# data[].attributes.body
Should a good leader be morally flexible?
Is it wise to overlook the needs of a handful for the greater good?
Provide reasons for your responses.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Was Confucius an idealist? Why/why not?

2.  Compare Confucius’ ideas on government to those of Machiavelli. What are the differences between them?

# data[].attributes.body
a good leader should be morally flexible as they play an important role in many peoples life and whatever decision they make has a great impact to others. morality refers to principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. futhermore, being flexible suggests that the good leader is able to see things from a different perspective and adapt to different circumstances.

# data[].attributes.headline
Questions (ANSWER AFTER WATCHING THE VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.subject
Questions (ANSWER AFTER WATCHING THE VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.body
Which perspective -- Machiavelli or Confucius -- is more evident in the Singapore context? Provide examples of politicians or policies to support your response.

# data[].attributes.body
Being a flexible leader allows the leader to adapt to different situation and be open to new ideas and concepts which might be more beneficial

however being a flexible group leader might lead to ethical compromises

# data[].attributes.body
1. An idealist is a person who is guided more by ideals than by practical considerations. Confucius seems to be an idealist to a large extent despite his relatively influential teaching methods.

Confucius's ideas are very moral based as he feels that others will follow along if one acts with virtue. however, in the real world, many simply would not care morals if not for the regulations. "lead them by means of regulations and keep order among them through punishments, and the people will evade them and will lack any sense of self-respect. lead them through moral force and keep order among them through rites, and they will have a sense of self-respect and will also correct themselves" to allow people to correct themselves is not impossible, but is extremely difficult to achieve. regulations are simply a much more feasible option to keep order especially in today's society where many lack the ability to self correct despite the many 'polestars'.

2. Machiavelli takes a more hands on approach where brute force will be taken such that order is kept whereas Confucius prefers to provide role models and allow for people to self initiate and act upon their own behaviour and self correct. while Confucius's methods are still influential in China, Vietnam, Korea and Japan, it depends on the receptivity of the people. if there is a less receptive audience, Machiavelli's method would be more effective compared to Confucius'.

# data[].attributes.body
Singapore takes on influence from both confucious and machivelli. In order to maintain peace and harmony in a multiracial society, the ethically sound and caring government is implemented to ensure that they make decisions that prioritises and maximises the benefit of their people. But when faced with dangerous threats, would need to exercise ruthlessness in eliminating potential threats due to singapores small size, making it vulnerable.

# data[].attributes.body
a good leader should be morally flexible even if it goes against their own beliefs as their main objective is to make decisions such that it maintains peace and provides greater good to the general public.

in a society where a leader show mercy and compassion to those who have performed wrong doings will only put the society in danger and prove that they are unable to keep the country safe and is unable to lead and take control. a leader acts as a 'role model' and influences the way the people act. if one person is pitied, it can lead to a detrimental effect where others feel that wrongdoings are condoned and would get away free if the leader simply takes mercy on them.

while it may seem more logical to overlook the needs of a handful for the greater good, it depends on the circumstances. the greater good should be prioritised, but the other handful should not be completely neglected. leaders should come up with solution where everyone gets to enjoy some form of benefits instead of simply overlooking the minority and only taking care of the majority. this is a matter of opportunity cost where a leader can only satisfy the people to a certain extent. however, in the real world, it is impossible to fully satisfy everyone, and it is inevitable that some will have to make sacrifices.

# data[].attributes.body
After watching the video, we feel that the Singapore government runs under both Confucius and Machiavelli’s ideals.

Confucius believes in governments being run by highly ethical individuals and this aspect can be seen in Singapore. The government places much emphasis on racial harmony and anti-discrimination. This accounts to the shared values of our nation and we preserve our multiculturalism. Singapore also focuses on traditional values like filial piety as fundamental elements of Singapore’s state-building. This can be seen through policies they implement to ensure this.

However, Machiavelli’s ideals can also be seen in Singapore. Singapore is highly pragmatic and places emphasis on economic and social gain and less emphasis on social equality. For example, Singapore is more conservative when it comes to LGBTQ issues and while the government has started to look into accepting this community more, in order to cater to their main ideals, not enough is done to completely integrate this group into our society.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I would say he is an idealist to a certain extent as while his aspirations may be idealistic and utopian, it isn't something that is unachievable. Idealists dreams are too lofty and impossible to achieve, but confucious interpretation of a great leader is obtainable with the cooperation of the people, governed by an influential ethical individual who examples and loving concern for the people can unite. The use of his recorded teachings today in China Vietnam Korea japan further support that his ideals remain attainable even in the modern era, hence he is idealistic to a certain extent.

2. Machiavelli was a more ruthless leader in that he would not care for morality if the utility and outcome of his actions would result in the greater good, while confucious rule favoured ehticality with a more peaceful and without conflict which would not require the need to argue morality in the first place as less danger is present.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Singapore adopts both the principles of Confucius and Machiavelli in the practise of their political system.

