An icy lack of clemency

Of course, China had the right to execute Akmal Shaikh, under its own judicial system - but it did not need to exercise that right. It was clear that Mr Shaikh was mentally ill but the Chinese, who held him for two years, displayed a flagrant disregard for his mental health. They refused to let him undergo a mental check before executing him. This is utterly unforgivable - especially from a new superpower.

Perhaps there is a feeling that the Chinese authorities refused to show clemency because they wanted to seem strong in the face of international condemnation. They wanted to show that they would stand by their judicial system and not appease interational diplomatic pressure. There is a strong sense that in this case, the authorities were not directly considering the case at hand, but making an audacious statement that China will not bow to international pressure.

However, regardless of this case, there is a serious need for reform in China. Even if they do not acknowledge that Mr Shaikh's human rights were flagrantly disregarded, they cannot hide from their abominable human rights record.

Britain's Achilles' Heels

It is a depressing thought: billions have been splurged on a myriad of anti-terrorism measures overseas and domestically - yet we have not adquately addressed the dilemma of radicalization in our own backyard. This is our Achilles' heels. All other measures are rendered futile if we do not tackle the problem of alienated young people groomed by radicals.

The Christmas Day airline bomb plot suspect was one of those targeted. He studied in UCL, London and was presumably taken advantage of and brainwashed. A 23 year-old graduate was just a few seconds away from killing hundreds.

This underlines a deeper problem in our society. If educated young people are susceptible to radicalisation in the heart of London, there a grave problem. We must not allow these people to have such easy access to impressionable young people.

RBS bonuses: a necessary evil.

RBS and the Treasury have reached an impasse, with key executives threatening to quit if their bonuses are capped.

Last year, when RBS sunk, the government had two options: let it sink and risk a 1930s-style Depression or face "moral hazard." They were tossing a two-headed coin when tails was being demanded - an invidious position.

Now, comes the question about bonuses. It is the widespread belief that it is utterly immoral to fill the pockets of the executives when the rest bear the brunt of the recession - even more so when the taxpayer kept RBS afloat.

Nevertheless, however vehementely we disagree with bonuses in such a sombre period, it is in our interests. RBS needs to remain competitive. 84% of the bank is state-owned, and thus, if the bank is to return our money in the long-term, they must be competitive. This will not happen if the Treasury meddles with their bonuses: those at the top will leave and the bank will crumble. They will go to the other top four banks - exactly what the government do not want. So although we despise bonuses, it would be counter-productive to cap them.

However, that does not mean to say that bonuses by its very nature is a good thing. That would be grossly wrong. The insidious culture of bonuses needs to be reformed - but that cannot be achieved by targeting one bank by itself - the whole system needs to be changed collectively.