Term 3 -- World Affairs: Nuclear Crisis in North Korea

This is an article taken from SG Yahoo: click to see the full article

Commentary

North Korea, one of the few countries still adopting a totalitarian regime, has been accused of violating the Nuclear Treaty, which was signed between the United States and North Korea. The treaty was an agreement between six countries to stop any form of development of nuclear weapons, which could lead to potential threats in the near future. The trigger of this conflict was the agreement between US and North Korea, in which the US agreed to take North Korea off the state sponsor of terrorism list if North Korea shut down its nuclear facilities. However, North Korea accuses the US for not keeping the promise of updating the list while the US accuses North Korea of not having a protocol in place to verify the dismantling and accounting for Korea's nuclear program. In this article, it mostly provides us with the point of view of the United States, with reference to spokesmen at Washington as the content of the article is centred around the latter accusation from the US.

This article is generally sided towards the United States' side as the encompasses the point of view of various personnel in US. For example,Robert Einhorn, a former top non-proliferation expert at the State Department commented that the North Koreans had hoped that by threatening to reverse the nuclear disablement process, Washington would take them off the blacklist. This was clearly a one sided statement, favouring the US as the person accused North Korea of "threatening" to reverse the nuclear disablement process. This showed that bias is present in the various sources the article uses, such as the quote from Robert Einhorn. Thus the reliability of this article could be put into question.

Hand in hand, the article does not present us with enough factual data regarding North Korea reviving its nuclear plans. Although the article stated that North Korea defiantly suspended disabling its atomic plants and that personnel from US are monitoring the sites, it does not present us with the factual data and figures of the nuclear plants being reopened. Thus, the lack of factual data in this article can also put its credibility into question.

Moreover, the article does not provide us with a wide spectrum as the point of views of other countries involved are not stated extensively. For example, the article only stated that the general point of view of the South Korean and Japanese governments is regret while China takes a neutral stand. However, this article does not go into greater detail about the policies and the reactions of the related countries other than US. Thus the narrow point of view in this article could be identified as being biased.

However, the article does provide us with some possible future implications, which can be both positive and negative. Firstly, the positive implication is that countries will be more aware in handling foreign relations with countries whose intents are constantly put into question, be it a violation of human rights or production of dangerous weapons. If the situation evolves such that a mutual agreement is reached between the two parties, it would also imply that alternative policies could be implemented to help solve the conflicts that are present.

On the other hand, the negative implication is that tension in the South Asia region would rise. Given the fact that many disputes and unrests happen within this region up till today, such as the political unrest in Thailand and the opposing actions of Russia towards the West, shows us that if this situation was allowed to spread, it would spread like wildfire. This means that a series of events could even lead to possibly war, or the present threat of a new cold war. However, it was stated in the article that the North Korean government is unlikely to resurrect the nuclear reactors, so all these tensions could just be a false alarm.

In conclusion, I feel that this article is useful in addressing the point of view of the United States, with reference from a wide variety of data from spokesmen to experts. However, I feel that this article has not explained in detail the possible implications as it is crucial in any conflict to understand the threat of the conflict. Also, the article could have provided us with a wider perspective of related countries and make an effort to link it to the current affairs, such as the recent conflict involving the US and Russia which emerged. Lastly, I feel that it is up to the leaders of the countries to decide the future of the region as their descisions could lead to peace or conflict.


The End
and a happy belated teacher's day XD

Term 2 - Democracy, does it bring stability to a country?

Democracy, as many of us identify with, is a form of goverment whereby people is "greater" than the goverment. In a democratic state, the people have the right to vote for their goverment, are granted the freedom of speech and have equal rights and opportunities. A democratic goverment usually adopts a "majority rule" concept, whereby the goverment works in favour of the majority whom has voted for them. However, does giving power to the people necessarily mean that democracy brings stability to a country? I personally feel so.

Firstly, I feel that Democracy can bring about social stability. This is because of the fact that democracy stresses on equality. For instance, during the 1960s in USA, the sense of racial segregation was strong and racism was widespread throughout the country. To exacerbate the problem, the "Jim Crow" laws, made on a racial basis limited the Black's influence in community and politics. One example is the blacks are not allowed to vote. Thus, the Black community felt that their rights and their livelihood are being compromised. This has led them to many non-violence protests such as the one made by Martin Luthur King Jr. ,who stands firmly to eradicate racism through understanding and negotiation. He also had a vision about a racist-free society whereby people of Black or White skin can call each other brothers. Today we see the US as a strong democratic country, as well as a society where multi-racial communities co-exists and interacts with each other and are treated on equal terms. Thus being treated with equality leads to a socially stable country.

Furthermore, Democracy can bring about stability in overall growth as a country. This is due to the fact that people can choose their goverment and vote them out when the goverment is undesirable. In constitutions of most democratic states, one of the sections would state that when a goverment is not operating in favor of the people, they can choose to conduct a vote out. This would cause the goverment to work well in the expectations of the people in order to keep their political influences and their jobs. For example, when a goverment is corrupt, the people can dethrone the goverment upon disatisfaction with the way the goverment cheats money from the people or their poor leadership. In Taiwan, a similar vote out was carried out on the current president Chen Shui Bian (retired with effect from 20 May, the next day)for the goverments' poor performance and the possibility of corruption amongst his family members. All three vote out initiations has failed. However, this has raised the people's awareness on how to vote wisely for their goverment and prevent corruption to happen again.Thus, deposition of goverment ensures that the goverment functions well. When the goverment functions well under the inspection of the people, stability of the country can be ensured as the goverment will improve itself when the people question their leadership.

