What can you learn from this extract about the interpretation and approach of the historian who wrote it? Use the extract and your knowledge of the Holocaust to explain your answer.

In this extract, the historian argues that anti-Semitism in Germany was a necessary condition but was not enough to stand alone for the Holocaust to have happened. This can clearly be seen in the emphasized idea by the historian who believes that Hitler played the biggest part in radicalizing and normalizing anti-Semitism from the Nazi Party and towards the German public. This idea was also enforced by the notion that anti-Semitism was central in Nazism because Hitler intended so.

The historian in this extract clearly supports the synthesis/hybrid theory, which argues that Hitler was the main driving force for the Holocaust but did not have much direct supervision in controlling the policies, leaving the details for his underlings to work it out. This can clearly be seen in the extract as he states, “Whether he had a project of a Europe free of his Jewish enemies, or a concrete genocidal goal, or just an ill-defined commitment against Jews, agreement is widespread that the Führer set the course”. This unclear message of whether there was a planned genocide from the start or not, while not deeply discussed on by the historian, is however a preface to how essential Hitler’s personal beliefs is to the Holocaust.

The historian argues that for the holocaust to have happen, Hitler’s “burning hatred for Jews” played the major role in the severity of the Holocaust and how it ran as smoothly as it did. This point can clearly be seen when the historian suggests “(his hatred for Jews) lasted his entire political career, seeing their existence as a mortal threat to his geopolitical projects”, which cements the idea of having the Jewish Problem spearheaded by the authoritative figure had lead Germany down this path. The historian states that Hitler first realised this in Vienna, where he lived for five years before the First World War, and later writing in the Mein Kampf of his hatred of Marxism and Jewry, ‘whose terrible importance for the German people’ he previously had not understood.

This extract also emphasizes how Hitler was a leader in the movement of anti-Semitism, outshining the average anti-Semite of Germany during his time. This could be seen in the third paragraph, where it says “he was the principal driving force of anti-Semitism in the Nazi movement from the earliest period, not only setting the ideological tone, but raising his intense personal hatred to an issue of state. Hitler was also the loudest and staunchest voice in implementing this idea into such a central position within the party’s priorities.

This is also starkly contrasted by the average German, who were not as volatile as Hitler and his opinions. As the historian says, “neither the existence of anti-Jewish traditions in Germany, the commitments of Nazi party leaders, nor the beliefs of the extensive Nazi following in the German population required the murder of the Jews”. This consolidates the belief that if not for Hitler’s strong proposal of anti-Semitism, the milder anti-Semitic public would not have pursued the genocidal beliefs that Hitler envisioned. However, with Hitler having implemented the belief into a matter of state policy, it was treated with “desperate seriousness”.

In summary, this extract portrays the historian’s interpretations very clearly, putting the biggest share of responsibility on Hitler and his prioritization of anti-Semitism in the lead up to the Holocaust, very aptly condensed to the historian’s memorable reference to an a popular title of an article, “No Hitler, No Holocaust”.

What can you learn from this extract about the interpretation and approach of the historian who wrote it? Use the extract and your knowledge of the Holocaust to explain your answer.

In this extract, the historian argues that Hitler was the pivotal driving force of the Holocaust, but the escalating brutality that it climaxed into was largely caused by the sheer rivalry that existed between his underlings. This can clearly be seen in the historian’s statement in which Hitler “needed to do nothing to forcethe pace of the rapidly escalating barbarism. He could leave it to the men on the spot.” This was because the competition to report back to the Fuhrer in the shortest amount of time possible had created an acceleration in the brutality among arch-rival provincial chieftains. This all shows how Hitler had no direct influence in the massive executions and left it to the underlings, while only commanding for an “exhortation of brutal methods for the racial struggle”.

The historian in this extract clearly supports the synthesis/hybrid theory, which argues that Hitler was the main driving force for the Holocaust but did not have much direct supervision in controlling the policies, leaving the details for his underlings to work it out. This can clearly be seen in the extract as he states, “Hitler needed to do nothing to forcethe pace of the rapidly escalating barbarism. He could leave it to the men on the spot.” This clear depiction of Hitler having no direct hand in the tense rivalry between the underlings in trying to impress him had shown how Hitler’s message had indirectly caused the acceleration of these killings.

