Originally hailing from Malaysia, I am currently a third year law student at the University of Warwick. My unorthodox introduction to the world of diplomacy started in primary school when I debunked the “propaganda” during my civic studies classes where demoting statements are often made in order to highlight the superiority of Malaysia relative to other nations. Through a travel documentary which showed contradictory images to the narratives that I received in school, it has planted the seed of interest within me to always be critical and to be aware and alert about the possibilities beyond my comfort zone.

Fast forward to the present, I have trekked across 63 countries and territories across all six continents, and lived in three countries. An observation that I have made is that entropy is a law of nature. Despite the inevitability of being immune to the forces of nature, humanity and human activities with its social constructs have often aspired and sought to delay the effects of disorder in their society. This can be noticed where even in the most stable of country, conflict is inevitable, whilst even in the most conflict-ridden country, normalcy will find its way of manifesting itself.

That being said, the greatest threat of humanity as I perceive it is the blindness caused by expectations deriving itself from what is perceived as being politically correct and the “accepted” norm. Plurality is not only sanctioned in the mainstream understanding in the form of systematic oppression. The explosion of a globalised world manifested in forms of activism and leadership towards an ideal universalism in its growing militarism in light of perceived growing disparity between the “governor” and “governed” de facto creates a new stratum of society of which due to its young demography and increasing control over the digital resources and narratives can be a possible sanctioning of effective pluralism where alternative realities are simply left out and conflicting interests and narratives being deemed heretic.

Hence, my involvement as an ambassador for Global Peace Chain and as a global citizen in general involves that of a counter-identity towards the ecstatic embracement of “universalism” through an essentialist approach. I seek to approach globalisation from a “glocalised” context where through interacting with individuals, I seek to better appreciate the intersectionalities which encompasses the complexity of humanity that sometimes do not need a solution, but merely an acknowledgement through solidarity and communication. Through there, I aspire to advocate for a less emotional reaction towards the perceived “emergencies” of the world but instead embrace one that is more realistic. The theme of “peace” interests me the most as its contextualisation is often one that is controversial as it involves that of lives, which under the current rights-based discourse is one that is granted on a high pedestal. However, the fallacy of “peace” discourse lies in the perception that it is an attainable end which can be qualified or quantified. As mentioned above, entropy is the law of nature and the default position of nature is one of disorderedness Where there is human interaction, by the virtue of our possession of emotions, conflicts will arise and is a mere consequence of the imperfect perfection of the human condition. Therefore, I frame “peace” not as one that envisions the absence of conflicts, but instead one as being sensitive towards the management of conflicts. The nature of the conflicts mentioned in the contemporary context does not necessarily require the involvement of casualties to be qualified as such. Taking the recent killing of George Floyd, social media is flooded with messages and posts in solidarity of the #BlackLivesMatter movement. The tone of language used is one that is dismissive and one that seeks to polarise the world into those who are “wake” and are in support of the movement which means all-out support and radical approach in speaking out. Those who do not agree or join in were given an ultimatum of alienation should they do not agree on such movement. Personally, I have approached the whole social media sensation with great scepticism and cynicism as that to me is counter-intuitive to the creation of peace. Through shutting off alternative means of justice and articulation of the given problem, it has allowed the egoism to flourish under essentialism which leads to more conflict, further reinforcing and consolidating the disorder within a society. Hence, my personal approach to peace will be one that non-emotional but internal, where instead of trivial publicity online, one should be engaged in the acknowledgement (but not condoning) of the constraints of humanity, and though there have better meta-cognitive skills in analysing the notions of peace and conflict within a binary classification method, and to address the intersectionalities involving that of power and individuality.