Today, I didn't want to do any homework and I didn't want to feel guilty about not doing work the whole day so I decided to write a short reflection after reading an article on Geopolitics.
This article was taken from the July 23rd copy of news week and it is titled, " Divide and conquer". I'm not very sure how related it is to GP but nonetheless, its still general knowledge.
New, funny words/thematic vocab etc found:
resurgent
encroaching
notionally
kremlin
Black sea port of Odessa
antiballistic
nukes
Summary: Russia under putin, is engaged in this tug of war with the US over the eastern european states like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova etc. these countries are becoming closer and closer to the US due to 'common diplomatic values' but Russia is feeling the threat. some facts include Russia being able to shut down these countries' economies in a few days, the American guided missile destroyer USS Donald Cook was welcomed into Ukraine, and Putin wanting Iran as an ally to counter american influence.
Reflections:
I feel that although the cold war is over and although i initially thought Russia has restored its democratic form of administration, there would be no more rivalry between the two old time rivals, but this is not the case, and the two are still trying to collect their own diplomatic chips around the world. Putin took advantage at the surge in the anti-americanism that followed after its occupation of Iraq by selling arms to those anti-american countries. last month putin even signed a $3 billion arms deal with venezuela. At this rate, a conflict bt these two superpowers and their allies might come sonner than we think.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
GP Essay for Common Test
7. The development of a country depends on its leaders, not its citizens. Is this a fair comment?
The development of a country, could be defined as a process of change whereby the people of a certain country improve their standard of living. It is usually measured by current healthcare standards, quality of goods and services provided to the people, and most commonly, the Gross Domestic Product, which is a measure of the annual income of an average citizen. Many countries, like India and China, are progressing at an alarming rate, while most of the countries today have achieved third-world status, I believe the role of leaders in the development of many countries is vital. Though it is true to think that the people of a country are the fuel that drives development, but we should also consider the spark that sets it ablaze and keep it going. I believe that the development of a country depends largely on its leaders, although the citizens do provide an essential supporting role in the process of development.
The development of a country requires strategic planning and careful decisions, two aspects which need forward-looking leaders at the helm. Citizens alone do not make such key/crucial decisions, which determine the course the country is taking. One example would be the Singapore government in the 1960s. By allowing foreign companies to set up business here, while the rest of South East Asia recoils in the frear of foreigners dominating their economy, Singpaore has managed to become a global city, an economic hulo which is a centre of business and industries. Such development would not have been possible if the PAP government had not opened up the Singapore economy, and this would have left us struggling helplessly as a small country with no viable resources. Hence, this example clearly illustrates the importance of leaders making key and vital decisions for a country's development.
The rallying of people's hopes and dreams into one common goal is another reason why leaders are so important in the development of a country. For progress in the country, people of different backgrounds, beliefs and wants must share a common desire. In the 1960s, the people of Singapore wanted independence very badly, and the newly elected PAP government united their hopes and dreams and pushed for independence. In some countries, like Singapore and Sri Lanka, racial conflicts can sometimes divide the country and impede progress. However, comparing these two countries, Singapore has made great development while Sri Lanka experiences its decline. The reason for the stark difference lies in their leaders, especially at a time when its citizens are divided. Leaders introduce measures to remove this straitjacket to growth. Here in Singapore we celebrate Racial Harmony Day and have introduced public holidays on the festivals of the various ethnic groups. It is in this light that I would like to exert my point that leaders play a vital role in the development of a country, not the citizens, as only the leaders can make the citizens proud to be countrymen and work together to attain greater heights instead of alowing internal strife to imped growth.
Moreover, in the context of development being a process of progression in terms of a country's economy and standard of living, it is mostly the leaders that take the initiative to intiate sound policies for the good of all. The citizens are, in fact, more focussed on the minor aspects of things - their own wealth and comfort. Many people claim that it is the citizens who work and improve their own lives: to each his own, some may say. This viewpoint is erroneous in a larger context as it is not true that the poor of the country who are caught in the cycle of poverty can automatically progress together with the rest, and thus this does not fit into the definition of development as the overall improvement of the standard of a country. In Singapore, the government provides handouts to the urban poor, allowing them to progress as well. Charity organisations are set up to help the needy, and this in turn, helps them develop together with the rest of the country. History has also proven this point, as illustrated in the reunion of East and West Germany after the Cold War, when the generally well-to-do people of West Germany were bogged down by the poorer East Germans, causing development barriers. The self-help sehcme introduced by many developing countries also prove that in order for overall development that is unimpeded to occur, leaders must help those in need. Citizens mostly help themselves, while leaders help the country as a whole.
