(토요모임) [10. Nov. 2018] Saturday meeting topic

[Scarlet]

Howdy ! 

It's me Scarlett ! We will have a Englisholic Saturday meeting(19:00~21:00)
at the 2nd floor study room in Twosome place nearby Sachang cross street.
(Map is attached below) If you need more precise information, reply to this article.

Detailed topics are as follows.

◈ Motivational Movie clip

---- How Did Tech Become So Male-Dominated?

---- Why More Women Aren't Computer Scientists, Engineers

---- Inspiring the next generation of female engineers | Debbie Sterling | TEDxPSU

◈ Tackling the gender gap

---- Focus on diversity and career progression key to winning the fight for female talent

---- Women Say Networking Helps Them Overcome Gender Discrimination in the Workplace
---- Six ways to fix gender inequality at work
---- Want more women to study science? Hire more female professors.

◈ Creativity

---- Want to come up with better ideas? Here's how

◈ Urban Security

---- How to future-proof our cities against climate change

---- 5 big challenges facing big cities of the future

---- How cities can take the lead on global crises

◈ Anticorruption : Humanitarian Aspect Vs. Transparency

---- Successful leaders follow their moral compass, according to new research

---- 'My only sin is the extrajudicial killings' admits Philippines' Duterte

----  Political Corruption Affects Real People

Hope you enjoy the topics. 

With luv 

Scarlett

--------------------------------------

How Did Tech Become So Male-Dominated?

--------------------------------------

Why More Women Aren't Computer Scientists, Engineers

--------------------------------------

Inspiring the next generation of female engineers

Debbie Sterling | TEDxPSU

--------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. What do engineers do?

Q2. How many engineers do you know around you? How many women engineers could you find?

Q3. Could you imagine woman Ironman? Why or Why not?

Q4. Do you think why tech. field is more open to man?

Q5. Do you agree that man is more proper for tech. field?

Q6. Above movie clip suggest the idea that Tech. is not a biological thing but a cultural thing. Do you agree with this concept?

Q7. If you are a woman, what do you want to be? Why?

Q8. If you can change your gender into opposite side, would you choose same job you have now?

Q9. have you ever seen any women leader in your field? Why or Why not?

Q10. Why women can not be the main opinion leader in your working fields?

Q11. What is your winning strategy as a woman in your working field?

--------------------------------------

The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM
A new study explores a strange paradox: In countries that empower women, they are less likely to choose math and science professions.

Olga Khazan/ Feb 18, 2018

Though their numbers are growing, only 27 percent of all students taking the AP Computer Science exam in the United States are female. The gender gap only grows worse from there: Just 18 percent of American computer-science college degrees go to women. This is in the United States, where many college men proudly describe themselves as “male feminists” and girls are taught they can be anything they want to be.

Meanwhile, in Algeria, 41 percent of college graduates in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math—or “STEM,” as it’s known—are female. There, employment discrimination against women is rife and women are often pressured to make amends with their abusive husbands.

According to a report I covered a few years ago, Jordan, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates were the only three countries in which boys are significantly less likely to feel comfortable working on math problems than girls are. In all of the other nations surveyed, girls were more likely to say they feel “helpless while performing a math problem.”

So what explains the tendency for nations that have traditionally less gender equality to have more women in science and technology than their gender-progressive counterparts do?

According to a new paper published in Psychological Science by the psychologists Gijsbert Stoet, at Leeds Beckett University, and David Geary, at the University of Missouri, it could have to do with the fact that women in countries with higher gender inequality are simply seeking the clearest possible path to financial freedom. And often, that path leads through STEM professions.
More Stories

The issue doesn’t appear to be girls’ aptitude for STEM professions. In looking at test scores across 67 countries and regions, Stoet and Geary found that girls performed about as well or better than boys did on science in most countries, and in almost all countries, girls would have been capable of college-level science and math classes if they had enrolled in them.

But when it comes to their relative strengths, in almost all the countries—all except Romania and Lebanon—boys’ best subject was science, and girls’ was reading. (That is, even if an average girl was as good as an average boy at science, she was still likely to be even better at reading.) Across all countries, 24 percent of girls had science as their best subject, 25 percent of girls’ strength was math, and 51 percent excelled in reading. For boys, the percentages were 38 for science, 42 for math, and 20 for reading. And the more gender-equal the country, as measured by the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index, the larger this gap between boys and girls in having science as their best subject. (The most gender-equal countries are the typical snowy utopias you hear about, like Sweden, Finland, and Iceland. Turkey and the United Arab Emirates rank among the least equal, according to the Global Gender Gap Index.)

The gap in reading “is related at least in part to girls’ advantages in basic language abilities and a generally greater interest in reading; they read more and thus practice more,” Geary told me.

What’s more, the countries that minted the most female college graduates in fields like science, engineering, or math were also some of the least gender-equal countries. They posit that this is because the countries that empower women also empower them, indirectly, to pick whatever career they’d enjoy most and be best at.

“Countries with the highest gender equality tend to be welfare states,” they write, “with a high level of social security.” Meanwhile, less gender-equal countries tend to also have less social support for people who, for example, find themselves unemployed. Thus, the authors suggest, girls in those countries might be more inclined to choose STEM professions, since they offer a more certain financial future than, say, painting or writing.

When the study authors looked at the “overall life satisfaction” rating of each country—a measure of economic opportunity and hardship—they found that gender-equal countries had more life satisfaction. The life-satisfaction ranking explained 35 percent of the variation between gender equality and women’s participation in STEM. That correlation echoes past research showing that the genders are actually more segregated by field of study in more economically developed places.

The upshot of this research is neither especially feminist nor especially sad: It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested.

The findings will likely seem controversial, since the idea that men and women have different inherent abilities is often used as a reason, by some, to argue we should forget trying to recruit more women into the STEM fields. But, as the University of Wisconsin gender-studies professor Janet Shibley Hyde, who wasn’t involved with the study, put it to me, that’s not quite what’s happening here.

“Some would say that the gender STEM gap occurs not because girls can’t do science, but because they have other alternatives, based on their strengths in verbal skills,” she said. “In wealthy nations, they believe that they have the freedom to pursue those alternatives and not worry so much that they pay less.”

Instead, this line of research, if it’s replicated, might hold useful takeaways for people who do want to see more Western women entering STEM fields. In this study, the percentage of girls who did excel in science or math was still larger than the number of women who were graduating with STEM degrees. That means there’s something in even the most liberal societies that’s nudging women away from math and science, even when those are their best subjects. The women-in-STEM advocates could, for starters, focus their efforts on those would-be STEM stars.