The historian vividly portrays Hitler’s underlings as taking initiative to the cause, upholding secrecy and furthering the belief of brutal treatment towards the Jews. This could be seen as not only did the party boss in the East, Greiser, recommend the liquidation of 35,000 non-Jewish Poles from incurable tuberculosis, but also took it upon himself as to not enlighten Hitler upon the further steps he plans to take, citing that he could “proceed with these (Jewish problem) according to my own judgement, which also highlights Hitler’s hands-off approach to the technicalities of the policies for the Jewish problem. This shows a culture of “don’t ask don’t tell” among the upper ranks of the greater German occupancy of Eastern Europe, having the recent public backlash of the euthanasia programme in mind. This furthers the view that the historian believes that Hitler while not knowing of the policies of these regional chieftains but was also intentionally done so to maintain secrecy, with the local chieftains also having a sense and obligation of autocracy in their dealings with the Jews.

The historian states clearly how while the toxic widespread anti-Semitism was rife within Germany, it was the largely legally unchecked and occupied wild East that brought the most destruction in the Holocaust. This can be clearly seen in “But there was never any shortage of willinghelpers, far from being confined to party activists, ready to ‘work towards the Führer’ to put themandate into operation”, and “Competing Nazi chieftains, notstructured governments, formed the grim face of Nazi rule in the occupied territories’. While the support of Hitler grew as his vision of the war that he had wanted was coming into fruition and so was the growth of anti-Semitism, the Historian argues that it was largely due to the very strong start of the very structured Third Reich leeching control into the barren now-occupied East which accentuated the brutality among those racially inferior, with the destruction now havingbecome “hugelymagnified and intensified, with the conquered peoples, rather than the Germans themselves, as themain victims”. This all ties into the main view of the historian, in which he believes that the real cause of destruction was the unchecked rivalry of these regional leaders in the East.

In summary, this extract portrays the historian’s interpretations very clearly, stating that the Holocaust was largely due to Hitler’s strong hateful message, which was then operationalised by regional leaders in the East, fighting for the support of the Fuhrer, which was all further fuelled by the raging anti-Semitism of the time.

Assess the reasons why Stalin was able to accumulate so much power.

Joseph Stalin during his reign as the General Secretary of the Communist Party in the USSR had accumulated so much authoritative power, becoming an all-powerful dictator over a large country. While some may argue that the brutality and widespread use of force by the government had ensured for a fearful and undaring public, I would argue that it was the sheer support of the desperate Russian public who wanted to see real change in their lives that lead to Stalin accumulating as much power as he did, giving the government full control over their lives.

Russia before the rule of the communist government of Stalin and Lenin before him was terrible for the average Russian during the reign of the Tsar. The incompetence in governing the country, an unwinnable war that was bleeding the country of its resources coupled with many mismanagements and scandals within the royal family had plunged the country into poverty and unemployment, with many tired soldiers returning to disappointment. This led the people to lose faith in the status quo, garnering support for Communism and Socialism which echoed the populist beliefs of the peasantry. With Stalin, Communism was clearly the focus of the policies that he had implemented, from the rapid industrialisations done in the Five-Year Plans, to the collectivisation attempts that further increased the country’s agricultural efficiency. With a clear evidence of the Five-Year Plans helping the Russian army to achieve victory in the Second World War, the Russian public had been further convinced that Stalin was the answer to their prayers of a modernized Russia that strived for a paradise for workers. Stalin not only preached what the masses truly believed in, but he also fed this burning passion and showed his competence, backing them up with his practice, clearly implementing communist policies that ensured an early and lasting widespread loyalty among the party and the country, after the results of these policies had provided positive benefits to the nation. This belief was strong grounds for Stalin’s ability to maintain his power.

Stalin also convincingly garnered more support from the masses through his clever use of propaganda among the party, which was echoed throughout the country. One such success was the implementation of a “cult of personality” around the figure, which created an image of an omnipresent, all-knowing deity-like leader. This was further built on by the building of statues, murals, posters etc, which in a society that banned and discouraged religiosity in general, had made Stalin to look like a god among the people, with the implementation of May Day to substitute a “Christmas”, and many pictures of the leader hung in homes. Youth movements that echo the Communist vision and values were also implemented to ensure loyalty and maintain support among new generations. The “nomenklatura” were also a group of people who were rewarded for pro-party behaviour, which gave the public something to aim for. This coupled with the remarkable political skills, the manoeuvrability of his manipulation of oppositions lead to total support for his propaganda by the masses. The usage of propaganda allows for a more stable support with less fluctuations, as the public have a perfect image of an all-knowing leader which can do no wrong.