On the whole we can see from the above examples that country's development depends on its leaders, not its citizens. Citizens merely play a supporting role and act as the agents of change. Where this change is directed, however, depends on the country's leaders. Hence, it is in this view that we should appreciate the leaders who have dedicated their lives to serving the needs of the people. Selflessly pragmatic and keen on progress, these leaders light the path and pave the way for a country's development.
The development of a country, could be defined as a process of change whereby the people of a certain country improve their standard of living. It is usually measured by current healthcare standards, quality of goods and services provided to the people, and most commonly, the Gross Domestic Product, which is a measure of the annual income of an average citizen. Many countries, like India and China, are progressing at an alarming rate, while most of the countries today have achieved third-world status, I believe the role of leaders in the development of many countries is vital. Though it is true to think that the people of a country are the fuel that drives development, but we should also consider the spark that sets it ablaze and keep it going. I believe that the development of a country depends largely on its leaders, although the citizens do provide an essential supporting role in the process of development.
The development of a country requires strategic planning and careful decisions, two aspects which need forward-looking leaders at the helm. Citizens alone do not make such key/crucial decisions, which determine the course the country is taking. One example would be the Singapore government in the 1960s. By allowing foreign companies to set up business here, while the rest of South East Asia recoils in the frear of foreigners dominating their economy, Singpaore has managed to become a global city, an economic hulo which is a centre of business and industries. Such development would not have been possible if the PAP government had not opened up the Singapore economy, and this would have left us struggling helplessly as a small country with no viable resources. Hence, this example clearly illustrates the importance of leaders making key and vital decisions for a country's development.
The rallying of people's hopes and dreams into one common goal is another reason why leaders are so important in the development of a country. For progress in the country, people of different backgrounds, beliefs and wants must share a common desire. In the 1960s, the people of Singapore wanted independence very badly, and the newly elected PAP government united their hopes and dreams and pushed for independence. In some countries, like Singapore and Sri Lanka, racial conflicts can sometimes divide the country and impede progress. However, comparing these two countries, Singapore has made great development while Sri Lanka experiences its decline. The reason for the stark difference lies in their leaders, especially at a time when its citizens are divided. Leaders introduce measures to remove this straitjacket to growth. Here in Singapore we celebrate Racial Harmony Day and have introduced public holidays on the festivals of the various ethnic groups. It is in this light that I would like to exert my point that leaders play a vital role in the development of a country, not the citizens, as only the leaders can make the citizens proud to be countrymen and work together to attain greater heights instead of alowing internal strife to imped growth.
Moreover, in the context of development being a process of progression in terms of a country's economy and standard of living, it is mostly the leaders that take the initiative to intiate sound policies for the good of all. The citizens are, in fact, more focussed on the minor aspects of things - their own wealth and comfort. Many people claim that it is the citizens who work and improve their own lives: to each his own, some may say. This viewpoint is erroneous in a larger context as it is not true that the poor of the country who are caught in the cycle of poverty can automatically progress together with the rest, and thus this does not fit into the definition of development as the overall improvement of the standard of a country. In Singapore, the government provides handouts to the urban poor, allowing them to progress as well. Charity organisations are set up to help the needy, and this in turn, helps them develop together with the rest of the country. History has also proven this point, as illustrated in the reunion of East and West Germany after the Cold War, when the generally well-to-do people of West Germany were bogged down by the poorer East Germans, causing development barriers. The self-help sehcme introduced by many developing countries also prove that in order for overall development that is unimpeded to occur, leaders must help those in need. Citizens mostly help themselves, while leaders help the country as a whole.
On the whole we can see from the above examples that country's development depends on its leaders, not its citizens. Citizens merely play a supporting role and act as the agents of change. Where this change is directed, however, depends on the country's leaders. Hence, it is in this view that we should appreciate the leaders who have dedicated their lives to serving the needs of the people. Selflessly pragmatic and keen on progress, these leaders light the path and pave the way for a country's development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