Then again, it could just be that, feeling financially secure and on equal footing with men, some women will always choose to follow their passions, rather than whatever labor economists recommend. And those passions don’t always lie within science.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Article source : https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

--------------------------------------

Focus on diversity and career progression key to winning the fight for female talent

08-MAR-2017

- Opportunities for career progression among top three most attractive employer traits for both women and men
- 76% of employers have incorporated diversity and inclusion into their employer brands
- 28% of employers have adopted a formal returnship programme to attract and provide opportunities for career returners
- 67% of women say positive role models are important when deciding to accept a position with an employer, rising to 76% for female career starters

To mark International Women’s Day (IWD) on Wednesday 8th March 2017, PwC has released a new report – Winning the fight for female talent: How to gain the diversity edge through inclusive recruitment –which looks at what employers can do to attract and retain female talent and underscores the importance of embedding diversity and inclusion into the employer brand.

PwC surveyed 4,792 professionals (3,934 women, 845 men) with recent experience of the jobs market from 70 countries and from different organisations to find out about their career aspirations and employer diversity experiences and expectations. In parallel, PwC surveyed 328 executives with responsibility for diversity or recruitment strategies in their respective organisations to explore current diversity trends and practices within employer attraction and selection activities.

Female and male respondents ranked opportunities for career progression among the top three employer traits, along with competitive wages and flexible work arrangements. Female career starters and female millennials identified this as the most attractive employer trait, as did women overall in Brazil, China, France, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa and the UAE. The report also found that women who had recently changed employers said a lack of opportunities for career progression was the top reason they left their former employer (35%).

Says Bob Moritz, Global Chairman of PwC:

“When you look at what drives job satisfaction, people clearly seek opportunities for career progression. Putting in place formal career progression plans is one way of making sure employees remain motivated and committed to the organisation. Career progression plans aren’t simply a process – they’re there to help each employee reach its full potential. Looking forward, this will be increasingly important as CEOs work to attract and retain the best talent in a highly competitive world. Having this mindset will help CEOs tap into the complete talent market as opposed to half of it.”

Organisations are using innovative programmes to attract key female talent. For example, returnship programmes are proving to be a successful bridge for talented professionals to return to work after an extended career break. Over a quarter (28%) of employers have already adopted a formal returner programme, and a further 25% are currently exploring this opportunity, suggesting employers are recognising the potential of these programmes.

Sharmila Karve, PwC Global Diversity Leader, says:

“In today’s highly competitive job market, it is incumbent on every organisation to revisit its policies and processes to make sure they are meeting the needs of the modern workforce, in particular the woman of today who is truly a trailblazer. Women today are looking for much more from their careers than previous generations – and organisations need to keep up if they are to secure the talent they need to grow their business.”

■ An inclusive talent brand: not an option – but an imperative
The survey revealed that just over three quarters (76%) of employers have incorporated diversity and inclusion into their employer brands – and this rises to 88% of companies with more than 10,000 employees.

But the report also highlights that just talking about diversity as part of an employer brand is no longer enough. When deciding whether or not to work for an employer, over half (56%) of women are looking to see active diversity progress. This rises to 61% for female career starters. Meanwhile, 61% of women and 49% of men look at the diversity of an employer’s leadership team when deciding to accept their most recent position.

And 67% of women explored if their employer had positive role models who were similar to them when deciding to accept their most recent position, rising to 76% for female career starters. This factor was particularly important to women working in sectors that are widely regarded as relatively male-dominated, such as FinTech (85%), Engineering and Construction (82%) and Asset Management (78%).

The message is clear: organisations should walk their diversity talk or face contending with increased difficultly attracting talent, particularly female talent.

■ An escalating fight for female talent 
The report highlights we are seeing organisations across the world inject greater urgency into their gender diversity efforts. Explicit hiring targets have emerged as a core driver in fulfilling these ambitions with 78% of large organisations around the world saying they’re actively seeking to hire more women – especially into more experienced and senior level positions. As organisations fight to attract female talent – particularly at levels and in sectors where they’re currently underrepresented – we’re now seeing competition for female talent escalate to a whole new level.

■ Bringing men into the conversation
A HeForShe Corporate Impact Champion, PwC is committed to helping to close the global gender gap. HeForShe is a movement by UN Women which aims to mobilise one billion men and boys in support of global gender equality. As part of our involvement, we’ve joined forces with UN Women to develop a Building Gender IQ eLearn module that seeks to educate people around the world on the negative impact of societal gender stereotypes and the importance and benefits of gender diversity in the workplace and beyond.
During the month of March, we’re calling on all our people, and particularly our men, to take a stand for gender equality by making the HeForShe commitment.

In a recent blog, Bob Moritz, Global Chairman of PwC, said:

“Gender equality is not a zero sum game — it will bring better opportunities to men and women alike (including at leadership levels), will benefit the economy, and will help all of us work better across various differences. Eradicating societal gender-based pigeonholes and enabling both genders to contribute equally in business and their personal lives are win-wins.

“But we can only achieve progress if we all work together – men and women. The more men and women play active roles in each other’s success, the more we all benefit.”

Notes to editors

1. To find out more about PwC’s IWD activities and to download Winning the fight for female talent: How to gain the diversity edge through inclusive recruitment, visit http://www.pwc.com/femaletalent. The report is based on a survey of 4,792 professionals from 70 countries (3,934 women and 845 men), as well as a survey of 328 executives with responsibility for diversity or recruitment in their respective organisations. More thoughts on diversity can also be found on PwC’s Gender Agenda blog.

2. PwC is committed to promoting diversity and inclusion and has a range of programmes in place to make progress on the issue. These include Aspire to Lead: The Women’s Leadership Series, a global forum on women and leadership for students around the world. PwC has also partnered with the UN Women’s HeForShe campaign, which aims to mobilise one billion men and boys as advocates and agents of change in ending the persisting inequalities faced by women and girls globally.

3. To read PwC research on the Millennials, take a look at The female millennial: A new era of talent; Next Generation Diversity: Developing tomorrow’s female leaders; Millennials at work; and PwC’s NextGen: A global generational study.

4. To read more PwC research on female talent, take a look at Modern mobility: Moving women with purpose.

At PwC, our purpose is to build trust in society and solve important problems. We’re a network of firms in 157 countries with more than 223,000 people who are committed to delivering quality in assurance, advisory and tax services. Find out more and tell us what matters to you by visiting us at www.pwc.com.

PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.

© 2017 PwC. All rights reserved

--------------------------------------

Women Say Networking Helps Them Overcome 

Gender Discrimination in the Workplace

Shapr surveyed 2,000 employed women between the ages of 24 and 45 during October 2016. Here’s what we found:

WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION IS REAL

Four in ten career women battled workplace discrimination to get where they are today.

