1. Discuss the importance of religion in society today. (2004)
In the knowledge and innovation based society today, religion seemed to be regarded as unimportant by people. However, as the world continues to progress and modernize, I believe that the importance and role of religion will be irreplaceable. Religion serves as many different purposes to different people and will definitely become a source of pillar for the spiritual health of people today.
In the competitive world today, people are too bothered by the results and work so much so that they lose themselves psychologically, while some may even suffer from depression. At these points of time, they will feel empty without spiritual support and will slowly lose their mental strength and willpower. Therefore, religion will help in making everyone in the society more contented and spiritual as ‘individual’s beliefs will influence his way of thought’, and perhaps with religion, people will be stronger to face with setbacks and the world will definitely be a better and happier place.
Religions bring about differences and differences lead to understanding and tolerance. Although many may argue that differences bring about arising conflicts, I beg to differ. Only with religions, our society will have a richer culture. With appropriate understanding and basic tolerance, conflicts would be paranoia. In this case, with religion, our society will definitely be more cosmopolitan. It will also increase understanding between the different people and increase our sensitivity which is much needed in today’s society.
Therefore, religion will help us cope better in today’s society by improving our spiritual well-being and sensitivity.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
What's the role of religion in Singapore's public sphere?
Religion needs to play a supporting role in the public sphere in Singapore. It serves as a moral guide for citizens, defining the boundaries of what is generally accepted by the majority of Singaporeans. It also helps to provide varying views on an issue. After public discussion, a consensus can be reached. I agree with Chua’s argument that for religion to be involved in public policy, it must appeal to secular argument.
According to Chua’s article, she agree with moral philosopher john Rawels that personal religion may influences the individual view on an issue but when arguing in the political arena, the individual need to present arguments that are acceptable and understandable to people of different faiths. To use religion as an argument will not benefit the society as a whole. Instead, it may result in a fragmented society divided along religious lines. Only by putting the individual’s religion point of view across with logical reasoning can it be beneficial to the society. An example is the debate over the setting up of casinos in Singapore. Many religious leaders have step up to voice out their disagreement over the issue. However, the reasons they give are valid social concerns instead of my religion probates it. They speak up not only in the capacity of religious leaders but also as citizens of Singapore. Therefore, although religion plays a part in policy making, they need to be reasonable and logical for the general public to understand and accept it.
In Devan’s article, she also points out correctly that “to deny religion a formal role in either politics or public policy does not mean – can never mean – denying the religious of whatever faith a role as citizens.” Although Singapore stays neutral on the questions of faith, the individual’s beliefs will influence his way of thought and his stand on various issues concerning Singapore policy. Singapore has also set up the council for the minority rights to check that policies do not put any citizen regardless of race or religion at a disadvantage. To maintain the peace in Singapore, religion should only play a supporting role in Singapore’s politics and policy making.
Chee ying
According to Chua’s article, she agree with moral philosopher john Rawels that personal religion may influences the individual view on an issue but when arguing in the political arena, the individual need to present arguments that are acceptable and understandable to people of different faiths. To use religion as an argument will not benefit the society as a whole. Instead, it may result in a fragmented society divided along religious lines. Only by putting the individual’s religion point of view across with logical reasoning can it be beneficial to the society. An example is the debate over the setting up of casinos in Singapore. Many religious leaders have step up to voice out their disagreement over the issue. However, the reasons they give are valid social concerns instead of my religion probates it. They speak up not only in the capacity of religious leaders but also as citizens of Singapore. Therefore, although religion plays a part in policy making, they need to be reasonable and logical for the general public to understand and accept it.
In Devan’s article, she also points out correctly that “to deny religion a formal role in either politics or public policy does not mean – can never mean – denying the religious of whatever faith a role as citizens.” Although Singapore stays neutral on the questions of faith, the individual’s beliefs will influence his way of thought and his stand on various issues concerning Singapore policy. Singapore has also set up the council for the minority rights to check that policies do not put any citizen regardless of race or religion at a disadvantage. To maintain the peace in Singapore, religion should only play a supporting role in Singapore’s politics and policy making.
Chee ying
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Are Human Rights Universal?
Human Rights have been formally defined in the 1948 universal declaration of human rights. It consists of 30 different articles which covers different aspects of human rights. However, the universal declaration on human rights serves only as a guide for countries to achieve. Some of the articles are in conflict with the accepted norm in different societies and therefore, while some of the articles in the universal declaration of human rights are universal, some are not.