While the implementation of propaganda and the soft power that it provides, Stalin is arguably more famous for his use of hard power and the Russian gulags and the purges. The purges that Stalin implemented got rid of any political oppositions, both evident ones and potential ones, as everyone was vulnerable to being purged. The purges were a forceful removal of these “threats”, which either were executed or were imprisoned in the gulags or forced labour camps far away in remote areas such as Siberia. These purges were done by the subordinate unit NKVD, the secret

 

Police that operated directly under Stalin. These were done in waves of 2, which had the communist party first cleaned of potential opponents and replaced with his own people, and then in the military, society and party, which saw 1 in 8 Russians being purged, with big names such as Kamenev and Bukharin purged as they were a threat to Stalin’s rule. Ethnic minorities also suffered, as more focus was put on them as Stalin feared nationalism and an uprising within Russia. This led to Russia becoming a subservient state under Stalin and having a party that was totally under his control, which allowed for Stalin to control much of this power he held.

While one would argue that the brutal and widespread purges was the main reason for the subservient Russian public, which gave Stalin the unlimited power that he held on to, I would disagree as I think the belief the public showed the state played a bigger role as this would mean that the loyalty for the state’s decisions and actions up to that point had convinced them that they were competent in governing the country, and unlike the Tsar era where the people lost faith and revolted. This would then mean that the fear of the purges and state is secondary and reactionary to the belief that the people had instilled upon their leader, Stalin.

Overall, I believe that the loyalty and belief of the Russian public towards Stalin is the main reason in how he had held as much power as he did, as he convinced the pubic that his actions are of the best interest for Communism and Russia, which was further reinforced by the usage of soft and hard power in propaganda and purges.

What can you learn from this extract about the interpretation and approach of the historian who wrote it? Use the extract and your knowledge of the Holocaust to explain your answer.

In this extract, the historian argues that Hitler specifically planned for and ordered the killings of the Jews, further strengthened by the fact that he had organized a designated special task force strictly directed to carry out this vision of his. However, the historian also highlights Hitler had specifically taken careful extra steps to ensure the secrecy and efficiency of the systematic murder of his operations.

The historian clearly supports the intentionalist approach towards Hitler’s responsibility in the holocaust, which argues that Hitler had already planned for the Holocaust to happen early on, supporting a top-down execution approach, which clearly laid out a systematic plan that had gradual steps, and needed a clear and open opportunity for an execution of the plan. This can be clearly seen in the extract, as the historian states that, “the once secret decree which authorised Himmler to ‘eliminate’ alien population groups without actually spelling out the details” was now “ a command to fight and to destroy, delivered to a special group suited to this end”. This very clear message on Hitler’s planned actions marred with his intentions only provide a defined argument on the historian’s firm intentionalist stance.

While it is clear that the historian does paint Hitler as someone who is set on the extermination of Jews and all the consequences it would bring, it can be seen that Hitler knew that this was not a popular policy, and that he had to cleverly work around the details of this decree to not cause any unnecessary backlash. The inherent secretive nature of the decree already prefaces the negative mood of the German public of these actions. This attempt at preserving secrecy at all costs can be seen as the historian states “the content [of the decree] was kept secret from the regular organs of administration or could be disguised”, and “was tightly organised enough for the execution of the secret measures to take place without any particular attempt to inform and to involve the normal state organs”. This was largely due to the experience of the complaints from the public of the government’s euthanasia policy, which discouraged the further development of these measures within Germany. The careful and secretive nature of the order to kill Jews from Hitler further drove the fact that Hitler knew his intention was not popular and wanted to avoid the loss of support back home.

In the extract, the historian describes how while these extermination orders were not done in Germany where there were “much less guarantee of maintaining secrecy or suppressing news about local measures of coercion”, this was not the case in the “police-controlled population of Poland”, where Hitler had extended Himmler’s jurisdiction to cover these Eastern European states and had better control over local media. Hitler, while also enforcing secrecy among those who were authorized to know about these operations, also meddled in the local authorities in these states, specifically to allow for this operation to go smoothly without friction. This can be seen in the extract, where the historian stated that the “state administration were sufficiently split up and largely stripped of their security and self-confidence, becoming susceptible to manipulation”. This allows these authorities to “be assigned partly technical, legislative and executive functions”, which facilitated and ensured the smoothness of the extermination operations. This all shows that Hitler had taken initiative to ensure that his vision was executed perfectly without leaks and disputes.

 

The historian also clearly lays down the fact that the final solution to the Jewish question was in fact a sudden break away from the stepped legal discrimination and had a sudden turn from the initial plan of dehumanisation of the Jewry. This can be seen in the extract, as the historian states that “procedurally this was in fact a break with former practice and in that respect had a different quality”. He also argues that the initial degradation of the Jewry had “subjected them to emergency laws and had condemned them to a social ghetto, paved the way for the final solution”. This shows how the historian feels that Hitler’s intricately planned operations for the systematic killing of the Jews were carefully executed at the right time, when the Jews had already been so disregarded as humans.

In summary, the historian clearly portrays his views of Hitler having had ordered the killings of the Jews, and that through carefully planned policy and with the public image of his government by the German public in mind, carried out these exterminations through secret, remote operations by special task forces.

