ArrowsInk

Tag: news

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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