Human rights which are universal includes article 1 and 3. Article 1 state that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights…” while article 3 states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” This is universally true. Every child who is born should be treated equally and fairly. However, this is not being practiced by all the countries in the world. In china, many female babies are abandoned by their parents. The baby girls are not given a chance of survival. This is contrasted with the celebration which usually comes along with the arrival of a baby boy. The parents have denied the baby girls the right to live and the right of equal treatment.
However, some articles in the universal human rights of declaration are in conflict with the general population of different countries. Article 18 states that “Everyone has the rights to freedom of… religion.” This is in contrast with the Muslims teachings which prevent Muslims from converting out of the religion. In 2004, a ‘Muslim” female Malaysian wanted to change her religion from Muslim to Christian. When the authority rejected her appeal, she appealed to the high court which was again rejected. Her case caused an uproar within Malaysia. This is against the “human rights” as listed in the universal declaration. Thus, it proves that human rights are not universal.
In Singapore, most of the human rights are given to its people. This encompasses the right to education and the right to healthcare. However, the people living in Singapore are denied the ‘right’ of ultimate freedom of speech – the right to say what you like. Instead, people are held accountable for what they say. This in accordance with Article which stats that no one shall be subjected to degrading treatment. Irresponsible words can cause enormous harm to a person reputation.
In conclusion, what human rights are subjective and are free for interpretations. Although its intentions are good, it may not be applicable in every country and in every context.
Chee Ying
Human rights which are universal includes article 1 and 3. Article 1 state that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights…” while article 3 states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” This is universally true. Every child who is born should be treated equally and fairly. However, this is not being practiced by all the countries in the world. In china, many female babies are abandoned by their parents. The baby girls are not given a chance of survival. This is contrasted with the celebration which usually comes along with the arrival of a baby boy. The parents have denied the baby girls the right to live and the right of equal treatment.
However, some articles in the universal human rights of declaration are in conflict with the general population of different countries. Article 18 states that “Everyone has the rights to freedom of… religion.” This is in contrast with the Muslims teachings which prevent Muslims from converting out of the religion. In 2004, a ‘Muslim” female Malaysian wanted to change her religion from Muslim to Christian. When the authority rejected her appeal, she appealed to the high court which was again rejected. Her case caused an uproar within Malaysia. This is against the “human rights” as listed in the universal declaration. Thus, it proves that human rights are not universal.
In Singapore, most of the human rights are given to its people. This encompasses the right to education and the right to healthcare. However, the people living in Singapore are denied the ‘right’ of ultimate freedom of speech – the right to say what you like. Instead, people are held accountable for what they say. This in accordance with Article which stats that no one shall be subjected to degrading treatment. Irresponsible words can cause enormous harm to a person reputation.
In conclusion, what human rights are subjective and are free for interpretations. Although its intentions are good, it may not be applicable in every country and in every context.
Chee Ying
Saturday, July 19, 2008
ORGANS FOR SALE?
Should organ trading be legalised?
The current uproar of illegal organ trading has brought up several ethical and social issues. Many desperate, sickly patients in need of a transplant attempt to buy organs from less- developed countries like Philippines to skip the long waiting queue. Many desperate, less economically well-off people attempt to sell their organs to feed themselves. If organ trading can help two desperate parties, why shouldn’t it be legalised? Should we legalise organ trading? Although human organ trading may help both parties in the short run, the long run implications maybe severe.
Firstly, the human body should be respected and not seem like a merchandise. Donation of organs should be voluntary and not for profit. The sale of human organs for monetary gains will display disrespect to our body. We should cultivate a good culture of compassion in the country, where donation of organs is out of empathy and not out of money. Only then, our society will not be so materialistic and be filled with kindness. There should be a clear definition of organ donation as being an act of kindness and not expecting something in return. In this case, the world will definitely be warmer.
Secondly, human organ trading may not help in increasing the availability of organs that can be transplanted. It may discourage more people from donating their organs. People will not see a need in donating their organs since organs can be so readily available just by paying for it. It will only support the saying that ‘money makes the world go round’ and make our world seem heartless and cold.
In conclusion, organ transplant should be out of compassion and not materialism. Selling our organs will bring about many long term problems and destroy the ethics in the world today. We should learn to respect the body that we were given and not weigh its monetary value. It is only then we will not let ourselves down by respecting our own body because our body and what is inside is priceless.
