hard to earn what is just sufficient for them. They did not have the excess money then like they do now to be arrogant and defiant of the rest of the world. Today when we mention a successful actor we mean he is paid several million dollars per movie and not so much that he moves us with his acting skills.

Politicians work hard to gain power. Some of them however, make all kinds of promises and buy votes for themselves in the prospect of striking it rich for themselves and for their families through politics. As such, working for the best of the countryman becomes a goal far below their list. Often politicians are voted in the believe that apart from enriching themselves they would do something for the nation too as opposed to the other candidates who come in pursuit for wealth only. The factor of enriching themselves is a given.

However, it can be argued that they were and they are stills souls in the world like Mother Theresa who abhor money and wealth. But it is clear that she and others like her are in a minority. For every story covering great souls who live beyond money, we can find a few articles on stars making it rich and even richer. It is surprising that a movie star can demand over 50 million dollars for a single movie. However, no one is disturbed by this trend. On the contrary, we are filled with admiration. Often stories of people like Mother Theresa are likely to be smothered among other “more important” stories.

It is therefore true that the pursuit of wealth has become the modern goal. Wealth is not meant by what one needs to live a good live. It refers to untold wealth, wealth more than one will ever need in a lifetime, more than even one can spend.

Sometimes we are prompted to ask. What about people who have worked solely for the benefits of the world? What happened to the spirit of adventure and the other values of man which made human race so great? What about the spirit of great inventors and explorers who pursued their interests for their own sakes rather than for wealth? Well such people are again a in a minority. The pursuit of wealth has overtaken all other pursuits.

What do you think are some of the challenges facing Singapore as it plays host to more people from different backgrounds and cultures?

Singapore is no longer a multi-racial society comprising of Chinese, Malay, Indians and Others. In fact the word ‘others’ had for a long time referred to Caucasians. However, it is no longer the case as more and more foreign expatriates and tourists are reaching Singapore. With almost 25 percent of the population being born elsewhere and migrating to Singapore, there is urgent need for us to relate to these people like they are one of us Singaporeans. Although we try to adjust and tolerate each other’s differences, in some circumstances we let the evil in us to take control of us such that we come prejudiced against people of different races and religion from ours especially when they are expatriates.

While it is natural for people to relate better with people of their own race and religion, we cannot afford that kind of disparity to evolve in Singapore. No matter what we have to accept each other and work towards a common goal of achieving the best for ourselves and for our country.

Easy to say as it is, achieving the common sense of ‘We are one’ feelings among all of us is difficult but not impossible. The increasing number of foreigners gaining entry into Singapore and trying to be part of ‘Us’ all the more emphasizes the need for us to recognize ‘Them’ as One.

Singaporeans could play their part by stop resenting foreign workers who take away their jobs while turning a blind eye to those who work in blue-collar jobs they would not even consider. At the same time, the new guests in our country must also do their part to appreciate and understand us.

There is disparity already existing between the Singapore Indians and the Indian Indians. They simply seem to think the other as a rival. Although they are under a common umbrella as Indians, differences in their practices and habits has led to each other considering the other as a ‘Not my kind’ of person.

It is important for these people to come out of their shells and face the world which is so dynamic with a myriad other kind of people yet to see.

What are the likely political and socio-economic impacts of the demographic changes we see in the world today?

Demographic changes refers to the changes in the characteristics of a human population or part of it, especially its size, growth, density, distribution, and statistics regarding birth, marriage, disease, and death.

Demographic changes have resulted in unprecedented changes in the world today and will continue to cause changes in world’s politics, economies and societies. Changes in population is already affecting many countries now. Two of these countries include Singapore and Japan. Japan is currently the "oldest" country in the world. In 1950, it was one of the "youngest" countries in the world; it had a median age of 22. Now its median age is 41, and by 2025 it will be approaching 50. What's happened in Japan is a combination of low immigration and birthrates that are more than one third below the "replacement level"—that is, the number of births a society needs to have enough children to replace the people who die.

As a consequence, there are fewer and fewer children as a percentage of the total population, and the median age rises. And, of course, the senior population in Japan is also soaring, because the Japanese enjoy the highest life expectancy in the world.

These countries have to implement various policies to facilitate the rising ageing population prevalent in them. These is also the prospect of smaller numbers of taxpayers facing a burden of supporting greater numbers of dependants which has led many to question the future of tax-funded welfare in general and healthcare in particular, although the dependency ratio may also be affected by changing attitudes to work, education and training.

The proportion of women in the workforce is predicted to increased, and this may indicate that the trend towards later births will continue. Delaying pregnancy can lead to greater complications, suggesting a need for more complex and specialist maternity medical and obstetric services.

It is estimated that we are adding 74 million people every year into the world. It's not a trivial addition to world population, particularly at a time when cropland is becoming so scarce and water shortages are now cropping up. Not only is almost all the projected population growth going to be in the developing world, but the vast majority of the nearly three billion people to be added by 2050 will come in countries where water tables are already falling and wells are going dry. That's not a recipe for economic progress and political stability.

Aging will tremendously affect a country’s economic growth as there will be an increasingly smaller pool of able, fit and talented people ready for the bustling world experience. Older people aren't as innovative, technically savvy, or willing to take risks as younger people. So we could have shrinking economies with shrinking numbers of workers and consumers, and an older, less innovative, less well-educated workforce. All of these factors could combine to create tremendous economic adversity.

For example, A nation's economic output, its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is the number of workers times the average income per worker. With a labour force shrinkage of about 1 percent a year, Japan could see long recessions lasting a decade or more.