“The introduction of War Communism was the main reason for the Bolsheviks victory in the civil war.” How far do you agree?

There are several important factors that contributed to the Bolshevik’s victory against the Whites in the Russian Civil War, like the implementation of war communism, which was implemented by Lenin. While I do agree that this was arguably the major reason the Bolsheviks won the war, I think that clever leadership by both Lenin and Trotsky, along with the many weaknesses and problems that the Whites had and faced were more determining factors than war communism itself.

The Whites were very disunited, both metaphorically and geographically, as they were comprised of different groups that had different personal motives, with differing motives and end goals of having Russia, all loosely working together to overthrow the recent rise of the Bolshevik Party that had control of Russia. The Whites consisted of different enemies of the Bolsheviks, which included the Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Tsarists, foreign armies and nobles whose land had been given to the peasants. These groups often clashed with each other over many decisions, with the White generals Yudenich, Deniken, who attacked from the West, and Kolchak from the East all often disagreed; and on the rare occasion that they agreed, geographical distance and its limitations had made a coherent attack impossible. The egos of the generals ultimately led to no cohesive teamwork with the opposition, which was starkly contrasted by the Bolsheviks and their full support of one figure, who ran the Red Army as a single collective unit. With a massive over-dependence on imported supplies and a dysfunctional Green army who also had internal factionism, this made the Bolsheviks fight a severely weaker opponent who did not realise their full potential if they were run efficiently. This weak opposition in the first place had led to the Bolsheviks to fight an easier fight, as the already weak enemies, long before being compounded by the efficient economic system in war communism.

The brilliant organisation and political strategizing of both Lenin and Trotsky brought the much-needed unity and decisiveness that the White Army were lacking. Trotsky, who had ill-equipped mostly retired guardsmen at his disposal, brilliantly strategized to win the war with what he had, mobilizing the Red Army with good tactics. By having control of Russia’s two, major cities, Petrograd and Moscow, the administrative centres remained throughout the war, stabilizing the central authority and minimizing unnecessary resources wasted on movement. By controlling the central cities of Russia, the railway network was also kept on check by the Red Army, improving the mobilization of the troops. Having been based on this Western region, communication and supply lines were also kept constant and further planted the Red Army’s authoritative presence towards the Russian public, all while being close to the most industrial regions in Russia, giving supplies and ammunition that took the Whites longer to obtain from imports. Trotsky was also ruthless, yet effective in his military strategies, where he tore down trade unions, forced ex-tsarist officers to become efficient rank-and-file soldiers under political commissars keeping them in check. Trotsky also successfully conscripted millions of raw manpower through a widespread recruitment from his train headquarters, which travelled across Russia. Trotsky used propaganda, famously the “All for the Front” slogan to justify any methods necessary to win the war and invigorate the many recruits to fight for Russia and not the foreign nations, creating a stronger sense of brotherhood after normalizing all ranks to just “Comrade”, creating an environment of unity and brotherhood, where none are superior within the Army. Trotsky recognised the importance of morale, which translates to these policies that he implemented, which strengthened the core manpower of the Red Army, even when being labelled “relatively ill-equipped” in European nations standard, even after having had the effects of war communism; this shows that the foundation of the Red Army was already strong enough to stand against the inferior Whites.

One would argue, however, that war communism is the main reason for the Bolshevik’s victory in the civil war, acting as the foundation for the industries which fed the war machine of Russia. War communism nationalised the factories, introduced military discipline and incriminated strikes.   They introduced rationing, forcing the peasants to give food to the government which they would later sell for munitions. While these policies did enable the Red Army to have just enough equipment to overcome the Whites, it did order the killings of non-compliants and starved thousands of Russians off grain, which had a lasting impression on the public’s view of the Bolsheviks, which Lenin saw and opted to revise further after the war. Moreover, war communism alone, without the brilliant minds of both Lenin and Trotsky would not have been enough to overcome the Whites, which outnumbered the Reds many folds, and would have crushed them if not for clever planning.

In summary, I believe that while war communism undoubtedly help the Reds in defeating the Whites by ensuring a steady supply of munitions and resources, I do not think the war would have been won by it alone, and that both the brilliant leadership and decisions of the Bolsheviks and the inefficiency and shortcomings of an incoherent opposition was the reason that the Reds had won the civil war.

Suggest reasons why trade may advantage some people more than others and outline what Fair Trade initiatives aim to achieve.

