ArrowsInk

Author: Shekinah

  • A New Year’s Reflection: One Step at a Time

    A New Year’s Reflection: One Step at a Time

    Another year has passed and with it come the opportunity of starting our new year’s resolutions and working towards fresh goals. I love the idea of starting a new; be it a new month or even phase of our life. It portrays something that is often missing in our daily news or even in our daily conversations, Hope.

    While we cannot ignore the conditions of a troubled world, be it economic turmoil, geopolitical tensions, wars and famine. These challenges have been with us in varying degrees for as long as history has been recorded. We see them unfolding, but often it feels like nothing improves at least to the naked eye, sometimes giving the sense that there is no point continuing with the charade of everything being fine.

    But with the new year while new troubles may arise, new opportunities also extend their hands to us.

    I find it fitting that after the month of Christmas, the season of Love, Hope and Peace we enter the new year. It’s a reminder for us to carry those values into the new year. Christmas shows us that love means sacrifice, that hope can be found even in a humble manger and that peace is something we can all strive towards in interactions with the world around us.

    It’s not always easy. Personally, when I am slighted, my instinct is to defend myself, but I’ve learnt that taking a moment to pause before reaction helps a ton in clearing the mind. Small steps like this are part of why I enjoy entering the new year, even if we enter with simple resolutions like spending less time (5 mins or even 1 hour) on the mobile. Even that small change is progress.

    Often, when we look toward moving forward, we want progress to come quickly and results to appear instantly. But taking intentional steps in the present makes looking back at the path we’ve created all the more rewarding.

    Imagine walking on a sandy beach in haste, then walking on it with intention, taking in the ocean and life around you. Which set of footprints would be more striking?

    In The Screwtape Letters, a witty book by C.S Lewis that features two demons, Wormwood and Screwtape, exchanging letters on the best way to corrupt a soul, there is a salient quote from Screwtape. ‘For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity.’

    Many times, I forget the blessing that is the present day in search for something I may not find tomorrow or something that I may not need in search of my own greed and ambition.

    If there’s one thing to take away from this post, it’s this:

    Before the sun reaches its peak in the sky, it passes through the beauty of the sunrise, where not on the sun itself but everything the light touches, is admired. In the same way, living intentionally in each present moment can help us see both the world and ourselves more clearly.

    More posts

  • Correction vs. Conviction: The Outer Push, the Inner Pull

    Correction vs. Conviction: The Outer Push, the Inner Pull

    In today’s world, there are many discussions on rehabilitating people when they are radicalised or commit crimes. It led me to a question on what are the steps that one usually has to go through before rehabilitation is possible. I landed at two words, ‘Correction’ and ‘Conviction’.

    Before we get started let’s explore what each of these words mean:

    Corrections: Change that rectifies an error or inaccuracy or the action or process of correcting something.

    Conviction: A formal declaration by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law that someone is guilty of a criminal offence or a firmly held belief or opinion.

    From the simplified definitions (thank you Google!) we can perceive the difference between the words. Correction is more of an external manifestation on making amends to ensure better performance or in some cases acceptable behaviour.

    Correction is important in helping us learn, grow and improve across our personal and professional lives. In a way, when one accepts correction, it may lead to increase self-worth and confidence, because it’s a reminder that no one is perfect.

    Conviction on the other hand, is more intrinsic. It provides internal strength to pursue our goals, overcome obstacles and maintain congruence in thought and action. Leading to greater personal growth and even building resilience. Strong convictions help to inspire trust in others, strengthen decision making and foster a sense of purpose and passion. It makes setbacks and obstacles no matter how daunting seem small when one is convicted in their belief or action.

    When I was writing this I realised that one is clearly more powerful than the other. If you are corrected or chastised, you may not always be convicted of your actions or behaviour. But if you are convicted on something, it comes hand in hand with being chastised or corrected which then shapes how you continue to journey through life.

    So where does this difference show up most clearly? I’ve noticed it in two very different groups: children and criminals. Both are often corrected, but the presence—or absence—of conviction makes all the difference.

    Children and Criminals: What is the difference?

    I know the header seems abit jarring but bear with me.

    Many of my close friends and family work with children. I always found it curious when I would see them correcting a child, it usually goes with (a) Shout or yelling to get their attention, (b) being pulled aside, (c) telling the child what they did was wrong and sometimes if you are lucky (d) Why it was wrong. Many times, as adults we stop at telling children ‘what’ but rarely go beyond to ‘why’.