Our study into the career hurdles, ambitions, and setbacks of 2,000 employed women between the ages of 24 and 45 found as many as 43 percent experienced discrimination at some point in their career when trying to climb the career ladder or establish themselves in a new working environment.

More than a third (36 percent) of women felt male colleagues were able to bond more easily with those in management or higher positions.

Unfortunately, feeling left out of workplace socializing or networking opportunities because of their gender is familiar to many women. About one in five felt they’d been restricted in their career growth and also felt that their current workplace is a “boys’ club” culture.

NETWORKING HELPS

A freelancer uses Shapr to swipe through profiles and meet other professionals.

Shapr is a free networking app that helps people meet like-minded professionals. Thousands of people use Shapr daily to find mentors and get inspired from conversations with other motivated professionals. Shapr is also used by job seekers looking for less publicized opportunities, by career changers exploring different professional pathways, and by investors looking for new and innovative ideas to bring to market. So naturally, we asked women what they thought of networking.

The results show networking works.

59 percent of today’s working women say they would be more successful if they had more opportunities to engage in networking.

Results showed your professional network makes a big impact on your ability to get in the door — two thirds had landed a job purely because of an existing contact they had.

A quarter said they have a particular person or contact who gave them a chance and helped them with the knowledge that allowed them to carve out their career.

More than half of those surveyed said the ability to make relevant contacts helps them overcome some of the obstacles women still face in the workplace.

This survey illustrates the importance of networking regularly and meeting professionals across your industry to help tackle gender bias in the workplace. Sixty-seven percent of women surveyed reported they were able to land a job because of a pre-existing contact who submitted a resume internally, provided a recommendation, or shared a less publicized opportunity. The results show that building professional relationships is one of the most impactful strategies for career advancement.

Forty-seven percent of women feel that equality in workplace opportunities has improved slightly in the last five years. Yet more than a quarter of women sadly felt there has been no improvement.

With more than half of women reporting little to no improvement for workplace opportunities in the last five years, we need tools that help women to get ahead. Shapr’s goal is to make networking inspiring, manageable and useful. This goal is accomplished through a time effective app that introduces professionals with common interests. By giving women more opportunities to engage in one to one networking, we can help eliminate the gender bias.

Use Shapr to get introduced to opportunities and professionals near you. To get started, visit http://www.shapr.co or download Shapr directly from the app store and set up your free profile.

Article source : https://medium.com/@Shapr/women-say-networking-helps-them-overcome-gender-discrimination-in-the-workplace-721e384808bc

---

Six ways to fix gender inequality at work

29 Oct 2014/ Helena Trachsel/ Head, Office for the Equality of Men and Women of the Canton of Zurich

Switzerland is one of the world’s most successful economies, scoring highly in areas from innovation to institutional excellence. So why is our record less stellar when it comes to gender equality? Switzerland’s performance in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap 2014 Report is a case in point. We came first in the Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report, but only 11th in terms of closing the gender gap. A closer look reveals an even starker contrast between economic success and gender bias. In the wealthy canton of Zurich, for example, women earn on average 24% less than men. In the financial sector, one of Switzerland’s signature industries, the difference is an astonishing 32%. To make matters worse, Swiss women are more at risk of poverty than men.

Entrenched traditions are part of the problem. Perhaps surprisingly, women’s independence is still a relatively recent phenomenon in Switzerland. Until 1985, Swiss women could not open a bank account or go to work without their husbands’ permission. Many young women today saw their fathers having to sign off on their mothers’ career decisions. The consequences are still felt today: 75% of female teenagers in Switzerland choose their apprenticeships from a narrow range of only 11 stereotypically feminine occupations, such as hairdressing or as dental assistants. The same proportion of male teenagers choose from a range that is more than twice as wide. Popular “masculine” jobs, such as car mechanic or IT specialist, also offer more opportunities for career development.

If we want Swiss society to truly embrace gender equality, we have to start at school. We need to teach both girls and boys to aim for ambitious careers, demand better pay and learn to negotiate. We need to encourage girls to picture themselves as future breadwinners. It should be natural for a girl to think about becoming a carpenter when she grows up, and for a boy to want to be a nurse.

For companies, there are six concrete ways of promoting gender equality at every stage of the hiring process and career progression:

1. Rethink job interviews. The question: “What do you think your salary should be?” should be abolished altogether, as women consistently ask for less than men. Instead, interviewers should provide a fair and transparent salary range and ask applicants to position themselves within it.

2. Make gender equality part of training and education. Young people should be supported in choosing jobs that are future-oriented and promising, regardless of their gender.

3. Be proactive about welcoming women. Companies should clearly state that they want to hire, support and promote women. Salaries and promotions should be monitored and eval‎‎uated on a regular basis to ensure equal treatment.

4. Make flexibility and work-life balance a part of the wider company culture. Too often, employees have to specifically ask to work part-time or work from home, which can be awkward. Companies should instead offer a broad range of different options.

5. Don’t limit your talent pool. Companies should aim for a 50-50 gender split in all their teams – right up to the executive floor. Offering practical support such as childcare, is part of this, as is the right attitude. It should not be a career killer for a man to ask for extended leave because he wants to look after his children.

6. Use the power of networking. Networking, mentoring and coaching opportunities can help women build confidence and develop their careers.

Young people today have a very different view of what a great career means. Many want equality in their private and professional lives, and see a healthy work-life balance as crucial to their happiness. This presents a huge opportunity for redefining gender roles. The challenge is to address this in all sectors – business, education, research and politics. When it comes to gender equality, we all have to work together. Only then can we provide the next generation with the very best support for shaping their own path in life and contributing to Switzerland’s continued success – regardless of gender.

Author: Helena Trachsel is the Head of the Office for the Equality of Men and Women of the Canton of Zurich

Image: Swiss Economy Minister Doris Leuthard is silhouetted against a Swiss national flag as she speaks during the party’s convention at the cable car station on the top of Saentis mountain (2,502 metres above sea-level) in eastern Switzerland, September 15, 2007. REUTERS/Miro Kuzmanovic

Article source : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/10/six-ways-fix-gender-inequality-workplace/

---

< Questions >

Q1. In your work place, do you have distinct roles for women? What is that? 

Q2. In your work place, do you have distinct roles for men? What is that? 

Q3. What is your job? How many female colleagues do you have in your field? 

Q4. Do you think your field have salary gaps between men and women? 

Q5. How do you think about the boy's club or the girl's club? 

Q6. Are you involved in any group gathering with same gender?

--------------------------------------

Want more women to study science? 

Hire more female professors.