Trade is beneficial to international relations as the exchange of goods and services between countries help to make the countries create jobs and boost economic growth, as well as give domestic companies more experience in producing for foreign markets, helping them to fully realise their business potential and benefit the local community and country economically. However, these same advantages may harm these same small and relatively new businesses, as the exploitation of cheap labour and the lack of a negotiating power that these smaller entities have in the global trade scale. For example, a small coffee producer in Indonesia may be stuck at selling their product at a very cheap price, a price that may not help the producers stay self-sustainable or grow, and when they increase their price, these foreign clients may opt to buy from other sources to lower costs. This is also compounded by the fact that the top 25 countries in the world are accountable for more than 50% of the world’s trading, which may lessen their perceived importance of these producers who are mostly situated in smaller countries. This is where fair trade comes in and help. Fair trade, an organised social movement, helps producers in developing countries obtain better trading conditions and promote sustainability. Some of their initiatives include establishing long-term trading partnerships which ensure a stable trading output for producers, ensuring producers achieve a minimum price that covers the average cost of sustainable production, and creating a trade partnership that is beneficial economically, socially and environmentally to the local producers. These rules would help to increase the collective power of these producers, increasing their prices and keeping the giant MNCs in check, preventing any further exploitation.

With reference to one tourist area or resort, evaluate the impacts of tourism on the local environment and society.

Bali is a longstanding beacon and a titan in the Southeast Asian tourism industry, having had a rich history of being one of the oldest global tourist destinations, as well as one of the most attractive, garnering almost 6.2 million visitors annually. Known for its natural wonders of beaches, hilly rice paddies and unique Hindu culture, it is the focus point of tourism in Indonesia, with more tourists visiting Bali than the whole country combined. The archipelago of 17,500 islands, while still having farming as a primary way of life for many, is a unique insight and case study to the inequal development of industries, and some of the shortcomings of a seemingly heavenly destination.

The rapid increase in the commercialization and high job opportunities that the city centres of Denpasar and Kuta, both very foreign-exposed regions, offers for a better quality of life for the many rural farmers that live on the outskirts of the island to cash in on the tourist dollar. This was evident in a 2012 census, which records 23,000 single young working men who originated from the outskirts, who settle for low-paying, low-skill jobs, mostly in the hotelling industry as room servicemen, cooks etc. This accounted for a 45% increase in the tenancy in low-cost residential areas, increasing the prices of the local property even higher. With a brain drain of workforce in the rural farms, these industry falter, struggling economically to keep up with neighbouring regions. Another cultural impact is the commercialisation of the Balinese culture itself, where the modification of certain Balinese traditions that have become “modernised” have catered to a wider audience, such as making traditional dances less exotic, shorter and less cost-intensive, increasing its monetizing potential. One such example is the local “Barong” lion dance, which now relies on tips for performances, reducing appeal. This is also compounded by the sacred temples being overcrowded, and hotels being built too close to sacred land. The mass production of handicraft and artefacts have made them less significant and terribly produced, losing its original meanings.

Bali also has a mixed reputation in its environmental track record, with the rapid influx of tourism and unplanned development exposing a lot of the region’s weaknesses in both infrastructure and a neglectful general practice by the people. This led to an increase in pollution in many tourist areas, a widespread problem of flooding due to bad drainage systems and heavy downpours and a loss in the local farmland industries due to the mismanagement of resources, mostly due to the water usage that the MNC golf courses hog from the locals. A destruction of the coral reefs due to a steep rise in demand of water activities and scuba diving has disturbed the local ecosystem, causing irreversible damage to the waters. However, there have been many attempts to better these situations, led by many NGO and the national government alike. There was an initiative to reduce plastic usage by the national government in 2015, which discouraged and banned plastic bag usage in shops from tourist-dense areas, which successfully minimized the plastic waste overall in Bali, and is maintained to this day. The “Keep Bali Clean” Campaign also aimed to do the same thing, while protecting the local wildlife.

Economically, Bali is also a mixed bag of successes and shortcomings, being the 2^nd destination that generates the most revenue consistently annually in the region with $5.5B, closely following Bangkok with a staggering $32B. However, Bali has a very visible gap of wealth, between the MNCs and the local farmers and vendors, who earn nothing compared to the established foreign industries that invest in Bali. This is mainly due to the overdependence and imbalanced consumption of foreign brands and companies rather than the local ones, who do not possess as big of an opportunity as their foreign counterparts. This is also more evident as recently there has been an increase of budget-conscious younger tourists, rather than the traditional well-off retirees, who spend less than usual. One solution to this problem would be to support local businesses and eat in “warongs”, which preserve the traditionalism of the experience, rather than franchises like McDonald’s. Bali’s revenues from tourism, however, has not been consistent all the time, with many political and security threats deterring tourists from visiting the island, such as the 2002 and 2005 bombings, and the H1N1 and SARS pandemic of years before that greatly affected the industry, as is seen today with the Coronavirus. Economically, this means that Bali has had a significant presence in the overall economy of Indonesia, becoming its staple cash cow in the tourism industry. However, the national government does know how unsustainable this is and have decided to think of a long-term solution to this potential problem, launching the “10 New Balis Initiative”, which aims to alleviate the dependence of the Indonesian economy on Bali and to diversify it to other tourist destinations, so that Bali’s resources would also not be pressured as much, sharing the “tourism attraction” responsibility with other destinations such as Lake Toba, Borobudur and Mandalika, opening the global tourist industry to destinations that share the same qualities as Bali.

