ArrowsInk

Category: Politricks & Real Talk

Read about thoughts on social justice, political divide and how we have shifted as a society.

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Can We Still Talk Across the Aisle

    Can We Still Talk Across the Aisle

    Polarization is a topic that feels heavier with every election cycle. The language is sharper, the stakes feel higher, and the space for nuances seems to shrink with each passing day. We don’t just disagree anymore, we disconnect. But if we’ve lost the ability to talk to those who think differently, what else are we losing along the way?

    The Growing Divide

    Different circles bring different conversations, and I’m blessed to be a part of many of them. But that has also led to me standing in the gap, trying not to demonize one side or the other just to bring clarity where I can. In today’s world, meaningful conversations are in short supply. Maybe it’s because we’ve become too comfortable speaking behind screens, or maybe it’s because we’ve started to view anyone who doesn’t agree with us as the enemy.

    Dialogue in a Time of Division

    Today having a conversation is hard because it may challenge our preconceived ideas and beliefs. Personally, I hold onto my convictions tightly, not because they are beyond questioning, but because I’ve had the chance to deconstruct and reconstruct them over time, in fact I welcome conversations that challenge me. In doing so, I not only understand people with different worldviews or political leanings better, but I also appreciate my own values for what they are. There’s a certain friction that comes with real dialogue without it, collisions are bound to happen. That’s why it’s so important to choose to be a different voice, but also to know how to speak about it with care.

    In my view, people feel as though their beliefs and their rights are being disrespected, but the real issue is that no one knows where to start. Conversations often devolve into shouting matches, with no one sitting down to see the other person as an individual. We’ve started wearing our ideologies like armour, as if they define our entire selves.

    The political arena has always been a battleground, but with the rise of polarization, it seems that even the everyday person has been pulled into the fight. Now, before even beginning a sentence, a disclaimer is required even if there’s nothing controversial about what’s being said.

    Credit: Icon made by Brgfx from Freepik.com

    A Global Shift and its Cost

    I can’t help but wonder if this is why conversations about war, race, and poverty have become so difficult. People are coming from a place of attack, rather than a place of listening and data backs it up. Allianz’s 2024 Social Resilience Index found rising unrest globally, even as economies recovered. Protest surged in the Middle East (+40%) and Africa (+19%), while the US, Canada, and parts of Europe also saw increases tied to political divisions, migration, and economic pressure.

    Allianz identified that both wealthy democracies like the US and France to more fragmented or severely strained nations like India and Nigeria were hit with the same issue. Additionally, with over 70 countries holding elections in 2024, the report notes a clear global shift: incumbents are losing ground, and polarization is deepening, especially in the West.

    Worse still, this divide can come at an economic cost. Consumer confidence dips tied to political division could cost countries like the US over $200 billion in spending over four years. Allianz concluded that resilience isn’t just about policy it’s about trust, transparency, and communication. Without those, even the most stable societies can fracture.

    But despite the noise, I’m heartened by the efforts of organizations that are stepping in to fill the gap. Still, I wonder whether the voices chosen to represent “the people” reflect real, raw realities or simply model behaviour that fits a polished narrative.

    Listening: Act of Radical Kindness

    One group that fascinates me is the “silent majority” the political observers who stay out of public debate but hold deep, thoughtful insights. In private circles, their ideas challenge conventional thinking and elevate conversations. These individuals don’t shout. They share quietly, intentionally and with great care.

    Maybe that’s where we can all start in smaller spaces ; with our closest loved ones. If we can practice honest, respectful dialogue in those places, maybe it becomes easier to expand that grace outward. Maybe then we can begin not only to understand one another, but also to respect our differences because that’s where real tolerance starts, and it’s something we’re in desperate need of today.

    More posts

  • From Experts to Icons

    From Experts to Icons

    Who Really Runs the Show?

    Let’s be honest, if Taylor Swift posts a voting link on her Instagram story and 23,000 people register to vote the same day, that’s not just influence. That is authority.

    These days, celebrities are not just making cameos in our playlists or movie nights; they have started showing up in our politics. Once upon a time, the people shaping public discourse were politicians, economists, and social scientists. Now? It’s musicians, actors, influencers. And they’re not just supporting causes, they’re shaping narratives, changing minds, and sometimes even laws.

    But here’s the thing. Just because someone can influence doesn’t mean they always should.

    When social media replaces the classroom

    Social media made this shift prominent. In the past celebrities would share their political views or beliefs in interviews or during their shows. But now celebrities are given the stage, the microphone, and an always-listening crowd from their homes. In the past, if you wanted to understand policy, you would have read an article or watched a debate. Now? You might just scroll TikTok.

    It’s not inherently bad. People are more engaged. But it raises questions.

    If the first political opinion you hear comes from someone whose music or movie you’ve loved since high school, does that sway you more than facts? If they say “vote,” do you vote? Or more importantly, do you ask why?

    This is not to shade on any celebrity using their platform. Honestly, some of them are trying to do good. However, as someone who has watched both politics and pop culture unfold, I’ve noticed something: we don’t always challenge celebrity opinions in the same way we challenge experts. There’s less pressure to provide evidence; its usually about the ‘vibes’.

    The Halo Effect is real

    There’s a psychological term for this: the Halo Effect. Basically, if we admire someone in one area, we assume they’re trustworthy in other areas as well. So if your favorite actor supports a policy, it suddenly feels… right. Convincing. Safe even.

    Credit: Icon made by Juicy_fish from Freepik.com

    Also it’s not new. The UN has used celebrity ambassadors for years to spread messages. But the difference? Back then, it was structured; experts in the background, message vetted, goal clear. Today? It’s a tweet. A story. A caption. No middleman, no filter.

    And the scary part? Is that this makes it stick even more

    But what about the experts?

    Meanwhile, the experts, those with years of study, data, and lived experience, are getting drowned out. Remember during COVID-19 when there was a mix of information from health organizations, politicians, and celebrities? Expertise didn’t matter as much as optics.

    Even within government systems, experts often hold less power than the politicians they serve. Imagine spending your life studying disease outbreaks, only to be overruled by someone more concerned about a headline than a health guideline.

    Celebrities, though? They bypass that whole structure. Kim Kardashian advocated for prison reform, and Congress listened. Not because she’s an expert but because she’s her. That level of access, that kind of power, is not purely influence. It’s currency.

    So what now?

    I’m not saying we should cancel celebrity voices in politics. They often bring attention to overlooked issues, and that matters. But we have to ask: are we holding them to the same standards we demand from experts? Are we checking the sources? Or are we letting popularity set the bar for truth?

    Because here’s the cost: when policy becomes a popularity contest, evidence takes a backseat. And that is dangerous.

    But not all is lost.

    There is a new kind of figure emerging, political commentators who blend expertise with accessibility. They understand the data but also know how to connect. They invite discussion. They challenge echo chambers and make space for complexity.

    They are not perfect, but maybe they’re a step toward balance.

    Final thoughts

    We live in a world where a tweet can start a movement and a livestream can shift national conversation. That power is incredible. But it also comes with responsibility ours, not just theirs.

    It’s easy to nod along with someone you admire, harder to stop and ask, “Do they really understand this issue?” And let’s be real: when you build your identity around a public figure, challenging them feels like challenging yourself.

    Before we share, repost, or rally behind someone’s opinion, maybe we pause and ask: Is this just loud, or is it true? Do I admire them? or do I actually agree?

    More posts