Independence

There exist many major differences of the U.S. and British constitutions. The United States Constitution and the British Constitution contain dissimilarities for the reasons that are due to their originations, background, context, and intent. These differences are apparent in the society and political setting in which both countries respectively have. The constitutions do contain a few simple principles in common. Among these similarities is the need for a government to respect the individual rights of its citizens. The differences are evident in many of the works that influenced the constitutions before its creation.

The Magna Carta is a document that served as a milestone in the British Constitution. King John of England forcefully signed the Magna Carta in 1215. His barons were angered about how he was ruling the people, so they forced him to sign the charter. The Virginia State Constitution of 1776 was the first state Declaration of Rights ratified by its citizens, unlike the Magna Carta. It had a large effect on the creation of the United States Constitution.

In the Magna Carta, the government was based on the Rule of Law. In the Virginia Constitution, the power derived from the citizens and kept by the citizens. The Magna Carta was the first document in England to limit the power of a single ruler. It gave the people the protection from imprisonment or punishment without proper lawful judgment of peers and by the law of the land. These ideas were later a part of the American Constitution. In that instance, the judgment of peers did not mean trial by jury. Within the Virginia Constitution, trial by jury was an included right of the citizens. The protection of basic rights of nobility was included in the Magna Carta.

In the Virginia Constitution, all men are created equal with basic rights of life, liberty, property, happiness, and safety. The Magna Carta contained the idea of a government based on agreement or contract between a ruler and the governed was instituted. The King was also prohibited to tax the citizens without their consent. These two ideas were more defined and became a part of the American Constitution by way of the given ability of the people to abolish their government, and prohibit acts without the consent of the citizens.

The English and the Americans developed a Bill of Rights separately. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 was developed as a resolution to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The Bill was enacted by the new King William and Queen Mary, as a condition of their title. The United States Bill of Rights is an addition to the Constitution. It was ratified in 1791. It was added to calm objections about how the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights. The English Bill of Rights, hereafter referred to as the Declaration of Rights, was ratified by Parliament. The citizens of the country ratified the American Bill of Rights.

The Declaration of Rights was created to limit the power of the monarchy and empower the Parliament. The empowering of the legislative body of government was retained by the United States Constitution in order to empower the citizens right of consent. The Bill of Rights prohibited the Federal government from violating individual rights and insures protection of those rights. The Declaration of Rights also made the Parliament the power fullest body in the government. In the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the people hold the powers of decision, and the three branches of government are equally empowered.

The constitutions themselves have a few differences. The English Constitution did not exist before the creation of the government. The United States Constitution was the basis for creation of the United States. The English Constitution is not a single document but a set of laws, acts of Parliament, and political customs. The United States Constitution is a single document of laws, powers, etc. All the documents that make up the British Constitution were created in times of great conflict, while, the American Constitution was created at a time of relative peace in order to retain peace in the nation.

So stipulated are the differences between the English and American Constitutions. It is apparent that these differences are associated with the differences of the people, times, and reason for creation. Yet, with all the differences between the two, a sense of similarity remains. The citizens need for their rights above everything.

Intentional collusion of auditors and their clients is is not the major cause of Audit integrity. Most of the times, auditors find it difficult to become objective. In 1992, Phar-Mor, Inc. drugstore in the United States seeking a court protection from corruption failed a court case. The previous auditors, Coopers & Lybrand, Phar-Mor’s failed to state inventory inflation and manipulation of finanicial that lead to overstating of $985 million earnings in a period of three years. The judges found Coopers ; Lybrand answerable for fraud to the joint investors.

The attorney for one investor argued that “this sends a strong signal to the accounting community that investors take very seriously the role of audited financial statements and rely on them for their integrity. “‘ The investors who successfully sued Coopers & Lybrand contended that Gregory Finerty, the Coopers & Lybrand partner in charge of the Phar-Mor audit, was “hungry for business because he had been passed over for additional profit-sharing in 1988 for failing to sell enough of the firm’s services. “‘ Analysist, argue that Independence of audit was hindered by relationship with the management.

Unjustified certification of financial statement like The Phar-Mor case are of many cases where auditors have been held responsible. Investors in the MiniScribe Corporation maintained that auditors were at least partially responsible for the now-defunct company’s falsified financial statements; at least one jury agreed, holding the auditors liable to investors for $200 million. In the U. S. financial reporting of savings and loan crisis has led to lose of millions of dollars by audit firms settling lawsuits and out-court suits making them collapse.