Overall, Bali is an excellent case study of the relationship between a tourist destination and its national economy, and how foreign corporations influence the local lifestyle and economy. Bali also shows how inequality between classes can affect trade and attraction powers of future  potential tourists.

Assess the extent to which the hazardous effects of tornadoes are different from those of tropical cyclones.

While both tornadoes and tropical cyclones both contain strong rotating winds that are damaging to their environment, they are very much different from each other, with both natural hazards having differing degrees of damage in the real world stemming from their different characteristics. It is known that while some occasional tornadoes do cause significant damage, tropical cyclones are far more damaging and consequential to an area.

One reason why tropical cyclones are more hazardous than tornadoes are their comparisons in size. An average tornado has a diameter of 150metres across, travelling around 8km on land before it dissipates, while an average tropical cyclone ranges from 100km to 2,000km in diameter, travelling 5,000 km before it dissipates. Tornadoes, on the other hand, while do cause significant damage with their wind speeds, only last at most hours before dissipating, leaving less time for direct damage to happen. This would make cyclones significantly damage a bigger potential area for a longer amount of time, leading to more necessary support and relief funds to help the victims during the crisis, and leading to a larger scale of emergency.For example, by comparing 2 major instances of both a tornado and a cyclone, one could see the big difference in damage: 2011 Joplin Tornado costed $3.18 B, while Hurricane Katrina (a tropical cyclone) costed $125B.

The primary and secondary impacts of both tornadoes and cyclones also differ greatly to one another, as cyclones have a more varied arsenal of destructive effects. Cyclones mostly bring a devastating freshwater flood, which lingers for potentially weeks, along with strong winds, storm surges and thunderstorms. This is massive compared to the dry nature of tornadoes, which damages are usually due to its severe strong winds that could uproot entire houses, trees, people and livestock, though not as long-lasting or widespread. The difference in severity of the two’s primary effects are also apparent, as the primary effects of tropical cyclones when it makes landfall from the oceans, which include: the washing away of important agricultural crops such as shrimp and rice, the destruction of many houses and commercial buildings, inundated commercial areas, power & telecommunication lines destroyed, direct deaths and injuries of many people, etc. Tornadoes also have some of these as primary effects, destroying infrastructure and power lines, livestock & crops, but do not include anything with water, e.g. floods or rainfalls. The two differ further in the secondary impacts as well, as cyclones cripple the locally affected area, with the local ecosystem destroyed taking much more time to revitalise once floods happen, and with a flooded environment, diseases would be more susceptible in the population, and hospitals may be underequipped due to the inaccessible transport lines/ roads. In Typhoon Hagibis, the cyclone had postponed 3 Rugby World Cup matches from taking place in Japan, leading to a loss of $2.5B alone.

Tornadoes, however, are more unpredictable and are harder to forecast and prepare for than cyclones, leading to many vulnerable locations having no knowledge of the next possible tornado. This is because while both natural hazards are formed with some kind of low pressure area within the eyes of itself, a tornado is a violently spiralling funnel cloud that extends from the bottom of a thunderstorm to the ground, and only forms across very flat lands that have very warm moist air and cold dry air colliding with each other, which creates an instability, creating the funnel of air, making violent winds around the eye. This, however, constricts the severe winds of tornadoes to flat lands with varying winds, narrowing down a lot of other areas from experiencing tornadoes. This is also contrasted by cyclones, where it often forms out in the sea and carries inland, where it damages most coastal areas and cities, which would by default cause a costlier damage potential. This can be seen when Typhoon Hagibis formed in the Pacific, and swept across islands and finally dissipating in Japan, where many of the city’s commercial areas reside by the bay of Tokyo.

In conclusion, while tornadoes and cyclones both are very dangerous phenomena, they have different characteristics and primary and secondary impacts, with cyclones having a bigger ability to cause more damages than tornadoes, due to its inherent bigger size, longer durations, a wider arsenal of damaging effects and the fact that it occurs nearer to major coastal cities which tend to be more highly populated and developed.

