47:52 Min
Singapore Tonight - Tue 15 Jul 2025
From business to politics, health to technology, we bring you up-to-date with the latest news on Singapore and analyze how these events may affect you tomorrow.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
35 minutes ago
- CNA
CNA938 Rewind - How much is Trump's revised 19% tariff a win for Indonesia?
Indonesian leader Prabowo Subianto on Wednesday (Jul 16) hailed a "new era of mutual benefit" with Washington after President Donald Trump announced Indonesian goods entering the United States would face a 19 per cent tariff, far below the 32 per cent he had earlier threatened. Andrea Heng and Hairianto Diman assess the impact of the revised rate on Indonesia's economy with Adam Samdin, an economist from the Asia Macro team at Oxford Economics.
CNA
3 hours ago
- CNA
Commentary: At 100, Dr Mahathir shows that legacy is never static
PARIS: This month, as Dr Mahathir Mohamad marks his 100th year, the world contemplates not just longevity, but the enduring enigma of political power he embodies. The former Malaysian prime minister's milestone comes at a time when the archetype of the "strongman" leader is resurgent globally – from Hungary to, undeniably, the United States where President Donald Trump is barely six months into a second tumultuous term. This context offers Dr Mahathir, the ultimate political strategist and survivor, a unique lens through which to refract his own legacy – not merely to reflect on his doings, but to actively reshape its perception. DR MAHATHIR'S COMPLEX LEGACY On their own, Dr Mahathir's two stints as prime minister make for a complex legacy. His first, defining 22-year premiership – from 1981 to 2003, when he was president of the ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) – stands as a cornerstone of modern Malaysia. It was an era of profound transformation: Towering skyscrapers, sprawling highways, and ambitious industrialisation projects testified to his relentless drive for development. Per capita gross domestic product more than doubled. Yet, this progress was inextricably intertwined with a consolidation of authority, a governance style often justified by the imperative of stability for advancement, articulated through the framework of distinctive "Asian values". His tenure showcased a masterful ability to navigate, and often orchestrate, political sentiment, positioning himself as a leader whose firm hand was the necessary price of Malaysia's progress. Then in 2018, an audacious political recalibration. At 92, he transcended his own creation. The architect of the UMNO-Barisan Nasional hegemony, which ruled for six decades post-independence, became the figurehead of the opposition Pakatan Harapan coalition. Overnight, the narrative shifted: Mahathir the autocratic leader was reborn as Mahathir the democratic saviour, toppling the corruption-ridden regime of Najib Razak. This remarkable feat relied on a national focus fixated on the immediate triumph over graft, allowing the more contentious chapters of his own past to fade into the background. A WISE ELDER CRITIQUING DONALD TRUMP Now, with Donald Trump presiding with his distinct brand of authority, there is a profound, almost paradoxical, power in a centenarian former strongman issuing warnings about the trajectory of Western democracy. Dr Mahathir's pointed critiques of Mr Trump – focusing on the flouting of international conventions, the overt politicisation of institutions, and the destabilising nature of such leadership – land with amplified resonance precisely because of his own history. This is far more than geopolitical commentary; it is a sophisticated exercise in legacy refinement. Dr Mahathir's critique of Mr Trump's perceived "blatant abuse of power" seems to implicitly delineate his own brand of assertive rule. The distinction: His leadership, however firm, was culturally contextualised, developmentally focused – and ultimately less crassly self-serving or globally disruptive than the spectacle unfolding in Washington. This would position his past actions as difficult necessities of their time and place, contrasting them with what he portrays as the more gratuitous exercises of power witnessed today. Furthermore, his critiques, often delivered with characteristic dry detachment, actively cultivate the persona of the rational elder statesman, one who speaks from a century of observation and seasoned wisdom. It overwrites older narratives of impulsive control, leveraging age and experience to amplify a message that might have rung hollow decades ago. VALIDATING ARGUMENT AGAINST WESTERN DOUBLE STANDARDS The perceived double standards of Western powers have long been a cornerstone of Dr Mahathir's worldview. Mr Trump's current presidency provides potent ammunition. Dr Mahathir has long faced criticism for alleged harassment of political opponents – including the imprisonment of his former deputy and current Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, which added strain to US-Malaysia ties then. He has also rejected claims that he had targeted journalists, discredited critics, and interfered with the judiciary or other institutions. Yet while Western leaders lectured Dr Mahathir and leaders of other developing countries on human rights and democratic norms, few have rebuked Mr Trump. What would have likely been termed 'democratic backsliding' elsewhere has been met with muted diplomacy. Highlighting this perceived hypocrisy has a dual purpose: Dr Mahathir effectively critiques a contemporary Western leader while validating his own longstanding arguments against Western hegemony and interventionism. Ultimately, the global resurgence of forceful leadership styles provides Dr Mahathir with a crucial contextual frame. It allows him to subtly reposition his first tenure not as an isolated anomaly of concentrated power, but as part of a broader historical pattern of strong leadership for emerging nations. As he turns 100, Dr Mahathir Mohamad demonstrates that a legacy, like power itself, is never static. Shaping how he will be remembered is the final, masterful strategy of this political survivor. Dr Sophie Lemiere is a political anthropologist who specialises in Malaysian and Southeast Asian politics, and has held research and teaching positions in major universities across Europe, the United States and Southeast Asia. She is currently Research Fellow at College de France in Paris.
