4th Commentary - Iran and the Nuclear Issue

This commentary is on the article entitled "A nuclear-equipped Iran will fire global arms race", dated 19th January 2005.

Iran is claiming that it only wants to use nuclear energy for Civilian uses, and not to make nuclear weapons as the countries of the West claim. However, this is very uncertain, and doubtful, as Iran does seem to have the ambition to build nuclear weapons.

If Iran does get to continue uranium research and they do create nuclear bombs, the consequences would be dire; Not because they might use it against others but the fact that others would also want to have their own. The world would once again be engulfed in a nuclear arms race, much like the one between the US and the USSR during the Cold War. I do not think anyone would actually like to see that happen again. However, as owning such a weapon would make a country much more prominent and influential in the world, few countries would actually back down from the chance from owning nuclear weapons.

This would probably cause agreements like the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to break down, as countries rushed to obtain their own nuclear weapons. Countries would become more likely to use the threat of nuclear war to get others to listen to them, or to get countries to support their cause. The threat of nuclear war would be very real once more. The World would be one where people would live in fear of nuclear attacks.

Thus, it would be for the best if Iran does not get to continue its uranium research, unless it can be totally confirmed that they would not use the uranium to create nuclear weapons. How the US, European countries and the IAEA can do this would be very difficult to decide, as much more than Iran would be as stake.

3rd Commentary... Qn 2

This commentary is also for the article entitled "Let leaders come off the pedestal".

The 2nd qustions asks: He (professor Heifetz) proposes that leadership be thought of as an activity that authority figures exercise only some of the time. Do you agree with this proposal? Justify your answer."

I do not agree that leadership is something that an authority figure can exercise only sometimes. This is because their position as a person of great authority cannot be escaped from. I feel that to be in a leadership position of any sort would require a great amount of responsibility from that person. Even if the person is not doing something important, some people would still judge his or her actions, just because that person is holding an important post.

Authority figures can choose to be as far away from their duties as leaders as they wish to be. But when their followers see them, they would still remain as leaders. They can leave their duties behind and take a break, but they still wield the office.
For example, our Prime Minister Lee is an important authority. So even if he goes on holiday, people would still see him as the Prime Minister of Singapore. No matter what they do, their position chains them to the duties of leadership.

Thus, leadership is not an activity someone can just pick up and put down anytine he or she likes or wants to. Being in any important position, no matter if you are just a class leader, or the President of the United States, you are still a leader, and the duties of leadership belong to you. People will judge you, no matter what you are doing. There is no easy escape from the duties of being a leader.

2nd Commentary - Answering Qn1

This is the commentary for the article entitled "Let leaders come off the pedestal."

The first question asks: Do you think Singapore's society resembles Asian societies or Western societies when it comes to relating to authority/ leaders? Justify your answer.

I feel that Singapore's society still greatly resembles the Asian type of society, but we are starting to become more westernised as a society. Most of the time Singaporeans still seldom question the actions of those of higher ranking. This is because many of us are taught from young that what your elders do is usually right. Thus we do not question the leadership. If the leaders say what they do is right, we do not question it.

However, as our society has become under greater influence of Western culture, we have started to follow some of the things that are more common in Western society than in Asian societies. Nowadays, if someone suspects a leader of wrongdoing, it would be brought up, and sometimes challenged. Problems within a company would come to light more often as compared to the past.

An example of this could be the NKF saga. When all the details of Mr Durai's salary and other problems came to light, we started questioning about everything that occured, and wanted the government to take action against them. It must be noted that if Mr Durai had not revealed his salary during the court case he brought up against the Straits Times reporter, no one would have known that anything was wrong with the NKF management. The fact that no one questioned the actions of the NKF leaders shows the resemblance to Asian society, but the flurry of questions that came after shows some impact of Western influence.

Thus, although Singapore society is still relatively Asian, Western influences is starting to have an impact on us.

1st Commentary

This commentary is on the article entitled " Debate rages over KL burial controversy", from the Straits Times on the 1st of January.

The article speaks about the tussle between the Islamic authorities of Malaysia and the wife of the deceased about the religion of the man and how he should be buried.

It is my belief that if a person wished to convert from one religion to another, like in this case from Hinduism to Islam, one should inform everyone who has a close relationship with the person, especially the wife, once the decision is confirmed. Such decisions are very important, and should never be kept a secret from your closest relatives. But as the man in the article apparently did, controversy arose, and tensions between religions appear. This is definitely not something good, especially in current times, where extremists would use the weakest of claims to justify a terror attack. Now is the time for people of all religions to stand united, and not quarrel over such cases.

I believe that neither parties in the center of the controversy did anything wrong, just that the situation could have been dealt in a better way. Racial harmony is important, so the two parties should discuss the problem quietly. It is probably just too unfortunate that the man had not informed anyone about his decision to convert.

It is my hope that the issue would be solved amiably, and keep the ties of racial harmony strong.