    Maybe its because we assume that a young child would not understand the why, so we don’t bother telling them that till they’re older.

    But when will a child be old enough?

    The question I have lies more with the adults, why do we stop and not explain to children why their behaviour is bad, disruptive, rude (any of the above). While yes, I do think we should pick our battles, for a young child even putting out the ‘why’ makes a difference because it’s planting seeds into their minds and can make changes to their behaviour.

    Many times, as adults we get upset when we receive an apology that does not put into words ‘why’ we are receiving it.

    Case in point, pick which one you prefer:

    ‘I’m sorry for saying that, please forgive me’

    vs

    ‘I’m sorry for calling you that. It was hurtful and childish thing to do. I was being rude and inconsiderate for even using that term, I will do better, please forgive me’.

    The difference in an apology is the understanding of why. It is not simply the word ‘sorry’ that makes the difference.

    If as adults many of us struggle with accepting such apologies or lack of reasoning, why are we leaving children unequipped.

    Now for criminals we have the opposite problem.

    Many times, they are aware of social norms and rules on criminal activities. In a courtroom their crimes are detailed and explained to the jury or the judge and it is always presented with a motive (the why) in the courtroom.

    Playing devil advocate to myself, if the ‘why’ is needed—this is the perfect scenario— why are there repeat offenders occur. Its confusing especially when the consequences have been outlined and experienced.

    I like to think that despite the judge or jury passing a conviction, internally the person isn’t convicted. Ever heard the saying ‘you can bring the horse to water, but you can’t make it drink’. Well, this is the same.

    The beauty of conviction is that it is a double-edged sword. It is more effective than correction only when it is from within. Which means if I choose to justify my behaviour due to other external factors rather than accept that I had to power to choose my decision despite the circumstance, I will never be convicted.

    I can be corrected by people, I can explain and justify my actions, but I won’t be able to see the hurt or pain it caused, and neither will I be willing to accept that I became a perpetrator unless I am convicted.

    How do we continue evolving

    I know it’s an uncomfortable conversation to slowly peel yourself open to the possibility that there are a lot of things in life that makes you a cog in the machine and the same way the cog does not understand why you just go through the motions.

    But maybe the question isn’t which is more powerful, but how we can move from correction to conviction in our own lives. The next time we are corrected—whether as children, adults, or even in the quiet courtroom of our conscience—what if we paused long enough to ask: Do I just understand what I did wrong, or am I convicted enough to live differently?

    The answer may determine whether the lesson ends there.

    More posts

  • How Freedom Meets Responsibility

    How Freedom Meets Responsibility

    As the year comes to an end, I wanted to discuss something I realised has become a symbiotic relationship the more interconnected we have become as a society. It is the relationship between individual freedom and social responsibility.

    Freedom vs. Responsibility

    This raises a big question: when does social responsibility encroach on individual freedom and should it?

    Individual freedom is the right to make choices without undue restraint, as long as others’ freedoms are respected. Social responsibility, on the other hand, is the ethical duty to act for the greater good — whether that’s businesses providing recycling bins, or individuals choosing to recycle.

    In a society where responsibility is shared, collaboration feels natural. But when it’s unevenly applied — like individuals being fined for littering but companies dumping trash into rivers— it can feel more like coercion than collaboration.

    Can we call society “fair” if responsibility is imposed on a few while others remain exempt?

    Let’s look at it from 2 different perspectives Libertarian and Utilitarian

    The Libertarian Perspective: Freedom First

    From a libertarian viewpoint, individual freedom is the ultimate value. Libertarians argue that the right to personal liberty should take precedence over societal demands for collective behavior. After all, freedom means having the ability to make personal choices—whether those choices are popular or not.

    In this view, social responsibility cannot justify infringing on personal freedoms. Even when public opinion pushes for conformity—be it the latest social trend, political correctness, or collective activism—libertarians would argue that individuals should have the right to opt out without facing judgment or consequence.

    The Utilitarian Perspective: The Greater Good

    On the other hand, utilitarianism puts the common good at the center. According to this philosophy, actions should be evaluated based on their consequences for society as a whole. In this view, individual freedoms might need to be curtailed if it’s for the benefit of the larger community.

    For example, in the context of environmental responsibility, the utilitarian argument might support limiting personal freedoms (like car ownership or meat consumption) if these sacrifices can help reduce climate change and promote long-term societal well-being.