The current uproar of illegal organ trading has brought up several ethical and social issues. Many desperate, sickly patients in need of a transplant attempt to buy organs from less- developed countries like Philippines to skip the long waiting queue. Many desperate, less economically well-off people attempt to sell their organs to feed themselves. If organ trading can help two desperate parties, why shouldn’t it be legalised? Should we legalise organ trading? Although human organ trading may help both parties in the short run, the long run implications maybe severe.
Firstly, the human body should be respected and not seem like a merchandise. Donation of organs should be voluntary and not for profit. The sale of human organs for monetary gains will display disrespect to our body. We should cultivate a good culture of compassion in the country, where donation of organs is out of empathy and not out of money. Only then, our society will not be so materialistic and be filled with kindness. There should be a clear definition of organ donation as being an act of kindness and not expecting something in return. In this case, the world will definitely be warmer.
Secondly, human organ trading may not help in increasing the availability of organs that can be transplanted. It may discourage more people from donating their organs. People will not see a need in donating their organs since organs can be so readily available just by paying for it. It will only support the saying that ‘money makes the world go round’ and make our world seem heartless and cold.
In conclusion, organ transplant should be out of compassion and not materialism. Selling our organs will bring about many long term problems and destroy the ethics in the world today. We should learn to respect the body that we were given and not weigh its monetary value. It is only then we will not let ourselves down by respecting our own body because our body and what is inside is priceless.
Universal human rights?
In my opinion, I feel that there is no universal human rights. Even though United Nations have tried to get the commitment of all states to fulfil their obligations to promote universal respect for, and observance and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all but the universal nature of these rights and freedom is beyond question.
While it is the duty of States, regardless of their political economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, there is never a perfect system where human rights is universal. Take for example in the United States, the existence of the minority, the blacks are ostracised by the whites and do not receive equal rights as them because of their skin colour. Now, how does this equate to universal human rights where everyone is supposed to be treated equally?
Besides the previous point, cultural and religious backgrounds may also hinder universal human rights. This is evident in the marriage of gays and lesbians which Christianity does not allow. Homosexuals of this religion are denied their basic human rights to be legalised as a married couple. This shows that human rights aren't universal since a group of people may be denied access to the rights they rightfully should have.
Then again, the human right, freedom of expression is commonly challenged against. In many governments of countries, people are not exactly allowed to voice their views out loud or they may be executed. During the Soviet Union period, Joseph Stalin did not allow his citizens to voice unhappiness about his policies or how he governed his country. People who dared to go against him ended in a cruel death. This has once again show us how human rights are not universal. Not allowing person to voice out his opinions is denying his right to speak freely as a human.
Hence, I conclude that there is no existence of universal human rights. In a way or another, there is always something to deny human of certain rights. It's a way of life and it has always been. I doubt it will change in any time to come or in the future. This is how life works and denying certain rights has always been in the mechanism of life, hence this issue does not even has a beginning in the first place.
While it is the duty of States, regardless of their political economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, there is never a perfect system where human rights is universal. Take for example in the United States, the existence of the minority, the blacks are ostracised by the whites and do not receive equal rights as them because of their skin colour. Now, how does this equate to universal human rights where everyone is supposed to be treated equally?
Besides the previous point, cultural and religious backgrounds may also hinder universal human rights. This is evident in the marriage of gays and lesbians which Christianity does not allow. Homosexuals of this religion are denied their basic human rights to be legalised as a married couple. This shows that human rights aren't universal since a group of people may be denied access to the rights they rightfully should have.
Then again, the human right, freedom of expression is commonly challenged against. In many governments of countries, people are not exactly allowed to voice their views out loud or they may be executed. During the Soviet Union period, Joseph Stalin did not allow his citizens to voice unhappiness about his policies or how he governed his country. People who dared to go against him ended in a cruel death. This has once again show us how human rights are not universal. Not allowing person to voice out his opinions is denying his right to speak freely as a human.
Hence, I conclude that there is no existence of universal human rights. In a way or another, there is always something to deny human of certain rights. It's a way of life and it has always been. I doubt it will change in any time to come or in the future. This is how life works and denying certain rights has always been in the mechanism of life, hence this issue does not even has a beginning in the first place.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Is it ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
For one country to be involved and interfere in the internal affairs of another, it takes more than military power. Many examples proved failure as the country which interfered was unable to grasp the whole situation and thus went for the wrong approach. Hence, in my opinion, its is hardly right for one country to be involved in the internal affairs of another.