CNA
3 hours ago
- CNA
Commentary: Lecturers need to give students clearer instructions about AI use
SINGAPORE: Imagine you are a lecturer grading students' essays about their research methods for the term project. You notice that three students mentioned using artificial intelligence in different ways. Jane used an AI tool to help format citations in APA style. Don discussed topic ideas with ChatGPT to help narrow down his research focus. Beatrice ran her draft through an AI writing assistant to catch grammatical errors before final submission. You realise that you did not explicitly address AI use in your course syllabus, and your university's policy broadly states that students must not use such tools without permission from the instructor. The three students made good-faith attempts at disclosure, but you are uncertain whether their uses violate the spirit of academic integrity. How do you proceed? This is a hypothetical scenario, but it is happening across universities. Students routinely use programmes like Grammarly without considering them AI, while lecturers may permit some tools such as citation assistance. The recent incident at Nanyang Technological University illustrates how students and lecturers can have different interpretations of what's acceptable. FAIR AND UNFAIR AI USE In recent years, artificial intelligence has advanced more rapidly than policies can keep up with, resulting in a grey area between AI use and abuse. Most universities have broad definitions on the acceptable use of AI. The University of Pennsylvania gives a simple analogy: 'In the absence of other guidance, treat the use of AI as you would treat assistance from another person. For example, this means if it is unacceptable to have another person substantially complete a task like writing an essay, it is also unacceptable to have AI to complete the task. ' Generally, the use of AI for brainstorming, drafting and idea generation is permitted, and where permitted, the explicit declaration or acknowledgement of the use of AI in assignments is also required. Unfair AI use then entails passing off AI-generated work as one's own without proper attribution, or employing it when it was explicitly prohibited to gain an unfair advantage. TASK-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR AI Given the wide scope of universities' academic policies, it is up to lecturers to give instructions regarding AI use, specific to each assignment. For essays and written tasks, instructors should ensure students understand the distinction between research and writing assistance. Students should be required to disclose AI usage and show documentation to verify authentic thinking. Problem sets and technical work such as coding require a different approach. Instructors must distinguish between when AI assistance is educational and when it becomes academic dependency. In mathematics courses, for instance, AI might be permitted for checking calculations but prohibited for generating solution methods. Students can also be told to show all work steps manually and to be prepared to explain their solution process to the class. For creative and analytical assessments, instructors can tell students that AI may be used for initial inspiration and research, but that all content must be produced by students. Students in fine arts, for instance, may be allowed to utilise AI for brainstorming sessions, but must develop original pieces. Meanwhile, business students may utilise market analysis tools powered by AI, but must produce unique strategy recommendations. Lecturers can also require students to document any AI-generated ideas that influenced their work. These guidelines seek to develop each student's capability not only in critical thinking but also develop capabilities in the area of human-AI collaboration. PREVENTION OVER PUNISHMENT However, even with clear AI guidelines, there will be students tempted to use tools and software to circumvent the rules. For example, students may use 'humanising' software to disguise an AI-generated assignment to bypass detection software. Students may also use AI tools in oral exams, as current technologies allow for such apps to reside on mobile phones and communicate wirelessly to the students via discreet earpieces. Rather than play detective, institutions should focus on prevention through clear communication. This means writing unambiguous AI policies with concrete examples. Other prevention strategies include AI literacy training for faculty and students, redesigning assessments that are more focused on processes rather than answers, and verifying students' understanding through conversational assessments and in-class discussions. Universities can also consider "AI-transparent" approaches where students document their use of AI tools throughout the assignment, similar to how they cite traditional sources. This creates accountability on the students' part while avoiding the adversarial effects of detection-based enforcement. Clear AI guidelines protect the value of university degrees and prepare students for an AI-driven future. They help students develop ethical instinct, emotional intelligence and creative thinking – human skills that AI cannot replace. University graduates will likely work alongside AI tools and apps throughout their careers. The problem for universities is not about addressing the over-reliance on AI or banning it outright, but teaching students how to collaborate with AI responsibly. With clear and transparent guidelines, universities can uphold educational integrity while preparing students for an AI-enhanced world.