Describe how trade is being affected by changes in the global market and assess why these changes are taking place,

Global trade has changed rapidly in the last half a century, with the top 20 countries in global trade being responsible of up to 60% of all trades that happen internationally and many former LICs having greater growth through the new trade environment, having pushed through and maximise their economic potential. This massive breakthrough of the global economy can largely be attributed to globalisation and its consequences on how not only countries behave and trade with each other, but also how these growths can help these countries to grow domestic companies within.

The advent of globalization and the merging of international entities, influencing one another politically, economically, socially and technologically has created an international-centric market whereby countries are massively expected to co-operate with one another to not only achieve economic growth, but also to improve the lives of these local communities. This demanded for better transportation and communication between countries, which in turn developed platforms in which trade could better take place. Such examples of this would be the booming industry of online markets and shopping, which in 2019 retailed for $3.5 trillion USD, which is projected to increase to $6.7 trillion USD in 2022, already far surpassing physical retail stores by 3 folds. Services such as Shopee, Lazada and Amazon provide a universal platform for retailers and buyers alike, with costs for keeping many physical shops or warehouses eliminated, these services are far more efficient as they have main warehouses where all retailers store their goods, and are shipped efficiently, eliminating unnecessary travel for buyers. This demand for an efficient transport/courier system by globalisation also produced a much more efficient transportation industry, with many cargo services growing exponentially in the booming market. Shipping routes and railway projects such as the Belt and Road Initiative is a perfect example of China’s endeavour into attempting to be a regional leader in globalisation in Asia. With the demand of a growing market base that is more international, trades can be seen to be more online, and these demands help to improve transport and communication between countries.

The higher demand from a larger market leads to the international division of labour, which is the shift of manufacturing industries to developing countries, leaving advanced countries to reduce the costs of manufacturing, as developing countries usually have cheaper labour, causing a global division of labour. The elimination of protectionist “national” economies in favour of open economies have led to this concept becoming widespread, as corporations aim to maximise profit and reduce costs. This concept gave birth to multi-national companies (MNCs), which often have multiple areas of operations, from manufacturing to research and development. Nike, a sports equipment and footwear corporation, however, takes it a step further and claims to not produce anything itself, rather they contract out the productions to third-party companies, based mostly in Asia. While they design their products, they outsource production to 150 factories and 650,000 workers globally, ranging from Argentina to Indonesia. This subcontracting is done so these MNCs minimize project risks and lower costs of hiring permanent factory workers.While the companies that accept these contracts in turn receive stable projects, which employ the local community and grows the economy. These locals, while having a pay for their work, are usually grossly underpaid compared to a corporation’s revenue, and many suffer in terrible conditions.An international division of labour allows for the streamlining of the global trade machine with the assurance of a stable workforce that keeps up with the demand, ensuring net overall economic growth.

The growth of all countries in an international market also allows for trade agreements between countries to form, which aims to bring down barriers of trading such as tariffs and quotas, which allows for the two countries to fully achieve their trading potential and growth. In theory, it would achieve maximum efficiency, as countries would specialise in the industries that they are already good in, which would minimize the long start for these young industries domestically, e.g. Germany and engineering, UK and financing. One such example would be NAFTA in 1993, where Canada, United States and Mexico signed a free trade area agreement in North America, which aimed for all those involved to be grow their economies and strengthen their GDPs. The benefits included a net rise in GDP of all involved, a strengthening of diplomatic relations, increased exports and created regional production blocs, lowering prices of products. However, the specialisation of these countries led to the massive losses in manufacturing industries in USA and Canada, advanced countries with expensive labour, causing mass unemployment in the industry. These benefits and costs, however, perfectly show the nature of trade agreements.

The massive growth in the global middle class has also led to the booming of the tourism industry, as more people have a higher purchasing power, that is well supplied with the improvement in transportation globally and the recent introduction of budget airlines, enabling high mobility. These provide developing countries with a nice revenue source, as usually it is the HIC and MICs that have most of the tourist population. The expenses of these tourists in these industries allow for the circular flow of income, redistributing the wealth. Kenya saw rapid growth of local communities and their buying powers, as 200,000 jobs were created and the international exposure to the native tribes such as the Masai people have preserved customs, along with the maintenance of wildlife sanctuaries and safaris. However, the growth of these communities is incomparable to what the corporations that provide flights, hotels etc earn. Overall, the increase in the buying power of middle-class has helped the tourism industry to boom, allowing for more international trade.

In summary, globalisation is the major reason to why trade is how it is today, with the clever advances in communication and transport allowing for a bigger platform for trade, appealing to a growing market with higher purchasing power, cooperative countries that engage in co-beneficial agreements and an efficient manufacturing machine through the division of global labour.