For countries like Mynamar, it will need a lot of knowledge and understanding to change the society. In an ideal world, we would like to see free elections held in Myanmar immediately under international supervision. But its tough and battle-hardened military government is not going to cede power so easily. Many Myanmar military leaders genuinely believe that the country would fall apart without their rule. It is extremely difficult of make a different just by a foreign intervention from another country as it may change the situation for the worse. This, however, does not imply that the situation is unable to change forever. However, we must recognise that the 20 years of sanctions imposed by the US and the EU on Myanmar since its 1988 aborted elections have not succeeded. Indeed the military regime of Myanmar remains as strong as ever. As a result, with such a strong foundation of deep influence, it is not wise for any country to interfere with its internal affairs.
In addition, mere military power may not bring peace about the country. Military intervention such as that of Iraq from USA, proved to be another example of a failture. Instead, the Iraqis ended up living through a nightmare. The reputed British medical journal, Lancet, has estimated that there were 654,965 excess deaths in Iraq (or 2.5 per cent of its population) as of June 2006. Even if these estimates are excessive, there is no doubt that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died. And it is certainly questionable whether the Iraqis are better off, with hundreds of thousands of them fleeing the country. This add on to explain the fact that military intervention is very likely to result in greater pain among the people. Foreign intervention is hard to gain trust from the local people and the methods used may not be the method which can solve the problem.
In conclusion, it is not wise for another country to intervene with another’s internal affairs as this may bring about negative effects due to lack of understating of the other country.
TIANHE[:
For one country to be involved and interfere in the internal affairs of another, it takes more than military power. Many examples proved failure as the country which interfered was unable to grasp the whole situation and thus went for the wrong approach. Hence, in my opinion, its is hardly right for one country to be involved in the internal affairs of another.
For countries like Mynamar, it will need a lot of knowledge and understanding to change the society. In an ideal world, we would like to see free elections held in Myanmar immediately under international supervision. But its tough and battle-hardened military government is not going to cede power so easily. Many Myanmar military leaders genuinely believe that the country would fall apart without their rule. It is extremely difficult of make a different just by a foreign intervention from another country as it may change the situation for the worse. This, however, does not imply that the situation is unable to change forever. However, we must recognise that the 20 years of sanctions imposed by the US and the EU on Myanmar since its 1988 aborted elections have not succeeded. Indeed the military regime of Myanmar remains as strong as ever. As a result, with such a strong foundation of deep influence, it is not wise for any country to interfere with its internal affairs.
In addition, mere military power may not bring peace about the country. Military intervention such as that of Iraq from USA, proved to be another example of a failture. Instead, the Iraqis ended up living through a nightmare. The reputed British medical journal, Lancet, has estimated that there were 654,965 excess deaths in Iraq (or 2.5 per cent of its population) as of June 2006. Even if these estimates are excessive, there is no doubt that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died. And it is certainly questionable whether the Iraqis are better off, with hundreds of thousands of them fleeing the country. This add on to explain the fact that military intervention is very likely to result in greater pain among the people. Foreign intervention is hard to gain trust from the local people and the methods used may not be the method which can solve the problem.
In conclusion, it is not wise for another country to intervene with another’s internal affairs as this may bring about negative effects due to lack of understating of the other country.
TIANHE[:
Saturday, July 12, 2008
ASSIST OR TAKE CHARGE?
Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
As people living in the same Earth, it is only right to show care and concern for other people and other countries. Only then, the world can unite and share peace and prosperity. I therefore agree with Chee Ying that it is right for one country to be involved in the internal affairs of another. However, there should be some limitations of being involved. The definition of involved should be ‘assisting’ and not ‘taking charge’. There should be some extent of involvement and boundary set to ensure countries do not ‘over- involve’ themselves in the affairs of other countries.
Countries that are involved in the internal affairs of another country should be the assistant and not the leader. If another country puts on a power of wanting to take charge, there will be an absence of respect for the country. If that is so, not only will they not resolve whatever conflicts that were present initially, they will also add on to the rising problems.
One example is the United States control over Iraq. Not only did United States fail to bring Iraq back to the peaceful days, they created more disorder to the country. Their forceful invasion displayed a lack of respect to Iraq and caused ‘654,965 excess deaths in Iraq (or 2.5 per cent of its population) as of June 2006’. Therefore, countries that become overly involved by other country’s affairs may not help in bringing solution to the problem but making the problem more severe.
Secondly, I would have to disagree with Chee Ying on ‘applying force’ to the country if they reject help from other concerned countries. Using this method will not help in resolving the problem but add on to the problems faced by the country. Other countries should respect the particular country if they choose to reject assistance and not force them to accept their help. Using forceful means will only make the politics of the country worsen and defeat the purpose of assistance.