    (Which is ironic when you realise that larger corporations curbing their carbon emissions would be more effective than a single person recycling…I still do recycle but you have to admit it is funny)

    The Clash in Modern Society

    Today, this tension is more visible than ever. Social media amplifies the need for individual freedom and also social responsibility, where likes and shares often validate ideas and lifestyles.

    Protests, for instance, while they are a critical part of social change, they can also lead to unintended consequences. When protesters block roads, destroy property, or disrupt people’s livelihoods, the people most affected are often the ones who may already be struggling to make ends meet—like delivery drivers, small business owners, or workers trying to earn a living.

    Recently in Melbourne, rocks were hurled at police officers who were doing their jobs in trying to maintain peace and order for citizens going about their day and also respecting individuals rights to protest and counter protest one another.

    The irony is that the actions of these protestors might turn more people away from their message than towards it. As we know the road to hell is paved with good intention. It ends up creating a situation where the solution to one problem ends up exacerbating the suffering of others who are just trying to survive, which can feel like an unfair trade-off

    Why should my personal liberties be curtailed due to your ‘view’ on what social responsibility should look like?

    This is where the clash occurs: how do we balance the desire to foster a sense of social responsibility while still respecting personal freedoms?

    Finding a Middle Ground

    Ultimately, the goal should be to find a balance—encouraging people to make responsible, ethical choices. But also respecting people who are doing their jobs and trying to make the best out of the hand they’ve been dealt. As humans we are complicated which results in us making processes equally complicated —somehow I doubt we will ever find the perfect solution.

    But to come close to one, people should be empowered to make decisions for the common good, but not at the expense of their right to think, speak, and live freely.

    Food for Thought

    In an age where societal pressures often dictate how we live and what we believe, it’s important to acknowledge the fine line between social responsibility and individual freedom. While we all have a role to play in creating a better society, we must also protect the freedoms that allow us to live authentically, express diverse opinions, challenge norms.

    Because only when freedom and responsibility walk hand in hand, will we thrive.

    More posts

  • Fear as a Tool of Control

    Fear as a Tool of Control

    I think we all heard the news of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

    As a young political science student, when my professors asked me to write papers, I tried to push myself across the spectrum from the left to the right. Political commentators became my study material. They helped me understand the lenses people use to interpret policies, politics, and even law.

    Listening to commentators like Kirk offered me a window into what shaped people’s convictions. It’s still too early to say what the motive behind the shooting was. But one thing is certain: deciding someone is not worthy of life because you disagree with their views is abhorrent. It betrays not only the inability to deal with adversity but also a dangerously childish worldview. A worldview that assumes life should never offend you.

    When I first heard the news, shock gave way to something bizarre: fear. Why was I afraid? I wasn’t there. I wasn’t involved. And yet, the thought that someone who made a career out of speaking sometimes on college campuses (which are supposed to be safe), sometimes in hostile environments could be killed for it made me uneasy. The idea that words alone could be a death sentence is unnerving.

    This is not just about one man, or one incident. It’s about how fear is used as a weapon.

    In George Orwell’s 1984, fear is the very foundation of totalitarian control. The Party doesn’t just punish dissent, it conditions people to fear even the thought of dissent. The Thought Police make sure that rebellion dies not in action, but in imagination.

    A “thoughtcrime” isn’t about what you do, but what you dare to think. It may sound extreme. But think about it: when violence is used against speech, the message is the same, don’t even think about saying something that could offend the wrong person. Fear seeps in. Self-censorship follows behind. Debate shrinks. And what remains is not freedom, but silence.

    That’s why what happened horrifies me. Because it wasn’t just an attack on an individual; it was an assault on the very idea of dialogue itself. When disagreement turns violent, the pursuit for truth collapses, because fear takes its place. Regardless of whether or not we agreed with Kirk’s politics, we should all be asking ourselves: what kind of society are we creating if the price of disagreement is death?

    Fear may control the masses, but only if we let it. The harder path, or what I like to call the braver path is to deny fear’s control on dictating which conversations we can have, which people we can listen to, or which ideas are allowed to exist.

    More posts

  • The Silent Weapon

    The Silent Weapon

    In today’s world a moment of silence is hard to come by. Be it background noise of the TV or constant notifications from friends or family [on our devices]. Silence has become a foreign concept to us. Even our vocabulary has changed around the concept of silence, terms like Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) and hustling are indication that we need to always be on the move or involved in something. If we are not, something is wrong.