By Ray Fisman

The soon-to-be-completed leadership succession at Xerox from Ann Mulcahy—a woman—to Ursula Burns—also a woman—is one for the record books. It will be the first woman-to-woman transition at a Fortune 500 company, and Burns is the first African-American woman to take the helm of any such corporation.

Mulcahy has balked at the notion that the über-competent Burns needed her help—or anyone else's—in making her way through the ranks. Nonetheless, the paucity of women in senior positions who might in turn mentor young women on their way up the ladder is one of the primary reasons put forth to explain the continued existence of the glass ceiling in corporate America. In science and technology, the situation is even bleaker—women are under-represented at every level, from advanced college classes to the executive suite, making Burns' rise from math major to CEO of tech giant Xerox all the more remarkable.

Of course, female mentorship is only one strand of a complex web of explanations—from aptitude to temperament to societal discrimination—for the gender gap in science and elsewhere. A recent National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper on gender and academic achievement at the U.S. Air Force Academy, however, finds that the importance of female mentors may be even more powerful than previously thought. The study, by University of California-Davis economists Scott Carrell and Marianne Page and their colleague James West at the Air Force Academy, finds that replacing a male instructor with a female one has such a strong effect on female achievement as to erase the gender gap entirely.

The trio of economists examined the undergraduate careers of 9,481 cadets taught by nearly 250 different science and math instructors at the USAFA during the years 2000-08. Untangling the impact of an instructor's gender from the many other factors that influence student performance has hamstrung most research on the topic: If women taught by women perform better (or worse) is it because the instructors attract better (or worse) female students rather than teach them better? Or is it because women "dumb down" their syllabi or exams to make it easier for lower-performing women to do well? Or is it something else entirely?

For the students at the Air Force Academy, the researchers are blessed with the rigid curriculum and protocol of a military college, ruling out most complications. Cadets face a heavy slate of compulsory first-year courses, including a battery of science, technology, engineering, and math requirements, and within each science-related course, students are randomly assigned to one of several teaching faculty members. So whether a student—male or female—was taught by a woman was a matter of luck rather than any active choice by student or professor. Each class used an identical syllabus and all students took the same exam, which prevented the various instructors from adjusting their courses to cater to better or worse students. Further, since the researchers also had access to students' math SAT scores, they could take account of any differences in quantitative abilities among the students.

The authors found that women on average obtain scores that are 0.15 grade points lower (half the difference between an A and an A-) than their male classmates, even after accounting for students' SAT scores. The gap in performance was widest for women taught by men. When a female instructor was put at the front of the classroom, nearly two-thirds of the grade point gender gap evaporated. (It was also the case that men performed better when taught by other men, but the difference was far less substantial.) The authors persuasively demonstrate that the overall male-female performance difference is due in large part to the fact that men dominate the Air Force Academy science faculty (as is the case in most schools), with only 23 percent of courses taught by women.

The researchers also found that the influence of professor gender was even starker for the set of students who were math whizzes when they entered the Academy (those with math SAT scores above 700). For these students, a female instructor eliminated the gender GPA gap entirely—and solely because high-performing women did well in their classes rather than because high-ability men underperformed.

What's more, having a male instructor didn't just affect female cadets' performance in their first-year classes—ramifications could be seen throughout their undergraduate careers. Not surprisingly, students who did well in their introductory science classes were more likely to go on to obtain science degrees (and presumably go on to science-related professions). Among high-math-SAT students—those most likely to be the ones to go on to obtain science degrees—the authors calculate that having a women-only roster of faculty would create gender parity among science majors.

What is it about a woman instructor that is so important for female pupils? It's unlikely to be simply the sense of empowerment of seeing that women can in fact make it in science. If that were the case, then having all female professors should help their female students catch up to the men and having all male professors should cause the male-female performance gap to widen. Yet the authors found that, while female students perform better on average in classes taught by female professors, there are some male professors under whom there's no achievement gap between male and female students (and also some female professors for whom the gender gap is as big as that of some of their male colleagues). So some men are very good at mentoring women, just not nearly enough of them.

What kind of man makes a good mentor? Is it because, as is sometimes suggested, men with daughters make good mentors, having developed greater empathy for the challenges faced by their female students? Or differences in teaching style? The authors unfortunately don't know much about the Academy's teaching staff, so for now the enormous impact of professor gender remains a bit of a black box.

Regardless of the underlying mechanism at work, the study has wide-ranging implications for what might be done to keep talented women on science career tracks. Most obviously, the findings provide further justification for affirmative action programs to promote women in the sciences, to break the cycle of talented women opting out of science because there are no women in science. At the same time, we might unravel the mystery of what makes people—men or women—better at mentoring their female protégés.

I posed the question of how to create gender equity in science to Stephanie Pfirman, a Barnard College environmental scientist and a member of a Columbia University initiative on women in the sciences. She pointed out that recruiting female mentors and making men into more women-friendly bosses and teachers are both efforts aimed at changing the environment faced by young women. While these are worthy objectives, she suggested developing coping mechanisms to deal with circumstances as they are—for example, realizing that getting an A- or even a B+ in an introductory course doesn't spell the end of your career as a scientist, as many high-achieving young women believe. Yet the results of this study suggest that just by helping more women to overcome the adversities they face in becoming scientists today, we will make science less of a man's world for the female scientists of tomorrow.

Article source : http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2009/06/a_formula_for_success.html

---

< Questions >

Q1. What was your major? How many female student did you have at the university? 

Q2. Have you ever faced any discrimination due to your gender or race? Please share your experiences with other members? How did you react to discrimination? 

Q3. If you are women, which major would you choose? Or which major would you recommend for you future daughter? Why? 

Q4. How do you think about LGBT? Why did you have that opinion? 

*** LGBT, or GLBT, is an initialism that stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.

--------------------------------------

Want to come up with better ideas? Here's how
20 Jul 2018 /Ephrat Livini/ Writer, Quartz

A group of scientists have a new theory about how humanity came to be—and the story of how their theory came together is a lesson for the rest of us. It shows how breaking out of professional and ideological silos can lead to groundbreaking ideas.
For years, the consensus has been that Homo sapiens emerged from one spot and one population in east Africa some 300,000 years ago. But according to a new paper in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution, we didn’t come from one place or population on the continent. Instead, lineage of Homo sapiens probably originated in Africa at least 500,000 years ago—evolving from interlinked groups across the entire swath of Africa toward contemporary human morphology over tens of thousand of years.
This slow and expansive change was influenced by ecological and genetic shifts, according to the authors. They say future work should acknowledge “multiregionalism” and the complexity of our African origins.
This complex new view of human evolution emerged from a sophisticated approach to research. The scientists who proposed this theory have different specialties and come from institutions around the world. They include archaeologists, anthropologists, biologists, geneticists, geographers, environmental scientists, and zoologists.