An example would be Myanmar and its recent cyclone Nargis strike. The military rule of the country rejected help from other neighboring countries and caused discontent. The discontent displayed by the well-intended countries weakened the military rule in Myanmar. In this case, they not only failed to render help to Myanmar, they also added tension in Myanmar on the military rule.
Therefore, there should be some extent of involvement of countries to a particular country. Most importantly, they should show respect to the country and not force a country to accept their help and involvement. Only then, they will truly help the country and make the world a better place.
As people living in the same Earth, it is only right to show care and concern for other people and other countries. Only then, the world can unite and share peace and prosperity. I therefore agree with Chee Ying that it is right for one country to be involved in the internal affairs of another. However, there should be some limitations of being involved. The definition of involved should be ‘assisting’ and not ‘taking charge’. There should be some extent of involvement and boundary set to ensure countries do not ‘over- involve’ themselves in the affairs of other countries.
Countries that are involved in the internal affairs of another country should be the assistant and not the leader. If another country puts on a power of wanting to take charge, there will be an absence of respect for the country. If that is so, not only will they not resolve whatever conflicts that were present initially, they will also add on to the rising problems.
One example is the United States control over Iraq. Not only did United States fail to bring Iraq back to the peaceful days, they created more disorder to the country. Their forceful invasion displayed a lack of respect to Iraq and caused ‘654,965 excess deaths in Iraq (or 2.5 per cent of its population) as of June 2006’. Therefore, countries that become overly involved by other country’s affairs may not help in bringing solution to the problem but making the problem more severe.
Secondly, I would have to disagree with Chee Ying on ‘applying force’ to the country if they reject help from other concerned countries. Using this method will not help in resolving the problem but add on to the problems faced by the country. Other countries should respect the particular country if they choose to reject assistance and not force them to accept their help. Using forceful means will only make the politics of the country worsen and defeat the purpose of assistance.
An example would be Myanmar and its recent cyclone Nargis strike. The military rule of the country rejected help from other neighboring countries and caused discontent. The discontent displayed by the well-intended countries weakened the military rule in Myanmar. In this case, they not only failed to render help to Myanmar, they also added tension in Myanmar on the military rule.
Therefore, there should be some extent of involvement of countries to a particular country. Most importantly, they should show respect to the country and not force a country to accept their help and involvement. Only then, they will truly help the country and make the world a better place.
Busybodies?
Is it ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
In today’s globalised world, information travels quickly around the globe. What has happen in a part of the world is almost instantaneously known by others. Countries can no longer claim ignorance. In addition, many problems have become worldwide and it is only with the cooperation among the different countries will the problems be resolved. In my opinion, countries have the right to involved with the internal affairs of another country. Being involved with the internal affairs of another country is acceptable but becoming too involved till there is discomfort among the people is not. Countries should not and do not have the right to interfere with the politics of another country. Instead, they should seek to influence the decisions made by another country.
Countries should become involved with another country internal affair when there is lives at risk and the countries leaders are either unwilling or incapable of offering aid. During the recent cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, thousands of deaths were reported while the country’s leader apparently did little to help. Countries should first attempt to seek permission to offer help instead of rushing into the country without consent. Only after countries have tried all methods without success should they apply force on the country. When countries interfere with the internal affairs of another, there will most likely be strong resistance. This may divert the leader’s attention away from the critical issue and focus on opposing the inference. This may indirectly result in even more lives lost defeating the purpose of saving lives.
Countries should not become involved in the politics of another country. This today, there are still doubts over the real reason behind the United States invasion of Iraq. Some has speculated that the decision was made to tap onto the massive oil supply and to prevent Iraq from gaining military might. This might pose as a threat to the United States both economically and physically. This is contrasted with the official reason given which is to free the Iraqis. The results of the invasion are also gloomy with many deaths and continuing war. The Iraqis may have been living a better live before the invasion. How than did the United States armies succeed in freeing the ‘oppressed’ Iraqis? Therefore, countries even with the best of intentions should not invade another country.
In response to Cassandra’s post, she is not really answering the question. Instead, she gives the problems of interfering with another countries internal affair and what they should be doing instead when the stand she takes is that it is right for another country to be involved in the affairs of a country. Her points given are unable to support her stand.