    It is important to take note that silence is not merely the absence of noise, it’s also the control and silencing of your own inner voice and thoughts. Imagine tethering a kite to a tree and letting it blow in the wind. When I think of silence I think of that scene, there is still movement, there is still colour there is still life, but it is grounded in something firm and unshakable.

    It is where we reflect on our lives, thoughts, plans and emotions. It is also sometimes what we need to make the right choices.

    As someone who spends a lot of time in silence, for better or worse, I don’t fear it, but I treat it like a mentor that guides me. And it seems that many philosophers in the past have had similar thoughts:

    Friedrich Nietzsche, wrote,

    ‘The noble man honours in himself the powerful one, him also who has power over himself, who knows how to speak and how to keep silence, who takes pleasure in subjecting himself to severity and hardness, and has reverence for all that is severe and hard’.

    Nietzsche implies that true power comes from self-mastery over one’s words and thoughts. It is a space for one to practice their own strength. For Nietzsche, silence represents a break from the dictatorship of language, an opportunity for one to learn when to speak and when to remain silent. To study the world without placing oneself as distraction.

    Similarly, the philosopher Simone Weil wrote

    ‘Our soul makes constant noise, but it has a silent place we never hear’.

    For Weil, in the search for the divine the only place we can find it is in our silence. It is the only time God will not be interrupted in speaking with us because our distractions are put at bay.

    Many times, when we cry silent tears, it holds more emotions and truth then whatever words we can muster up to speak. The purity of silence is that it allows for a free expression that would only ever be limited by words.

    Silence is not Weakness

    One of the most intriguing aspects of silence is how often it is categorised as weakness. If someone does not retort back to defend themselves or to engage in conversations that are untrue, they are seen as being complicit. But they are far from it, they are disengaging from the noise in the world. Sometimes in being well-meaning to find answers, I wonder if we are just giving people the opportunity to justify their actions with inadequate words and resounding noise, that it deafens our moral compass.

    The idea that actions speak louder than words is a phrase we use often but hardly practice.

    Zeno of Citium, shares how silence is a way to prevent yourself from becoming a fool. He writes that

    ‘It is better to trip with the feet than the tongue’.

    His understanding in how many of the world’s fights, wars are aggravated by the tongue, a splash of anger, words and actions that do not think or consider its repercussions.

    Similarly, Jean Paul Sarte recognises that silence has power:

    ‘Every word has consequences. Every silence, too.’

    Silence acts as a signal to others on your stance and position.

    From the perspective of free speech, people should be allowed to say whatever they want, and while free speech is a way one can freely express themselves remaining silent is another less taken path that people can also choose to express themselves freely.

    While it may not be as flashy as speaking your mind, it does hold more wisdom.

     In choosing silence, people can reject overwhelming expectations placed on them by society, or their peers. Silence becomes a deliberate refusal to conform to a world that expects constant output and response.

    Silence as a path to Self

    The idea of silence as an introspective practice is not new. Many Eastern philosophies, especially those found in Buddhism and Hinduism, place great emphasis on the power of silence for self-realization. The practice of meditation has been seen to embrace silence and cultivate inner awareness to achieve enlightenment.

    In the words of Rabbi Akavia

    Silence is a fence around wisdom.

    It often suggests that silence is a protective barrier, preserving wisdom by controlling impulsive speech and allowing time for deeper thought and learning.

    In the end silence helps prevent mistakes, protects the purity and authenticity of wisdom, and allows for the observation and understanding of others. It fosters one’s own growth and thoughtful decision-making.

    A Moment of Silence

    There is a reason when someone passes we are asked to remain silent. Silence brings out the introspective quality of life that we are missing today. I hope after reading this, you will learn to embrace a moment of silence, be it in grabbing a drink alone or sitting at the park bench admiring the sky.

    Find the time to be silent.

    As the poet T.S. Eliot wisely noted, “The greatest proof of silence is the ability to hear it.” In silence, we can find the answers, in what is left unsaid.

    More posts

  • Reporting for Duty: The Superman Story in Between the Lines

    Reporting for Duty: The Superman Story in Between the Lines

    I have a few thoughts on the James Gunn, Superman movie.

    Who is Superman

    Before we begin, let’s first understand who is Superman. Superman aka Kal-El, was born on Krypton. His biological parents Jor-El and Lara sent him to earth shortly before Krypton was destroyed. His ship landed in the American countryside of Smallville, Kansas, where he was found and adopted by farmers Jonathan and Martha Kent, who named him Clark Kent.