On the one hand, Singapore's political culture is often associated with Confucianism, which emphasizes the importance of moral authority, social harmony, and respect for hierarchy. Singapore's founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, was deeply influenced by Confucian philosophy and emphasized the importance of education, social order, and filial piety in building a strong and prosperous society. This Confucian influence can be seen in policies such as the emphasis on meritocracy and education, the strong emphasis on law and order, and the emphasis on family values and social responsibility. One example that Lee Kuan Yew asserting his moral authority is the case of Singapore airline pilot union strike in 1980. Get back to work, restore discipline, then argue your case. Took them 65 minutes and they decided ok it isn't worth the fight. Why? Because they know they'll lose. They know that I'm prepared to ground the airline. They know that I can get the airline going again without them," Lee Kuan Yew had said. Thus this is a prime example of Singapore's approach in line with Confucian's influence.

On the other hand, Singapore's political system is also characterized by a pragmatic and technocratic approach to governance, which some might argue reflects elements of Machiavellian thinking. Singapore's leaders have been known to take a pragmatic and results-oriented approach to policy-making, often prioritizing economic growth and stability over social or political freedoms. For example, the government has implemented policies such as the Central Provident Fund (CPF) and the Medisave scheme to ensure that citizens save for retirement and healthcare, and has also been known to take a strong stance on issues such as crime and public order.

# data[].attributes.body
1. We believe that Confucius was in fact an idealist because it is extremely difficult, especially considering the political climate of today, to have every leader stand his moral ground and remain highly ethical when making decisions. With advancements in technology and military aspects, politicians are becoming more and more power-hungry by the day and this means that they become less and less ethical when making decisions. They are more concerned about self-interest and while their job is to care about the livelihoods of every citizen in their country, it is unfortunately the reality of today that their citizens are not a priority for them. Some of these politicians make hasty and immoral decisions in order to collate more power, disregarding any future consequences. Hence, we feel that Confucius is an idealist, although his vision would definitely benefit the society greatly.

2. Confucius believes that every politician should naturally be highly ethical while Machiavelli feels that politics is a ruthless business where politicians should make decisions against their moral grounding

# data[].attributes.body
We believe that a good leader should be morally flexible and sometimes that requires him to look beyond his values to make decisions for the greater good. Not everyone has the same core beliefs when it comes to politics and a strategic leader would take this into account and act according to what will benefit the majority. In order to achieve the common good, a good leader would consider all the general social aspects of society such as the environment and the economy and work towards a goal where every citizens benefits almost equally, even if this means he has to make a decision that goes against his values.

# data[].attributes.body
A leader should be morally flexible as under certain circumstances, firm actions should be taken as there is has great potential of harm in the country and most of the citizens and even if certain actions and intentions are not morally right and could often be judged and criticised for, it boils down to the circumstances and how much there is a need to implement it. For instance, death penalty is sometimes considered to be an action of taking someone’s life, which goes against almost all the religions. However, if clearly understood that it is not just drug traffickers and murderers should face a death penalty to ensure and protect community’s welfare and to build the confidence of its citizens towards the ability of the government to protect their welfare, as well as to warn those who have the potential to harm the society that they would pay for a great cost if they ever committed to crimes. Punishment done to people who threats the society shall not be granted to the potential for them to continue their crime. On the other hand, the government may also be perceived as weak without harsh sentences for those criminals

# data[].attributes.body
I feel that a leader should be morally flexible as it is their main job to maintain peace and protect the people they govern above all else, even if it at the expense of morality. Morality is the act of mercy and compassion even for the people who have done wrong, which is a detriment and danger to the people that the leader governs if they continue to run rampant, resulting in increased widespread harm, as seen in the elimination of ISIS leaders to reduce and disrupt future terrorist attacks to protect the people. Hence it is expected for leaders to take some moral leeway and be ruthless towards threats and prioritise the greater good, which would be further justified if the actions of the threat would greatly danger people.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Confucius is an idealist as he expresses that a person should cultivate himself and develop into a man of moral integrity. He sets a very high goal that very few individuals will be able to reach during their lifetime. For example, he said that a person should examine himself every day to make sure he is committed to the things he has done on behalf of others, will be true to his word in getting along with friends and practices what he has learned.

2. One of the key differences between Confucius and Machiavelli is their views on morality and the role of a leader. Confucius believed that leaders should embody moral excellence and inspire their subjects to do the same, whereas Machiavelli believed that leaders should be pragmatic and focus on achieving their goals through any means necessary, regardless of whether those means were ethical or not.

# data[].attributes.body
I find that a good leader should be morally flexible and willing to make difficult decisions that may go against their personal beliefs or values if it means benefiting the greater good. This approach is referred to as utilitarianism, which posits that the morally right action is the one that maximises overall happiness or well-being.

A leader who is overly rigid in their moral stance may be unable to effectively navigate complex situations and make tough decisions that require balancing competing interests. For example, a leader may need to sacrifice the interests of a few individuals or groups for the benefit of the wider community, such as in the case of implementing austerity measures to address a budget deficit. For the case of Singapore, Increasing the GST to 8% although this may negatively impact the middle and low income in society.