How is the Freedom of Religion in Malaysia depicted and how has the Religious Bias affected the country?

1. Introduction
   This topic was chosen because of my interest in the racial and religious tensions that has been going on in Malaysia. As a foreigner, who was born and raised in Kuching, which is renowned to be a diverse and relatively tolerant part of Malaysia, this topic further interested me to learn more about the current and past situations that have had resulted in undoubtedly bitter relations of Muslims and non-Muslims of Malaysia. In this report, I would be focusing on the laws in Malaysia that are unbalanced and are infused with Islamic law.

 

2. The Constitution of Malaysia

In the constitution, it states that Islam is the federal religion of Malaysia, however this is very much clashed by the idea that Malaysia is a country with a multicultural background, and Article 11 of the Constitution provides a guarantee of “a freedom of right for all to practice their faith in peace and harmony”. This was then met by the movement of the government to make 2 codes, a general civil code and one that applies to Muslims in the country. Malaysia has been stated as a secular country, but the acts and laws of the government have very much challenged that statement, with a Muslim-majority government with the aim of “infusing

Islamic values” into the governing of the country.

 

3. Laws and regulations
   In Malaysia, it is forbidden for Muslims to deconvert to atheism or other religions. While it isn’t a federal law, the country encourages its states to “reinforce Islam” and in some certain states in West Malaysia, it is punishable by death. It is legal, and encouraged, however, for Muslims to proselytize (attempt to convert) a non Muslim, however it is illegal vice-versa. Judaism is not a recognized religion in Malaysia and avid followers could face jail sentences and “rehabilitation”, as this is due to the Islamic view of Judaism as Zionism and a “threat to Islam itself”. This is allegedly due to Malaysia’s support for Palestine in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also public knowledge that while there is no law against non-Muslims to be the Prime Minister, it nearly impossible to do so; this is largely influenced by UMNO (United Malay National Organization) who strive to keep the Malays at reign in Malaysia, and with 60% of its population Malays, it is not hard to see why they have been succeeding. There is a law in the constitution that needs to be stressed, and that is that all Malays by law are Muslims, and this has caused an unrest within the community, as most of them do not feel that they have their freedom of religion. Non-Malays in Malaysia, especially the Chinese are widely viewed as non-Muslims, to the point where in Malaysia Religion of a person is identical with the race.
4. How has this affected Malaysia

Malaysia has had tensions between races and religions, mainly the Malays and the Chinese, where the Chinese claim that the Malays have been oppressing them and that it is not fair that a non-Malay cannot rule (although no rule states that), but it’s UMNO that reigns the government. This has further angered the Chinese and many of them have left the country, creating the stereotype as the Chinese as an “unpatriotic and profit-seeking Australian-to-be” member Malaysia.

 

5. Primary research

A copy of the master sheet for the questionnaire is attached to the back of this report.
The results have shown that out of the 5 people I have asked, 3 have said that as non-Muslims, it has been unfair to them to live in a country that they are “regarded as second citizens”. 2 have experienced inequalities ranging from neglecting to be served in a Muslim neighborhood cafeteria to waiting longer in a public service counter (both of them think that the Malay-majority government had major effect in this). Out of the 5, 4 think that constitutional changes should be made to better the opportunities given to non-Muslims in various industries, such as university acceptance and so on. 4 think that inequalities still go on today because of the “Malay supremacy” in reign of Malaysia in this current day. 5 out of 5 think that the separation of church and state in Malaysia is needed and a clear line needs to be drawn and to stop the “infusion of Islamic values and laws” to Malaysian lives.

 

6. Solutions and personal thoughts

I think Malaysia should set a clear statement whether or not it is a secular country as it is tearing itself apart, with the unsolicited “Islamic infusion” the government had been exposed to, but then again, this is coming from a moderate 21st century Muslim. This has angered the majority of non-Muslims, as they are subject to special rules according to which side of the country they are at. I think to mend some of the relations, the Malaysian government has to be urged to guarantee the protection of non-Muslims and set the laws par to the international regulations. Another good way is to encourage the Malaysian government to be part of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which surprisingly it is still yet to be a part of. This would mean they agree to ensure the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights, rights to a fair trial for everyone(which might be hard for Jews in Malaysia).  This would then lead the government to stop arrests and rehabilitations of non-Muslims or even Muslims who stray from the line and unconditionally release previous “criminals” from their “offences” as it is inhumane and it degrades the face of Malaysia to the entire world as it depicts a primitive and unnatural modern country.  I firmly believe with these changes, Malaysia would be more harmonious and the unclear barrier between the government and the Ministry of Islamic Advisory would be broken and pulled to the 21st century.