    The Kents realized he was superhuman; due to the Earth’s yellow sun, all of his physical and sensory abilities are far beyond those of a human. Growing up his adoptive parents instilled in him strong morals, he chooses to use his powers to benefit humanity, and fights crime as a vigilante.

    To protect his personal life, he changes into a primary-colored costume and uses the alias “Superman”. Clark resides in Metropolis, and works as a journalist for the Daily Planet.

    [Thank you Wikipedia!]

    His Identity

    The earliest scenes of the movie begins with him interacting with videos of his biological parents and how he finds it soothing. It helps to inform him on his role on earth as a protector. In a way, its not just informing him but also affirming his actions.

    In fact, his biological parents words govern the actions he takes in the movie. Many times we also look to our loved ones as guiding pillars on our morals, ideas and even how to act. We are shaped not just by our own thoughts but also by how others view us.

    In the movie, these words give Superman his meaning. So when it is suspected that there was more to the story and advice provided by his biological parents, Superman (understandably)does not take it well. His whole world is shifted and turned upside down and whatever he thought he knew or who he was ends up turning into a lie.

    But while it bogs Superman down for a while, it acts as a catalyst for him to question what his beliefs, intentions and actions. It pushed him to find out who he was without the noise and words from his biological parents.

    His relationship with his adoptive parents and conversation with his father help him in finding his own path despite what other might say. In fact, the beauty of the movie is the lack of correction from the characters. It doesn’t matter what is being said anymore but only what is being done.

    Lois Lane as an Anchor

    When we see his interaction with Lois Lane we see another side to their dynamic that I enjoyed. Many times Lois Lane is presented as the no nonsense reporter but never with Clark/Superman as the subject.

    But the tables turn, when we see Clark allow himself to be interviewed by her in an act of trust. We see how both of their morals and integrity as journalists and heroes play out. Bringing across an interesting but much needed dynamic. When we want to better ourselves, we need to be challenged. I believe that the reason why Lois and Clark in this film are a believable couple is because of this challenge, and to see it play out in a trusting and vulnerable way gave insight into their dynamic. We know Lois trusts him but she also takes her role as a journalist seriously especially with the backdrop of the movie.

    Unlike Lex Luthor who views Superman as a being to be controlled and destroyed because of his infallible power. Lois challenges Clark/Superman to defend his choices and in a way unearth any uncertainties regarding them. It pushes him to see that people may not see his actions in the same vein.

    The Journalism Aspect

    The fact that Superman and many of his peers are reporters adds an intriguing layer to the story. At its core, the role of a good reporter is to seek the truth and carefully examine sources. Clark initially believes he already knows the truth and trusts his own intentions, but when his world is turned upside down, he’s forced to reevaluate what he truly believes and uncover what’s really happening.

    Similarly, Lois recognizes that the situation is far more complex than the media portrays it, and her trust in Clark/Superman drives her to dig deeper. In this way, journalism, and the shared commitment to truth, becomes a powerful force that connects them, pushing both to pursue their quests for understanding despite starting from different perspectives.

    I Guess That’s The Real Punk Rock

    I really enjoyed the movie and aimed to keep this spoiler-free, but I think beyond how the movie showed that Kindness can be a superpower these areas and themes stood out to me the most. I appreciated how the story wrapped up this dynamic in a way that stayed true to the characters and provided extra nuances and layers without compromising either.

    More posts

  • AI: Artificial Intelligence or All Intelligence?

    AI: Artificial Intelligence or All Intelligence?

    Since the establishment, and now almost widespread use of AI chatbots like ChatGPT and Copilot, studies have been done citing their effects on the human mind and trust me it doesn’t look too good.

    WALL-E Begins?

    A recent study from MIT media lab found that people who used ChatGPT to help write their work form them, recorded one of the lowest cognitive engagement and performance with low scores in areas of linguistic and neural brain paths.

    (Well, I guess it’s time to hang up the banners of joy that AI was supposed to make our tasks and lives easier)

    I remember being hesitant in using AI, particularly ChatGPT when it first came out, my fear was that I would basically be pushing all my thinking somewhere else. Later I experimented on it based on one of my biggest weaknesses (organisation), I don’t know if you can tell from my writing, but I am terrible at organising my thoughts and let me tell you when I used Chat to help me…It didn’t get what I was going for at all.