Once assembled, the interdisciplinary research team took a more nuanced approach to human evolution than usual. Instead of focusing on individual fossil finds—the shape of skulls, say—or specific tools found in a single place to tell humanity’s origin story, they looked at the big picture. The scientists pooled data from disparate studies and specialties to come up with a cohesive theory of humanity’s emergence that accounts for ecological changes and migration patterns, as well as bones and artifacts.

In other words, to come to their new view of evolution, they had to step outside the boundaries of their specific fields and collaborate. Here’s what they did to work together—and how you can do the same:

Recognize your blind spots
“Preventing bias was the key point,” lead researcher Eleanor Scerri, from the department of archeology at Oxford University, tells Quartz. Each of the disciplines represented in the research group has a particular culture, ways of thinking, various methodologies and data sources.
Separately, each discipline has come up with its own conclusions about human evolution. But together, they developed a holistic, rather than fractured, view, Scerri explains.
“We all felt strongly that moving forward had to involve breaking down barriers between disciplines, and beginning a respectful conversation about how circular bias can easily be constructed by cherry picking across different sources of data to match a narrative emanating from one [field],” she says. Scerri’s group was aware of the ways that any single scientific narrative can become dogma in a given field, which is difficult to challenge once entrenched. And that’s problematic for knowledge as whole. Scerri says, “We all wanted to confront the fact that last year’s inference can become this year’s orthodoxy, and that we didn’t necessarily agree about everything ourselves.”

Throw assumptions out the window
Basically, the team needed to put everything, including common assumptions in their fields, up for debate. That was the best way to resolve conflicting theories and develop a cohesive view of the various findings. So, the researchers met for three days and hashed out ideas head-to-head.
They didn’t make presentations as they would at a traditional scientific conference. Instead, they analyzed each other’s work and ideas, identifying both the problems and accomplishments.
“I think a particularly heartening feature of our group is that we started off from quite different positions, but managed to produce a coherent view that accounted for everyone’s positions. It felt like a perilous approach at first, but was ultimately incredibly rewarding,” Scerri says. “The scientific ideal really prevailed…There was a lot of camaraderie and good will, which was fantastic, despite the occasional disagreements some of us may have had.”

Get rid of jargon
To integrate the work of so many different scientists and put together all the different findings, the team had to develop a common language. “That usually involves carefully breaking down jargon and understanding at least the principles of different methods of analysis: what the data says, and what’s inference—an outcome of a particular model used and what that model’s assumptions and limitations are,” Scerri explains. “That’s a pretty big ask, but this is the direction of research, especially in fields like human origins where there are so much missing data.”
Since it’s difficult for a scientist to specialize in more than one field, researchers have to pool their knowledge and learn to talk across specialties. Otherwise, the conclusions that emerge about a finding are likely to be limited by individuals’ backgrounds, according to Scerri. “Understanding of findings tends to influenced by the models and paradigms we have in our heads, which tend to act as a filter to how we process new information,” she says.

Get comfortable with conflict
Bringing together people who disagree isn’t always easy but it leads to a deeper understanding of seemingly conflicting conclusions. As a team, the researchers weaved their different theories into a cohesive story that makes more sense and accounts for complexity. “It’s rarely the case that one person is wrong and the other is right,” says Scerri. “Insights from different models can help to shed light on the answers we look for…Perhaps we can say that nothing is really entirely new in science, it’s all about incremental steps and changing perspectives.”
With this latest paper, scientists have done just that, shifting our view on our African origins and upending the single human birthplace story.
But they are not dogmatic about the new narrative they created. “It’s important to remember that it’s ok to be wrong as long as it’s for the right reasons. We are probably all wrong to a degree,” Scerri says. In other words, just like humans evolved over time in a complex fashion, so does our scientific understanding. In due time, an even more sophisticated story will no doubt emerge. That doesn’t bother Scerri. “The important thing is pushing new frontiers, questions and testing hypotheses, as this is of course how science progresses,” she says. “And we all contribute to that, we all stand on the shoulders of giants and all giants got some things wrong!”

Article source : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/how-to-come-up-with-better-ideas-according-to-scientists-who-developed-a-new-theory-of-human-evolution

--------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. How to make a better idea?

Q2. Are you creative?

Q3. What is the most important issue for your personal life?

--------------------------------------

How to future-proof our cities against climate change

31 Oct 2018/ Jürgen Fischer/ President, Danfoss Cooling

Sustainable, smart cities are at the heart of all conversations about the rising demand for cooling and rapid urbanization. This is not surprising: if you scrambled for ways to keep cool in the city during the heatwave this summer in Europe, chances are you weren’t alone. Across the world, extreme weather and prolonged heatwaves set records and, understandably, drive a previously unseen demand for cooling.

This growing demand is part of a major global trend: rising need for cooling comfort, in particular, air conditioners (ACs). The use of energy for cooling is now the fastest growing use of energy in buildings. ACs and electric fans already account for about 10% of all global electricity consumption. By 2050, cooling demand could more than triple, warns the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Cooling is a contributor to the heat island effect but can also be a solution

ACs and other cooling equipment exhaust waste heat into the air, creating a need for more cooling in a classic feedback loop. The recent IEA report, The Future of Cooling, highlights why this is such a dilemma: cooling brings extra comfort and improves our daily lives, but it places a major strain on energy systems and drives up CO2 emissions. This is why cooling has to be part of the plan for the modern city from the start, making it as efficient and sustainable as possible and working with heating and cooling from a system perspective.

Yet perhaps, the most important challenge in an increasingly warm world is raising awareness about sustainable cooling as a crucial development issue. The Sustainable Energy for All report Chilling Prospects: Providing Sustainable Cooling for All is a great starting point. It shows that the impact of not having access to modern cooling solutions is profound – deadly heat waves, hunger, and malnutrition, incapability to preserve the efficacy of vaccines – challenging the way we think about cooling.

The report also brings attention to the need to think thermally and highlights district energy as a promising technology that can provide large energy savings in urban areas, suggesting a “cooling as a service” approach. Luckily, innovative technology can help us future-proof our cities and make cooling affordable to those 1.1 billion people who face immediate risks from a lack of cooling access. But how to do this?

With the frequency and intensity of heatwaves increasing, we urgently need to tackle the excess heat we face both inside and outside our buildings. Thanks to their fast population growth and unique “heat island” challenges, cities merit special attention. There is a lot that cities can do to reduce the impact of extreme heat, including working with industry to increase the speed and scalability of new business models.

