As I reflect on what’s happening in the U.S. and around the world, I can’t help but question how relevant political parties are in addressing the crises we face. Shouldn’t we focus on moral values instead?
Take Singapore, for example. The infamous ban on chewing gum is often reduced to a punchline. But it had a purpose: to prevent gum from being stuck between MRT doors, disrupting public transportation. The decision wasn’t made out of anger or cruelty—it served a clear goal.
In contrast, what I’m witnessing here in the U.S. feels fundamentally different. Executive orders are being executed with an undertone of anger and unkindness, leaving a trail of human consequences. Policies like displacing Palestinians and asking neighboring countries to absorb them strip entire communities of their identity. The conflict over land has now evolved into something even more inhumane—a denial of existence itself.
I understand that narcissism and a lack of empathy can drive such decisions. But I also don’t understand how someone like this gains so much power. Does our system work? When leaders make statements like “clean out the whole thing” about Gaza, it highlights a deep-seated disregard for humanity.
Every action has a cause and effect. The way we treat people, the way we execute policies, and the values we project have consequences. Anger and unkindness only deepen wounds, perpetuating cycles of suffering.
If kindness and empathy could guide our decisions—even in matters as complex as immigration or conflict resolution—the outcomes might not just be effective but also humane. Because in the end, how we treat others will determine the kind of world we live in.
0 Comments