    So maybe it’s not as brilliant as everyone claims it is, especially when you find out that any answer you get is an amalgamation of all the possible resources and answers available online. (which sounds great until you realise you need a specific one!)

    But I am not anti-AI in fact I found that sometimes it forced me to think more. For instance, when I tried using it to help me organise my writings, I realised that I had to put way more time and effort trying to get it to understand me, especially since I did not take the first thing it threw out.

    (Which eventually resulted in me using the old fashion way of organising my thoughts- grabbing a pen and paper and asking the ultimate authority (my mom) if it sounds right.)

    Impacts of AI

    But the issue of AI chat tools goes far beyond reducing linguistic and neural scores. While I am a novice in the field, certain things are clear to me as a writer. My biggest concern is that students and people may eventually become over-reliant on these bots on churning on information and data, that we may lose the ability to think creatively when we are faced with challenges or ideas. In a way, because of how the bot works we will eventually be thinking in a hive mindset when dealing with things in the world.

    My new Therapist

    Another worrying development is that a study found that many young people confide in AI chat tools as they would a real human therapist. While there are some benefits such as being judgement free (really?), instant availability and providing tools and resources for cognitive reframing. The core tenants of therapy such as human connection, non-verbal cues and accountability are removed. A study by Dr Andrew Clark, a psychiatrist, while posing as a troubled teen and experimenting on different chatbots he received different responses. He categorised them as such:

    • Some chatbots would provide beneficial and basic information on mental health and direct people to the right resources.
    • But with complicated or dangerous scenarios many of the chatbots responded in in risky ways suggesting impulsive behaviour.

    This misunderstands the greatest impact of therapy, which is knowing that someone is listening and challenging you to be a better person. However, with AI chat tools, tweaking the way you write something can absolve you from mistakes you do not wish to address. In a way, it feels like using these tools as therapists can hinder your growth and in worse cases lead you to making bad choices.

    We already see this happening with an AI company being sued due to their lack of regulation which may have resulted in the death of a teenage boy in Florida.

    Eco Woes

    Lastly, with all the clamouring on the importance of sustainability and eco-friendly goals. AI chat bots have a huge impact on one of earth most scarce resource, water. A global report estimated that data centers consume about 560 billion litres of water annually and that could rise to about 1,200 billion litres by 2030. Especially, with the push of technology firms for larger networks and more offices. This is a serious concern, the overuse of water-a finite resource- on AI can have catastrophic effects on our ecosystem and society.

    This is particularly concerning, when you realise many data, centres are usually hosted in cities with high population density like China, India, USA etc. In fact, a 2021 paper found that nearly half of US data centres were fully or partially powered by water-hungry power plants located within water scarce regions.

    Many things we use require a certain water usage but the lack of tact in managing or addressing this issue beforehand is astonishing when you think about its implications.

    Overall while it seems that AI while it may have its benefits, it’s cost in human cognitive abilities, growth and the world’s resources may not actually be worth it without stricter guidelines.

    Moving Forward

    I am not usually one for regulation, but it seems plain to me that the tech industry particularly in the creation of AI tools and its vast networks were under regulated for the sake of innovation. But with the dangers looming close by, it would only be right for companies and governments to place stringent ethical guidelines and codes regarding AI. This should go beyond its use in academics, but also in copyright infringement, access and use of resources, particularly finite ones.

    During BCG’s 6th annual Digital Acceleration Index (DAI), out of 2,700 executive globally, found only 28% of their organizations are prepared for new regulation regarding AI.

    Many firms can start prepping for these potential changes through Responsible AI (RAI) initiatives. At it’s core it is a set of principles to account for transparency, privacy, security, fairness and inclusion and accountability when developing and deploying an AI algorithm.

    Some ways to kickstart at RAI initiatives in companies:

    1. Align internal AI policies with AI regulations in effect in the market you operate in.
    2. Dialogue with public sector officials and others to better understand the evolving regulatory landscape, as well as to provide information and insights that might be useful to policymakers.
    3. Establish clear governance and risk management structures and protocols and accountability mechanisms in managing AI technologies.

    Right now, responsive (not reactive) action is needed to catch up to these changes. Policymakers need to have sufficient subject matter expertise available to implement, monitor and enforce the policies and engage in multilateral processes to make AI rules among jurisdictions interoperable and comparable.

    But it seems like laws and policies may be running a losing race due to having a late start.