Connecting supermarkets to the energy system

Most people would be astonished to learn that supermarkets currently use around 3% of global electricity, but would you believe that your local supermarket could actually be your provider of heat or power? We have thousands of supermarkets in our cities. Keeping food cold or frozen across all these sites requires a lot of energy for cooling. As cooling basically means, we take out heat, we have the ability to recover and use this heat. A huge untapped potential.

Basically, supermarkets can recycle the heat taken out in the cooling process, which is currently wasted, and use it to heat their own store or get hot tap water for free. Otherwise, supermarkets can also sell the heat to a local heating plant and distribute it through district energy systems. In the end, heat recovery solutions can save energy for other uses and reduce the pressure on our energy system as a whole.

Additionally, connected buildings, such as supermarkets, can offer excess capacity in an increasingly renewable-energy-based system, providing flexibility when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. Smart energy solutions – district energy and thermal storage – that combine cooling and heating are highly energy and resource efficient and an affordable solution to help minimize the “heat island effect”.

Through connected buildings, we can create more efficient urban areas

These kinds of innovative, smart solutions, require collaboration and a collective mindset. All the technologies exist today, but they are mostly utilized in silos. Unlocking the enormous benefits derived from true connectivity and collaboration will not only help to future-proof our cities but must indeed start at the city level, where mayors have the power to bring together stakeholders across these silos.

Article source : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/how-to-keep-our-cities-cool-as-temperatures-rise

--------------------------------------

How cities can take the lead on global crises

31 Oct 2018/
Julian Vercruysse/ Civil Engineer, Mott MacDonald
Alice Charles/ Project Lead, Cities, World Economic Forum

In September, France’s interior minister announced that he was stepping down to take part in the mayoral election for Lyon, the country’s third biggest city. Other examples of this trend include Andy Burnham, who swapped his role as a UK MP to become the Mayor of Greater Manchester.

But should these career changes be considered as a step up rather than a step down? Issues such as climate change, migration, urban security and public health are all being spearheaded by cities’ leadership.

However, this action-driven agenda is often drowned out by the noise of national policies. Consequently, many city networks have emerged to provide a platform for cities to congregate and thus gain momentum and visibility.

The Global Parliament of Mayors (GPM) is an example of one such initiative. Its vision is to create a global governance platform where mayors from the Global North and South can meet to share best practice and vote on specific commitments on which they wish to focus – harnessing their collective power. After almost a decade of preparation, the first vote took place in October 2018 in Bristol, UK. Eighty mayors created what is now called the Bristol Declaration which focuses on three themes: migration, urban security and health.

Commitments include fostering urban safety by increasing citizen engagement and increasing collaboration with the private sector in innovative partnerships to improve health practices. Moreover, Marvin Rees, Mayor of Bristol and Executive Committee co-chair of the GPM, described it as a “watershed moment”, being the “first mass public commitment from mayors to implement the Global Compact for Migration and the Global Compact on Refugees.”

It is appropriate that these three themes were chosen owing to the growing evidence that collaboration between cities has been highly effective in tackling these challenges. This is often because of the aggravating effects of urbanization on these issues, creating more impetus for cities to act.

Urban security

For example, most homicides occur in urban areas. Moreover, cities which will experience the greatest growth are threatened by an increase in murder rates. Therefore, tackling the violence epidemic from a city perspective can potentially save millions of lives.

This is illustrated by Cali, Colombia, where the mayor, Dr Rodrigo Guerrero, pioneered DESEPAZ, a data-led policy which halved the murder rates from 126 per 100,000 to 56 between 1992 and 2014. Yet, his greatest achievement is inspiring other Colombian cities including Bogota and Medellin to analyse urban violence as a disease. In Medellin, the interventions – partly financed by cities in the Global North – resulted in a reduction of murder rates from 266 per 100,000 in 1991 to 30 in 2015.

This Colombian example highlights the importance of city networks to share best practice. Examples of networks that have achieved this at international level include the Strong Cities Network, which aims to share best-practice adopted by cities to fight against extremism; and the UN-Habitat’s Safer Cities Programme which has gained considerable experience in supporting more than 70 cities to tackle urban crime for more than 20 years.

Health

Cities, owing to their higher population density, also have an aggravating effect on health. They place a stress on resources, leading to issues such as poor housing, malnutrition or greater vulnerability to epidemics. The effects of urbanization on health are so severe that the World Health Organisation (WHO) identified urbanization as a critical challenge for public health in the 21st century.

As a result, the WHO has created the Healthy Cities Network. During the 30 years of its existence, the network has strengthened the governance of more than 1,400 municipalities by providing political and technical support as well as building capacity.

Furthermore, the network has standardized the health assessment of citizens by developing the Healthy City Indicators (HCIs). This enables cities to have a universal benchmark to which they can compare themselves and thus has led to more evidence-based health policies. The network also enables smaller cities to have more access to joint projects with other cities which in turn has resulted in greater funding from institutions such as the European Union’s URBACT program.

Migration
As the World Economic Forum’s report on Migrations and its Impact on Cities identifies, migration is also highly influenced by urbanization as 92% of the immigrants in the US live in urban areas – this proportion goes up to 95% for the UK and Canada and 99% in Australia.

In 2017, the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine determined that although first-generation immigrants are more costly to governments in comparison to the native-born, the “second generation are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the US.” The overall, long-term economic impact of migrants has, therefore, been positive in the US. But migrants are not only drivers of cities’ economic growth: socially, migration can also have a positive impact by increasing diversity which, if properly integrated, will increase tolerance.

In the same year, the White House administration announced that it would withdraw from the UN’s Global Compact for Migration – the first internationally agreed commitment to improving cooperation on international migration. As a response, cities such as Los Angeles, New York and Chicago, as well as Paris, Milan and Amman, stepped in and signed a letter to lobby for the engagement of municipal authorities in the negotiations for the Global Compact for Migration. Their argument is that owing to the decisions taken at the national level, the success of inclusion policies for migrants are now even more dependent on a city’s resources and will.

However, referring to cities as the frontline for the inclusion of migrants only looks at one side of the challenge. Cities are also essential to reducing the brain drain faced by the so-called “departure cities”. As Yvonne Aki Sawyerr, the mayor of Freetown, Sierra Leone, stated during the GPM Summit, one must also consider the impact that emigration has on departure cities. It’s often young and resourceful individuals who leave hoping for a better future. This creates a vicious circle as the exodus of talent from the economy results in fewer opportunities being created locally, increasing the incentive for talent to leave.

Therefore, there is a need to create a partnership between departure cities and arrival cities, to share the benefits and challenges of migration, for example, a coalition of the willing for cities under the Global Compact of Migration.