The accounting profession claim that plaintiffs unjust actions are aimed looking for a convenient “deep pocket” towards recovery of their unplanned business decisions. The accounting profession’s role in financial reporting has experienced low reputation by investors and lenders. How could auditors not see that so many of their savings and loan clients were about to fail? How could a prominent auditing firm with a reputation for integrity overlook such large misstatements in Phar-Max H. Bazerman is the J. Jay Cerber Distinguished Professor of Dispute Resolution and Organizations at the J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University. Kimberly P. Morgan is a certified public accountant and a Ph. D. candidate at the Katz School of Business, University of Pittsburgh. Ceorge F. Loewenstein is professor of economics, department of social and decision sciences, Carnegie Mellon University. First, the auditor-client relationship greatly influences opinions made about financial statement by auditors . Even the most professional auditors find it almost inevitable to maintain independence with the current audit procedures.

Imagine situation where professionals deliberate their duty without prejudice at all times. For example doctors treating patients without expecting salary. Teachers in schools guiding learners selflessly. However, teachers, doctors or judges are motivated by their own gains making them vulnerable to impartial judgments and not necessarily corrupt. Auditing mandated to provide direction to shareholders and stakeholders posses big losses in case it fails to detect malpractice in financial statements preparation. The management hire, mandates and even suck auditors.

Therefore, auditors serve the interests of their employer hence seem bias. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) states in its Code of Professional Ethics: “In the performance of any professional service, a member shall maintain integrity, shall be free of conflicts of interest, and shall not knowingly misrepresent facts or subordinate his or her judgment to others. . . . Members should accept the obligation to act in a way that will serve the public interest, honor the public trust, and demonstrate commitment to professionalism. ‘ The code of ethics acknowledges to some extent compromise on integrity and objectivity of the profession. Several parties including stakeholders, business advisors, lenders and financial institutions depend on financial statements to aid in their decision making. The management strives to maintain the reputation of the company. However, temptation to give over-ambition plans and objectives drive the management to give false information about the financial position of the company. This serves to attract external potential customers and takeholders. Financial reporting suffers from unqualified auditors. Reliability, accuracy and objectivity matter a lot in financial statements. Financial statements investigation requires generally accepted standards in accordance with International Standards of Auditing. Unqualified auditors usually communicate wrong presentations about the truth and fairness of accounting. Furthermore, independence cannot be possible in intellectually. Normally, misstatements occur during presentation as auditors interpret the data.

Accidentally, false judgment enters the audit reporting without conscience. In the process of reporting and analyzing financial statements false information may be relayed as well. One’s role in presentation of information plays a vital role in terms perception, interests and preference. This subjective factors manipulate facts altering fairness and justice. Inaccurate interpretation of data leads to misleading conclusions. People fall into the trap of distinguishing between personal interests and morality.

The rewards participants get in the exercise expose them to difficulty in liberating themselves from bias. In many circumstances, auditors consider the people who might be hurt by their independent opinion on the financial statement. The potential people to be affected by the report may be close associates with the audit. This may make them give false verdict about the fairness of the statements. On the other hand pointing misstatement ruins close relationships and in the event lose friends, contract and employment.

Auditors reappointed periodically get used to the company’s mediocre in preparation of financial statements. In the event auditors ignore small errors and frauds in the institution. Auditor often adjusts statements reporting. People mislead to rationalize a judgment that is consistent with their own interest. People justify their inaccuracy and one sided judgment about balances through manipulation of data. Serious sanctions and even hefty charges may result. On the contrary, emerging trends auditing promotes independence in the current world.

First, competitiveness increase in audit firms. Also dire results of losing a client and increased advantages of cordial relations with the client. Competitiveness Previously, junior auditors basic wage rate were at a ratio of four times the cost of the employee. Nowadays when a firm engages in corrupt reporting this amount may fall. In highly competitive markets, audit firms often accept losses audit fees in the initial years in order to “buy” the company. The client may be retained for a longer period by accepting heavily discounted fees.

In the current period audit firms treat clients with great regard. Today, clients can be lured intensified competition among audit firms takes place within and without. These rules of audit business and implications in market share determine profits and even effects of losing a client in a negative audit. . Second, big partnerships such as tax and consulting firms grow rapidly due to audit. Not only do the auditing profession generate profit but also serves as a consultancy agency. In many cases, a Firm’s audit client gets consultancy services from the same firm.

Notably, the consulting client benefits a lot from the consultancy than from the audit. Therefore, the views about the accounts also poses a risk on the consultancy service. On the same vein, the integrity of the reporting can be at risk too. Actually, involvement in both consultancy and audit further posses questions on whom the auditor is accountable to and working For. Focused on the obvious conflict of fulfilling responsibility to external users versus the financial benefits of pleasing the client.

This conflict is typically viewed as a moral trade-of f on the auditors Face. The larger problem, however, is not with the auditors’ morality, but with limitations in the way that they process information. Thus independence remains a problem For even the most moral, honest auditor. Despite the auditors’ best efforts to place the external users’ interests For the above the client’s and to maintain objectivity, they may be unable to overcome cognitive or psychological biases that make them arrive at marginal decisions in the client’s favor.