Chee Ying
In today’s globalised world, information travels quickly around the globe. What has happen in a part of the world is almost instantaneously known by others. Countries can no longer claim ignorance. In addition, many problems have become worldwide and it is only with the cooperation among the different countries will the problems be resolved. In my opinion, countries have the right to involved with the internal affairs of another country. Being involved with the internal affairs of another country is acceptable but becoming too involved till there is discomfort among the people is not. Countries should not and do not have the right to interfere with the politics of another country. Instead, they should seek to influence the decisions made by another country.
Countries should become involved with another country internal affair when there is lives at risk and the countries leaders are either unwilling or incapable of offering aid. During the recent cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, thousands of deaths were reported while the country’s leader apparently did little to help. Countries should first attempt to seek permission to offer help instead of rushing into the country without consent. Only after countries have tried all methods without success should they apply force on the country. When countries interfere with the internal affairs of another, there will most likely be strong resistance. This may divert the leader’s attention away from the critical issue and focus on opposing the inference. This may indirectly result in even more lives lost defeating the purpose of saving lives.
Countries should not become involved in the politics of another country. This today, there are still doubts over the real reason behind the United States invasion of Iraq. Some has speculated that the decision was made to tap onto the massive oil supply and to prevent Iraq from gaining military might. This might pose as a threat to the United States both economically and physically. This is contrasted with the official reason given which is to free the Iraqis. The results of the invasion are also gloomy with many deaths and continuing war. The Iraqis may have been living a better live before the invasion. How than did the United States armies succeed in freeing the ‘oppressed’ Iraqis? Therefore, countries even with the best of intentions should not invade another country.
In response to Cassandra’s post, she is not really answering the question. Instead, she gives the problems of interfering with another countries internal affair and what they should be doing instead when the stand she takes is that it is right for another country to be involved in the affairs of a country. Her points given are unable to support her stand.
Chee Ying
Is it ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
In my opinion, I feel that it is only right if a country interferes with another country if the country is facing problems that they themselves cannot cope with. I feel that every country is important and no one should neglect any country even if it is a small one because there are people living in it and every one life is precious.
However, the problem is that countries which interferes in the affairs of another may not only be unable to alleviate the situation in that problematic country, very often, they worsen the situation there. Take for example, in Iraq which suffered for decades under Saddam Hussein rule, the Americans and British took things into their hands without even consulting the United Nations(a organisation where countries of the world come together to decide on issues) and invaded Iraq. Their initial plan to bring back Iraq from chaos actually became even worse as there were hundreds of thousands innocent deaths caused and Iraq was in a further chaotic state than before. Before we knew it, The Americans and British had pulled out their troops, leaving the Iraq citizens to fend for themselves.
Perhaps, representatives of countries should learn from one of these biggest mistakes made in the political history and not repeat it again. Sometimes, we just can't use force to control everything or assume that things will go the way it is suppose to be when you use force because people can be stubborn and using force can very likely back stab you. I feel that what one should do is to gently open their arms and show the country the way to solve their own problem instead of taking things into their hands and try to be totally involved in the country. Like in the case of Myanmar, perhaps instead of thinking to invade their country and use force to suppress the problem, neighbouring countries like Mumbai to Singapore can invite representatives of Myanmar to see how backward they are compared to this developed cities and change their mindset to try and improve on their situation by themselves. Some things are left better to be solved by the person himself and that another person should only help him to a certain extent.
However, the problem is that countries which interferes in the affairs of another may not only be unable to alleviate the situation in that problematic country, very often, they worsen the situation there. Take for example, in Iraq which suffered for decades under Saddam Hussein rule, the Americans and British took things into their hands without even consulting the United Nations(a organisation where countries of the world come together to decide on issues) and invaded Iraq. Their initial plan to bring back Iraq from chaos actually became even worse as there were hundreds of thousands innocent deaths caused and Iraq was in a further chaotic state than before. Before we knew it, The Americans and British had pulled out their troops, leaving the Iraq citizens to fend for themselves.
Perhaps, representatives of countries should learn from one of these biggest mistakes made in the political history and not repeat it again. Sometimes, we just can't use force to control everything or assume that things will go the way it is suppose to be when you use force because people can be stubborn and using force can very likely back stab you. I feel that what one should do is to gently open their arms and show the country the way to solve their own problem instead of taking things into their hands and try to be totally involved in the country. Like in the case of Myanmar, perhaps instead of thinking to invade their country and use force to suppress the problem, neighbouring countries like Mumbai to Singapore can invite representatives of Myanmar to see how backward they are compared to this developed cities and change their mindset to try and improve on their situation by themselves. Some things are left better to be solved by the person himself and that another person should only help him to a certain extent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)