World Cities Day
This article was published on World Cities Day, created to promote cooperation between the UN member states on issues related to urbanization. National-level discussions on how shifting populations will affect policy are certainly important, but the initiative only lightly touches on the role of cities themselves in tackling these issues.

The examples showcased in this article highlight the increasing importance of strong city leadership in tackling these universal challenges. If we are to harness this momentum, platforms such as the GPM that capitalize on inter-city collaborations are vital: only when gathered together will cities have the presence they deserve on the world stage.

World Cities Day should, therefore, serve not only as an opportunity for national governments to share how they are managing urbanization but also as a platform to advocate the importance of involving city networks in national and international decision-making.

The authors would like to thank Peter MacPhail, Managing Director at Aspen Partnerships, for his invaluable support in writing this article.

Article source : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/urban-security-health-and-migration-how-cities-can-tackle-global-crises

--------------------------------------

5 big challenges facing big cities of the future

29 Oct 2018/
Chan Heng Chee/ Chairman, Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD)
Harvey Neo/ Consultant, Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD)

The UN estimates that 55% of the global population lives in urban areas – a figure that is projected to rise to 68% by 2050. With few exceptions, cities are expected to become bigger and more numerous.
As urbanization speeds up, particularly in Asian and African countries, here are five of the biggest challenges confronting the future of cities:

1. Environmental threats
Rapid urbanization, which strains basic infrastructure, coupled with more frequent and extreme weather events linked to global climate change is exacerbating the impact of environmental threats. Common environmental threats include flooding, tropical cyclones (to which coastal cities are particularly vulnerable), heat waves and epidemics.
Owing to the physical and population density of cities, such threats often result in both devastating financial loss and deaths. Making cities more resilient against these environmental threats is one of the biggest challenges faced by city authorities and requires urgent attention.

2. Resources
Cities need resources such as water, food and energy to be viable. Urban sprawl reduces available water catchment areas, agricultural lands and increases demand for energy. While better application of technology can boost agricultural productivity and ensure more efficient transmission of electricity, many cities will continue to struggle to provide these resources to an ever-growing urban population.
Beyond these basic requirements, haphazard growth will see the reduction of green spaces within cities, negatively affecting liveability. As fresh water becomes scarce and fertile lands diminish, food prices may escalate, hitting the poorest hardest.

3. Inequality
When it comes to both the provision of basic resources and resilience against environmental threats, the forecast is uneven for different groups of urban inhabitants. As the number of urban super-rich grows, many cities will also see increased numbers of urban poor.
The widening gap between the haves and have-nots will be accentuated in the megacities of the future. Such inequalities, when left unchecked, will destabilize society and upend any benefits of urban development. There is a critical need for policy-makers to ensure that the fruits of progress are shared equitably.

4. Technology
Technology will be increasingly used in the development and running of cities of the future. Smart planning used in Singapore can harness solar energy for use in housing estates and create man-made wetlands for ecological balance. Smart mobility technology can alleviate traffic gridlocks which plague many cities.
The use of environmental technologies which can cool buildings more efficiently or run vehicles that are less polluting will also lead to better future cities. Installing sensors in the homes of ageing seniors living alone can connect them to the community and summon help when they are unwell or hurt.

However, technology can exclude urban inhabitants who cannot afford it or lack the capability required for its adoption. As future cities become more digitized, care must be exercised to prevent the emergence of a new form of social divide rooted in the technological.

5. Governance
Future cities offer immense possibilities to enrich the lives of their inhabitants even as the challenges are stark. To make the best out of inevitable urbanization, good governance is imperative. Cities will increase in size and their populations become more diverse. Governing these cities will, therefore, be progressively complex and require the most dedicated of minds.

 
Increasingly, cities around the world are learning about the best governance and planning practices from one another, even as they remain accountable to their respective national governments. The broad goals of urban governance should address issues of equity, liveability and sustainability in cities of the future.

Article source : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/the-5-biggest-challenges-cities-will-face-in-the-future

--------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. What is the biggest challenge for big cities in the future?

Q2. What is the most urgent agenda in your residential area?

Q3. What is the most important issue for your personal life?

--------------------------------------

Successful leaders follow their moral compass,

according to new research

30 Oct 2018/ Matthew Biddle-Buffalo

Leaders who value morality outperform their unethical peers, regardless of industry, company size, or role, according to new research. But because we all define a “moral leader” differently, leaders who try to do good may face unexpected difficulties.
The research team examined more than 300 books, essays, and studies on moral leadership from 1970 to 2018. They discovered that leaders who prioritized morality had higher performing organizations with less turnover and that their employees were more creative, proactive, engaged, and satisfied.
“Over and over again, our research found that followers perceived ethical leaders as more effective and trusted, and those leaders enjoyed greater personal well-being than managers with questionable morality,” says study coauthor Jim Lemoine, assistant professor of organization and human resources at the University at Buffalo. “The problem is, though, that when we talk about an ‘ethical business leader,’ we’re often not talking about the same person.”
 

The study appears in the journal Academy of Management Annals.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder?

Lemoine says prior research often treats all forms of moral leadership the same, missing their unique attributes and consequences.

Consider, for example, a company with an opportunity to sell cigarettes in a developing country. One executive would argue the sale is ethical because no norms or rules prohibit it. A servant leader might turn down the deal because of its negative health and environmental impacts. And a third leader, guided by his or her own internal convictions, might choose another course of action entirely.
All three of these leaders are acting morally, Lemoine says, even though they disagree with one another and might even view the others as immoral.

“Morality can be subjective, and how leaders put their own ethics into practice can have massive implications for the effectiveness of their leadership, teams, and organizations,” Lemoine says.
The researchers found a strong sense of morality is positive for leaders and their organizations, increasing performance, engagement, motivation, and other factors—but each specific approach to ethics had slightly different outcomes.
Leaders focused on matching norms and standards are often politically skilled and avoid legal scandals, but may exploit the rules to their own ends, the study showed.

Servant leaders had the strongest results for customer service, community impact, and employees’ work-life balance, but may struggle to manage competing priorities from their stakeholders.
Finally, independent-minded leaders—think of the late John McCain, widely regarded as a maverick steadfast in his personal beliefs—can simultaneously build cultures of innovation and transparency, while potentially frustrating employers who wish they would follow the company line more often.

Gauging leadership's moral compass

So, which moral philosophy is best?
None were consistently better or worse than the others, the study found. Instead, Lemoine says, the trick for leaders is to emphasize the overall importance of morality and its positive impact on profitability, while also defining your specific code of ethics and recognizing your approach may not match those of your organization or followers.
“Morality is a great thing for managers to incorporate into their leadership styles,” Lemoine says. “But just because we consider something ‘moral,’ we can’t assume everyone else sees it that way. It’s important for leaders and organizations to get these differences out in the open and discuss them to avoid future misunderstandings and misconceptions.”
Researchers from Georgia State University and Erasmus University also contributed to this study.