The larger problem facing society is that there is good reason to believe that auditors will unknowingly misrepresent facts and will unknowingly subordinate their judgment due to cognitive limitations. While audits are done for external criitics, the negotiated relationship between the auditor and the client creates them. Both the auditor and the client benefit From auditors’ self-serving bias. We believe that the auditing profession and external users of financial statements should actively seek fundamental changes in the current structure of the auditing relationship.

Observers of the profession have suggested various possibilities, such as prohibiting a firm that conducts a company’s audit from simultaneously providing other services for that client, prohibiting audit Firms From providing any related services, having external bodies appoint auditors or set fee structures, requiring companies to periodically change auditors, increasing oversight of auditing practices, or, the most drastic, having governmental agencies rather than the private sector conduct audits.

While we do not know that any of these suggestions would be optimal, we believe we have made a convincing case for reform of the current auditing relationship. External users pay a huge price for the flaws in the current structure of audit.

Work Cited

1. Adapted from M. Murray, “Coopers & Lybrand Is Found Liable by Jury to Investors,” Wall Street Journal, 15 February 1996, p. A-8.
2. Adapted from M. Pitz, “J’-‘O’ Finds Phar-Mor s Auditors Negligent,” Pittsburgh Post-Cazette, 15 February 1996, pp. A1-A6.
3.  American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Code of Professional Ethics, 1988.
4. W . Burger, U. S. Supreme Court: 1984, United States v. Arthur Young & Co. , US Supreme Court Reports, IG April 1984, 79 L Ed 2d, 826-838.
5.  J. C. Robertson, /! W/>/>/g-(Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, 1990).
6. E. Waples and M. K. Shaub, “Establishing an Ethic of Accounting,” Joumalof Business Ethics, volume 10, 1991, pp. 385-393.
7. C. E. Jordan and J. G. Johnston, “Auditor s Independence: A Proposal to the Profession and the Public,” The Woman CPA, volume 49, July 1987, pp. 3-9.
8.  D. M. Messick and K. P. Sentis, “Fairness and Preference,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychologf, volume 15, 1979, pp. AMi-A’iA.
9. K. A. Diekmann, S. M. Samuels, L. Ross, and M. H . Bazerman, “Self-interest and Fairness in Problems of Resource Allocation,”/O;»7M/ of Personality and Social Psychology (in press).
10. D. M. Messick, “Equality, Fairness, and Social Conflict,” Social Justice Research, voune 8, 1995, pp. 153-173; and D. M. Messick and A. E. Tenbrunsel, eds.. Codes of Conduct {New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1996).
11.  L. Thompson and C . Loewenstein, “Egocentric Interpretations of Fairness and Interpersonal Conflict,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, volume 51,1992 , pp. 176-197; C . Loewenstein, S. IssacharofF, C. Camerer, and L. Babcock, “Self- Serving Assessments of Fairness and Pretrial Bargaining,” Journal of Legal Studies, oV vtll, 1993, pp. 135-159; L. Babcock, G. Loewenstein, S. Issacharoff, and C. Camerer, “Biased Judgments of Fairness in Bargaining,” American Economic Review, volume 85, December 1995, pp. 1337-1342.
12. K. Jenni and G. Loewenstein, “Explaining the Identifiable Victim Effect,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (forthcoming, 1997); D. M. Messick, and M. H . Bazerman, “Ethical Leadership and the Psychology of Decision Making,” Sloan Management Review, volume 37, Winter 1996, pp. 9-22; and L. Babcock and G. Loewenstein, “Explaining Bargaining Impasse: Th e Role of Self-Serving Biases,” Journal of Economic Perspectives (in press).
13. SeeG. Loewenstein andj . Elster, Choiceove>- 7/>H(? (New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press, 1992); G. Loewenstein, “Behavioral Decision Theory and Business Ethics: Skewed Ttade-offs between Self and Other,” in Messick and Tenbrunsel (1996).
14. See J. C. Corless, R. W. Bardett, and R. J. Seglund, “Psychological Factors Affecting Auditor Independence,” The Ohio CPA Journal, volume 49, Spring 1990, pp. 5-9. Reprint 3848

QUAID-E-AZAM’S LIFE AFTER THE INDEPENDENCE GOVERNOR-GENERAL: Jinnah became the first Governor-General of Pakistan and president of its constituent assembly. Inaugurating the assembly on August 11, 1947, Jinnah spoke of an inclusive and pluralist democracy promising equal rights for all citizens regardless of religion, caste or creed. This address is a cause of much debate in Pakistan as, on its basis, many claim that Jinnah wanted a secular state while supporters of Islamic Pakistan assert that this speech is being taken out of context when compared to other speeches by him.