    More posts

    Credit: Image is by rawpixel.com

  • Death: An Old Friend

    Death: An Old Friend

    Death is an old friend, that many times we never speak to. It comes in its mystery but is always dependable in its actions. One of my favourite depictions of death and the dead is from Greek mythology when Hades, the god of the underworld, snatches Persephone away down, because that is the characteristic of the death and the underworld. His actions are driven by the domain he rules and the reactions from her mother is not so different from ours ,when death knocks at our door.

    Philosophy on Death

    Death has been an age old question and many philosophers have written extensively on the topic:

    Socrates believed death would either lead to a dreamless sleep or a blank wall (nothingness), or a passage way to another life. But it would be pointless to be fearful, regardless of what death would greet us with.

    The Vedas, views all beings as souls and spiritual in nature, after death a soul is reincarnate, taking birth in another form (Think of it like how hermit crabs find new shells when they outgrow their old ones).

    Plato, believed death opened up the door to an ideal world and from the horses mouth: “I am afraid that other people do not realize that the one aim of those who practice philosophy in the proper manner is to practice for dying and death.” Freeing the idea of the body from the mind (sounds familiar?)

    Epicurus ever the pragmatic, believed death was simply the cessation of sensation-not good or bad. Making it inconsequential to us. He asserted our fear of death was the one thing holding us back from living lives of tranquility and fulfillment.

    The Stoic school of philosophy emerged in 3rd century Greece argued the time to perfect our virtues and live life to the fullest is today—by meditating on our mortality as a reminder that tomorrow might not arrive.

    Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius said:

    “Do not then consider life a thing of any value. For look to the immensity of time behind thee, and to the time which is before thee, another boundless space. In this infinity then what is the difference between him who lives three days and him who lives three generations?” [Meditations, 4.50]

    Sixteenth century French philosopher Michel de Montaigne wrote extensively about being meditative on death, urging the plain and simple premeditation of death as a way to learn how to die: “To begin depriving death of its greatest advantage over us, let us deprive death of its strangeness, let us frequent it, let us get used to it; let us have nothing more often in mind than death.”

    Twentieth century French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre saw death as a reflection of our meaningless existence. ”I think of death only with tranquility, as an end. I refuse to let death hamper life. Death must enter life only to define it.” Which at least opens up the conversation abit more.

    Otto Rank, the first existential therapist, said it best: “some refuse the loan of life to avoid the debt of death.” His solution the idea on the ”courage to be” –developing the strength to love knowing loss, to create knowing destruction, to connect knowing separation.

    Finally, 17th century Dutch philosopher Spinoza believed that when you’re dead, you’re dead … and preferred to focus on the joys of living rather than meditating on The End. Spinoza bought into Socrates’s notion that the unexamined life wasn’t worth living

    Death: Friend or Foe?

    If you are wondering what the answer is (Tough luck I’m clueless too). But I believe the answer may lie in between the ideas of meditating on death and thinking nothing of it.

    Personally, the concept of death was introduced to me early on through my religion. Like others I find comfort in discussing death and having layers to it with the variations of the afterlife.

    As a Christian, a verse I find that treads the ground of both meditating and thinking nothing of death is :

    ‘For me, to live is Christ, to die is gain’ – Philippians 1:21.

    The verse looks at death as a combination of what we read earlier from philosophers. It does not diminish the fact that death will come but it is knowing that you should live for something greater than yourself . The writer, Paul was a man that constantly faced death in his journey. When he wrote this, it was clear his current actions and its purpose, mattered despite staring death in the face. His philosophy of seeing it head on but knowing there is so much more was one of the things that fueled his life ambition.

    I don’t have the answers to death but I do want to leave you with the understanding that maybe there is something in your life be it religion, family, peers or your passion that can help you navigate and converse with your age old friend death.

    More posts

  • Let’s Talk Politics

    Let’s Talk Politics

    2024 was the year of elections (64 countries went to the polls and an estimate of 4.2 billion people were expected to vote). Looking back it’s important to ask how we can be engaged and active citizens in this process. This article breaks down some ways one can understand the election cycle better and how to effectively exercise their rights.

    As we just had our elections not long ago, I will be using my home country, Singapore, as an example of how to analyze your electoral system and how it impacts your choices.

    How is your Government Set-up?

    Always ask yourself, “How is my government set up and what does it mean for me“?