Almost all of Eastern European nations are also facing shrinking population and there a possibility of seeing the decline of Europe and Japan as economic and political powers. They will become cauldrons of permanent economic and fiscal crisis. Anybody who's looked at the news over the past year knows that it's been a period of constant pension reform in these countries. We have entered what is going to be a constant cycle now, a constant drumbeat of reforms.

Reference: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/voic-brow.html

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp0609.pdf

Could the trade of weapons ever be justified?

It is very intriguing to see countries which are claiming to fight for peace trading weapons with other countries and stockpiling its weapons in preparation for war. Weapons are a cause of mass destruction of lives and property in the world today and yet countries trade these easily proliferated equipments. Basically such thirst for weapons and power is due to the obsession of countries to be well defended. As such the demand for such weapons kicks off its trade among countries. At first thought, especially to those who consider warring unreasonable and unjustifiable, trading of weapons may seem unjustifiable. Although there is enough ground to hold on to such an ideal, there are also various reasons under which the trade in weapons can be justified.

Countries with similar ideologies form alliances. This has been practiced since ancient history. It is also evident from our recent history in which the NATO countries formed alliances to counter the Warsaw pact countries and vice versa.
Countries in alliances usually have agreements to sell weapons to each other or to develop certain weapons for their defense. This is justifiable as it would ensure that one country is not too powerful while the other is too weak. Countries in such alliances are duty bound to help each other and thus the trade of weapons becomes justifiable here.

Some countries seeming to be quiet and reserved may suddenly start to pile up its weapons due to its overly ambitious politicians. Such countries may have state of the art technology to produce new and more powerful weapons. While it creates a sense of security to the countries involved in this, it gives a great deal of insecurity to neighbouring countries especially to those weaker and poorer ones. This is especially the case when one country tries to become dominant in its part of the world. As a result countries known to be in good terms may fall out on each other. How can these weaker countries then protect themselves without purchasing weapons?

It becomes a responsibility of other powerful nations to help out this weaker country in protecting itself from being invaded. These powerful nations may channel some of their weapons to the country in need. This act then becomes justifiable as the trade of weapons here occurs in response to a possible threat of invasion. Great caution must be exercised during this because history too has seen the sudden change in behaviour of countries which have seeked help. An example would be when the timid Iraq became aggressive itself. Fearing Iran’s aggressiveness, the US and it allies armed Iraq to balance Iran. In fact, Iran and Iraq have fought a war. In the end, Iran ceased to be a threat while Iraq became a rogue. Without the slightest provocation it set out to annex Kuwait and an expensive war had to be fought with loss of lives and property to all countries involved.

Another justification for the trade of weapons seems to be when people are fighting against a tyrannical regime. Sometimes governments become oppressors of people instead of their guardians. In such situations people are mercilessly mowed down by people of the government with powerful weapons. Selling of weapons to these victims becomes justifiable so that these people can defend and protect themselves.

It must also be noted that when America sold arms to Taliban in Afghanistan in the their fight against their communist government, it resulted in the take over of the country by Taliban who were more aggressive than their previous communist government. Moreover, Taliban firmly supported international terrorism directed towards US. The end result saw the invasion of Afghanistan by the US and more bloodshed as a result.

It is clearly evident that the trade of weapons is justifiable among Allies and between countries when trying to arm a country whose neighbour is building up stockpiles of weapons and when supporting rebels against an oppressive regime. However it is very crucial to consider the consequences of such trades before a country goes on to be involved in trading weapons for this has resulted in the unexpected bloodshed of people.

Slavery fashion

Change is the only thing that does not change in nature. Change is always present in our lives. We change mostly to suit ourselves with the society. This can be seen vividly from how people change themselves to adhere to latest fashions because society follows it. To be part of the fashion ‘pack’, they change their dressings, looks, habits and even moral values. Fashion is not something to be contained because it is like a wildfire which spreads rapidly from the place of origin to the rest of the world through communication modes like internet and telephone and media. As a result we can see the influence of western fashion in our countries among our people.

Mostly teenagers or the youth are the most impressionable people. They are the ones who almost always keep up with trends. For them it is not a matter so much that they are accepted by the society by large but they want to be recognized by their peers. There is a form of restlessness within youth to be with pace with latest trends and changes and to break away from their parent’s and their generation’s influences. It is this restlessness that carries them away to form groups so as to gain acceptance by their peers. While most of the time the influence of fashion brings no harm, it could be otherwise at times.

Usually, there is the existence of a group leader to guide the group into activities. When this leader, without considering the consequences, misleads the members into activities like vandalizing public properties in the name of fashion for that age, the repercussions could be severe with apprehension and punishment by the law which could ruin one’s future.

We can clearly see how youth are slaves to fashion and how they easily fall as preys to danger arising from fashion. Yet, we can see this continue generations after generations. While there is nothing wrong in keeping up with latest trends is if it does good than harm, there is a need to curb the influence of fashion. In some very regimented societies, youth are controlled by tenets of customs and religion. Force is used to ensure that the rules are obeyed and any breaching of the rules results in punishments. This can work at times but it results in the loss of the good that could come from the force and the also the loss of the energy which drives these young people.

Youth is like a rebellious passing cloud. Before you know it, it is all passed and gone. There is actually no need to curb the energy in youth by punishing them. Rather this energy could be channeled elsewhere in doing social work or working. Parents too could build up a bond of trust with their children before the rebellious age. In fact, in some psychological point of view, it’s actually the outcry of youth to be understood, recognized and loved which is shown through their outward expression of adherence to fashion.