Article source : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/successful-leaders-prioritize-their-moral-compass

--------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. Who was percieved as a good leader in your memory?

Q2. What is the basic requirement to be a good leader?

Q3. Are you a leader or a follower? Why?

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

'My only sin is the extrajudicial killings' admits Philippines' Duterte 

Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippine president, has admitted for the first time that extrajudicial killings have taken place during his government’s bloody crackdown on drugs, fuelling existing demands from rights groups for an international probe. 

Mr Duterte, who is known for his provocative, expletive-ridden statements, made his surprise confession on Thursday while speaking to government officials at the presidential palace when he said he had challenged the military to remove him if they were not satisfied with his leadership.

“I told the military, what is my fault? Did I steal even one peso?” Mr. Duterte said. “My only sin is the extrajudicial killings.”

The controversial president has pledged in the past to protect police officers who kill in the line of duty, but he has always denied claims that thousands of deaths during the country’s ongoing war on drugs have been state-sponsored.

His most recent outburst has added credibility to investigations by human rights groups that allege small-time drugs users and peddlers have been targetted in an orchestrated killing spree.

According to official statistics, 4,500 people have been killed by the police during anti-drugs operations, but some estimates by rights activists claim the actual death toll is hovering around 12,000.

Harry Roque, Mr Duterte’s spokesman, quickly clarified that the president was “not serious” and was only being “playful” but his denial did not quell further calls for the International Criminal Court to investigate.

Two criminal complaints against the president have already been filed with the court, which is based in the Hague.

In February, the ICC announced it was launching a “preliminary examination” of whether crimes against humanity had been committed in the war on drugs.

The decision prompted an infuriated Mr Duterte to declare he would withdraw the Philippines from the Rome Statute, the treaty underpinning the court. 

“This apparent admission by the president himself highlights the urgent need for international investigations into the thousands of killings and other human rights violations committed in the name of the government’s ‘war on drugs’,” said Minar Pimple, Senior Director for Global Operations at Amnesty International.

“This ‘playful’ comment is a grotesque cruelty at best, and a damning indictment of his government’s murderous campaign at worst. This is no time to be ‘playful’: the killings have to stop,” he said.

Agnes Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, slammed Mr Duterte’s remarks on Twitter.

“Extraordinary statement by a Head of State (and we have had many this week at the UN): my “only” sin is #EJK. Translation: my only sin is imposing unthinkable sufferings on 1000s of vulnerable families, emboldening corrupt policing, destroying rule of law,” she said.

Ms Callamard and President Duterte have previously clashed over her criticisms of drugs war deaths, especially those of minors, and over her attempts to investigate.

Mr Duterte sparked outrage last year by threatening to slap her if she did.   

Article source : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/28/sin-extrajudicial-killings-admits-philippines-duterte/

--------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. What do you think of Rodrigo Duterte?

Q2. What do you think of President Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs?

Q3. What is worse between corruted politician and drug dealer? 

Q4. Do you know anyone who is corruped around you? 

--------------------------------------

Political Corruption Affects Real People

11/29/2013 07:23 EST | Updated 01/29/2014 00:59 EST

Akaash Maharaj / CEO, Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption

Every year, political corruption kills as many as 140,000 children worldwide, by depriving them of medical care, food, and water.

Yet, far too often, the perpetrators of the most outrageous acts of corruption are able to use their illicit wealth and power to pervert the very laws and institutions that should call them to account. As a result, the worst offenders are the least likely to face domestic justice.

In such cases, when national authorities are unwilling or unable to act, the international community has a responsibility to step forward.

In February, seven hundred parliamentarians from across the world came together in Manila, and voted unanimously to seek to establish "grand corruption" as a crime at international law, to enable international institutions to pursue, apprehend, prosecute, judge, and ultimately sentence the guilty.

Our alliance of parliamentarians believes that there are some forms of corruption so grave, whose effects on human life, human dignity, and human rights are so catastrophic, that they should shock the conscience of the international community and mobilize the will of nations to act across borders.

To give effect to this belief, we are presenting four options to the global community of parliamentarians at this week's Conference of States Parties to the UN Convention Against Corruption, being held in Panama City. Each option has its advantages and its disadvantages, and each strikes a different balance between the ideal and the possible.

The first option is to expand the ability of national courts to assert universal jurisdiction over grand corruption. The doctrine of universality asserts that some crimes are so egregious that they are an affront to all humanity and are therefore prosecutable by any state, irrespective of where the crime was committed and irrespective of the accused's nationality or place of residence. The Spanish courts' indictment of the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet demonstrated universal jurisdiction's powerful reach; their inability to bring him to trial exposed the doctrine's frequently feeble grasp.

The second option is to make use of existing regional courts in Africa, Europe, and Latin America to prosecute grand corruption. Regional courts tend to enjoy greater credibility and standing in their subscribing states than do global institutions; they also tend to be derided for a timorous unwillingness to apply the powers at their disposal.

The third option is to argue for an expansive interpretation of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and to deem grand corruption to be a Crime Against Humanity. The symbolism of the ICC as a global court of last resort and ultimate justice has captured public imagination; the reality of its resources and its record have never soared to equal heights.

The fourth option is a series of legal innovations, involving both criminal and civil instruments, many of which focus on undoing damages to victims rather than on punishing wrongdoers. Making victims whole is one of the key objectives of any system of justice, but victims are unlikely to feel that justice has been served while their victimizers walk free.
Each option is imperfect, but in an imperfect world, success must be measured not by our ability to attain perfection, but instead by our ability to make tomorrow better than yesterday.

The response of the world's legislators and governments to these options will help decide how our global alliance of parliamentarians will move forward against grand corruption. The journey will be long; the path will be hard. But we would never reach the end if we allowed ourselves to be cowed by the start.
The world is littered with women and men who feed on the misery of entire societies, who have grown fat in their spoils and comfortable in their impunity, sheltering behind national jurisdictions and national institutions that they have been able to twist to their benefit.
But there is a higher law. There is a deeper justice. And we have a responsibility to stand up for it.
Akaash Maharaj is Executive Director of the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption. His personal web site is www.Maharaj.org

Article source : https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/akaash-maharaj/political-corruption_b_4357008.html

--------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. What is the definition of corruption? 

Q2. Do you think what is the most corrupted social phenomenon?

Q3. How does the corruption affect to you?