However, Democracy cannot bring stablitity to a country in certain contexts. This is because different countries vary in terms of demographics and culture, thus implementing democracy on all groups of people might not necessarily be the best option for the stability of the nation. One example of this is Singapore. Singapore functions not as a "true blue democracy" firstly because of the fast-paced system of goverment. People do not vote for policies due to the fact that the goverment has to implement them fastly to cope with the rapid economic growth and the fast changing Singapore, in terms of demographics due to foreign migration and projects such as IR. Democracy on the other hand, does not satisfy the speed in which the goverment has to implement things. In other words, the goverment could not afford to carry out a referendum for every issue knowing that precious time would be wasted. Thus democracy cannot bring a stable growth to a country due to the nature of the country.

Also, Democracy can bring about conflicts. This is due to the freedom of speech. In Singapore, where stability is much based on racial cohesion and understanding. However, with the freedom of speech implemented on Singapore's society, the goverment fears that people will rightfully start to post racist remarks openly in public. This will cause an unprecedented damage to Singapore's thriving economy and social stability as periodically, conflicts and unrests will arise from such comments being made about the other races. Thus, maintaining a "true blue" democracy can have detrimental effects on a multi-racial society's stability as it can trigger racial conflicts.

I feel that in the long run, democracy can bring society to a country. This is because the goverment, as well as the people progresses as the democracy nurtures. For example, in Taiwan, people used to be bought off easily by fake promises and the promotion of ideologies of independence at the expanse of true development. However, in 2008's elections, there is a drastic change in the way the people view their goverment. The 2008 election saw the rise of maturity in people who can prioritize and identify with the needs of Taiwan.

One might argue that democracy can cause instability through conflicts between races. However, this is only applicable in the short term as conflicts are a process to peace. We see in USA, where a state filled with racist beliefs is transformed into a racial harmonious society. We do see conflicts between this two communities at first. As democracy suggests, people are given equal rights. Thus the two different communities set out to work step by step to reach a consensus, whereby the two can coexist in peace. Thus I agree that democracy can bring stability in the long run,on the basis that the ideal can be achieved in the long run.

Stereotypes in Schools - Is it acceptable?

Why I hated music lessons in primary school
Section: News
By: SANTOKH SINGH
Publication: The New Paper 07/11/2006
Page: 3
No. of words: 411
Link: click here


This article talks about how the author hates music during primary school education as his music teacher labelled him "tone-deaf". The author then realised that how labels can impact an individual's development. He also noted that labels do crosses lines from an innocent remark to hurting one personally.So the question is, is stereotyping acceptable?

In RI's context, stereotypes exists even among the eye of the Public. Within its walls, this stereotypes are further split into different divisions, ranging from "muggers","gays" to "cool","slackers" . Stereotypes of a person is made based on his appearance, behaviour and class. Sometimes, stereotypes are things that bond people together. However, stereotypes may at times be a burden for one to bear.

Firstly, stereotypes draws a fine line between benefiting people and hurting people. What might seem to be a reasonable "label" at first may evolve into a tool of malice which may scar a person emotionally. For example, in RI, "muggers" are labelled this way due to their excellence in academic pursuits as they constantly produce good achievements in their subjects or CCAs.Initially, "muggers" means the cream of the crop who excels in studying. However, as time goes by, "muggers" have evolved to a label whereby "muggers have no life" and "being a mugger is bad". Just because one is jealous of their achievements or ones ambition in life differs from another, it does not give one the authority to undermine one's ability by labelling them in a bad way. Putting the psychological aspect into place, stereotypes will also be a deterrence to some from pursuing their dreams and go with the common public. "If failing is cool, I should too if i want to be cool."That will be their mindset.

Furthermore, stereotypes can cause widening gaps in schools, especially in a multi-racial society like Singapore, where people of different social and racial backgrounds gather under the same hall during assemblies. Most of us are familiar with the racist state of mind that are widespread throughout the school community.
Negative actions such as making racist jokes and taunting people of different skin colours are just few of the vast collection as a result of stereotypes. The consequences are large because racial tensions might lead to uproars and misunderstandings. Why do you think war torn nations are still struggling to fight on even if its developments is at stake? Deep rooted hate originates from small events. Rude comments towards the minority or foreigners may have huge consequences as it accumulates.

However, stereotypes are what fosters communities together. For example, the Malay students in school tend to stick together due to their common identity as being "Malay", which promotes positive relationships and understanding amongst the community.

However also, it will compromise the larger community as different communities which feel strongly about their shared values may rebut the other community, therefore leading to a conflict. If the Racist students gang up together against the minority races, it will ruin the school's reputation and its dynamics. Again stereotypes causes conflicts.

Stereotypes can help to improve community, foster friendship and understanding when used correctly. However, the lines can be crossed easily and stereotypes can lead to emotional scarring, conflict amongst communities and misunderstandings.

---End---
どんな道を選ぼう