    So let’s break it down for Singapore-Westminster system (wear glasses and reads from old political science notes). A Westminster system has 3 separate branches of government the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

    Think about it in terms of a Durian that has its spiky covering, flesh and core. The core is the executive branch- that is where the officeholders that are chosen by the prime minister function, they hold ministerial positions and essentially set the direction for the nation. The spikey skin-that is the judiciary that interprets the laws that we have as it has been passed down by the legislature.

    Now who is the flesh? That’s who is usually voted into parliament in the Westminster system. The legislature comprises of the president and members of parliament. Their role is to help interpret the laws of the land, offer suggestions and advocate for changes during parliamentary discussions.

    Credit: Icon made by vectorpocket from Freepik.com

    This is where the magic happens , the part in which society has the most control over is in the legislature, because they choose who represents them in parliament. Which makes elections a pivotal and interesting time.

    Pro-Tip: The government websites provide readily available information on how your government is set up. (Use it)

    How is voting done?

    There are various ways votes are counted and distributed. Here are a few examples:

    First-Past-the-Post (FPTP)
    • Example: Used in the UK, Canada, and India. In this system, the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins. No need to get a majority (50%+1); just the most votes, even if it’s a small margin.
    • How it works: Each district elects one representative. Voters choose from multiple candidates, and the one with the most votes wins, even if it’s not an outright majority.
    Proportional Representation (PR)
    • Example: Common in countries like Germany, Israel, and the Netherlands. In this system, the number of seats a party gets in the legislature is proportional to the number of votes they receive.
    • How it works: Instead of voting for one individual candidate, you vote for a party. The party then gets a percentage of seats in proportion to the number of votes they get. This leads to more representation for smaller parties.
    Single Transferable Vote (STV)
    • Example: Used in Ireland, Malta, and Australia (in some cases). STV is a form of proportional representation where voters rank candidates in order of preference.
    • How it works: Voters rank candidates. If a candidate gets enough votes to meet a quota, the surplus votes are transferred to voters’ next preferences. This ensures a more proportional outcome.
    Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP)
    • Example: Used in New Zealand and Germany. This system combines First-Past-the-Post and Proportional Representation.
    • How it works: Voters cast two votes: one for a candidate and one for a party. The first vote decides the local representative (FPTP), while the second vote ensures proportionality in the overall assembly.
    Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV)
    • Example: Used in elections for mayors in places like San Francisco and in the Australian House of Representatives.
    • How it works: Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gets a majority, the one with the fewest votes is eliminated, and those votes are redistributed based on voters’ next preferences, continuing until someone has a majority.

    In Singapore, we use the First-Past-The-Post System across our various constituents:

    • Single Member Constituency (SMC): Each constituency elects one member of parliament (MP). Voters choose one candidate to represent them.
    • Group Representation Constituency (GRC): This is a system where a group of candidates runs together to represent a constituency. GRCs typically consist of 4-6 candidates, and each group is required to have at least one member from a minority community. Voters choose a team of candidates instead of just one, and the whole group wins if they receive the majority of votes in the constituency.

    What should voters take note

    First things first, take the time to understand your country’s electoral laws. If reading through them sounds daunting, there are plenty of videos and short-form media that break it down in a more digestible way. Understand where your choices heavily matter.

    In Singapore, our General Election (GE) is where the action happens. Back to the durian analogy—the flesh is what we consume, and we need it to be palatable for our taste buds. Just as durians come with varying levels of sweetness and bitterness (and, yes, I only know D24…sorry), each person has a preference when attending rallies, listening to speeches, or reading party manifestos.

    For Singapore: the information you’re hearing on policy changes will only be relevant if that party secures 2/3 of the seats in Parliament.

    Now, after you’ve absorbed that, start paying attention to what’s happening on the ground. How are the elected officials engaging with the community? Are they implementing initiatives that are visible and relevant to the district they’re serving?

    You’ll quickly realize that there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. Every district has its own unique needs, strengths, and weaknesses. Just like how everyone has different preferences when it comes to durian, what works for one community may not be the same for another. So, think about what you want to see in your community.

    Now, what do we do with this information?

    Well, we observe. Watch the seeds that have been planted by your elected representatives and see how well they’re doing in nurturing them. Find out how they’re advocating for your issues, whether it’s in Parliament or through other channels. Remember not everything happens within the walls of the parliamentary chamber. A lot of progress is made outside of it too.

    Hope this helps you to exercise your civic duty with a clear understanding rather than a safe understanding.

    More posts