We should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play. The office of Governor-General was ceremonial, but Jinnah also assumed the lead of government. The first months of Pakistan’s independence were absorbed in ending the intense violence that had arisen in the wake of acrimony between Hindus and Muslims. Jinnah agreed with Indian leaders to uthoriz a swift and secure exchange of populations in the Punjab and Bengal.

He visited the border regions with Indian leaders to calm people and encourage peace, and uthorize large-scale refugee camps. Despite these efforts, estimates on the death toll vary from around two hundred thousand, to over a million people. The estimated number of refugees in both countries exceeds 15 million. The then capital city of Karachi saw an explosive increase in its population owing to the large encampments of refugees, which personally affected and depressed Jinnah.

In his first visit to East Pakistan, under the advice of local party leaders, Jinnah stressed that Urdu alone should be the national language; a policy that was strongly opposed by the Bengali people of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). This opposition grew after he controversially described Bengali as the language of Hindus. Jinnah uthorized force to achieve the annexation of the princely state of Kalat and suppress the insurgency in Baluchistan.

He controversially accepted the accession of Junagadh—a Hindu-majority state with a Muslim ruler located in the Saurashtra peninsula, some 400 kilometres (250 mi) southeast of Pakistan—but this was annulled by Indian intervention. It is unclear if Jinnah planned or knew of the tribal invasion from Pakistan into the kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir in October 1947, but he did send his private secretary Khurshid Ahmed to observe developments in Kashmir.

When informed of Kashmir’s accession to India, Jinnah deemed the accession illegitimate and ordered the Pakistani army to enter Kashmir. However, Gen. Auchinleck, the supreme commander of all British officers informed Jinnah that while India had the right to send troops to Kashmir, which had acceded to it, Pakistan did not. If Jinnah persisted, Auchinleck would remove all British officers from both sides. As Pakistan had a greater proportion of Britons holding senior command, Jinnah cancelled his order, but protested to the United Nations to intercede. The New Awakening

As a result of Jinnah’s ceaseless efforts, the Muslims awakened from what Professor Baker calls (their) “unreflective silence” (in which they had so complacently basked for long decades), and to “the spiritual essence of nationality” that had existed among them for a pretty long time. Roused by the impact of successive Congress hammerings, the Muslims, as Ambedkar (principal author of independent India’s Constitution) says, “searched their social consciousness in a desperate attempt to find coherent and meaningful articulation to their cherished yearnings.

To their great relief, they discovered that their sentiments of nationality had flamed into nationalism”. In addition, not only had they developed” the will to live as a “nation”, had also endowed them with a territory which they could occupy and make a State as well as a cultural home for the newly discovered nation. These two pre-requisites, as laid down by Renan, provided the Muslims with the intellectual justification for claiming a distinct nationalism (apart from Indian or Hindu nationalism) for themselves.

So that when, after their long pause, the Muslims gave expression to their innermost yearnings, these turned out to be in favor of a separate Muslim nationhood and of a separate Muslim state. Demand for Pakistan – “We are a nation” “We are a nation”, they claimed in the ever eloquent words of the Quaid-i-Azam. “We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral code, customs and calendar, history and tradition, aptitudes and ambitions; in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life.

By all canons of international law, we are a nation”. The formulation of the Muslim demand for Pakistan in 1940 had a tremendous impact on the nature and course of Indian politics. On the one hand, it shattered for ever the Hindu dreams of a pseudo-Indian, in fact, Hindu empire on British exit from India: on the other, it heralded an era of Islamic renaissance and creativity in which the Indian Muslims were to be active participants. The Hindu reaction was quick, bitter, malicious.

Equally hostile were the British to the Muslim demand, their hostility having stemmed from their belief that the unity of India was their main achievement and their foremost contribution. The irony was that both the Hindus and the British had not anticipated the astonishingly tremendous response that the Pakistan demand had elicited from the Muslim masses. Above all, they failed to realize how a hundred million people had suddenly become supremely conscious of their distinct nationhood and their high destiny.

In channelling the course of Muslim politics towards Pakistan, no less than in directing it towards its consummation in the establishment of Pakistan in 1947, non played a more decisive role than did Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. It was his powerful advocacy of the case of Pakistan and his remarkable strategy in the delicate negotiations, that followed the formulation of the Pakistan demand, particularly in the post-war period, that made Pakistan inevitable. ILLNESS AND DEATH: The Funeral of Jinnah in 1948. Tomb of M. A.

Jinnah in Karachi, Pakistan Through the 1940s, Jinnah suffered from tuberculosis; only his sister and a few others close to him were aware of his condition. In 1948, Jinnah’s health began to falter, hindered further by the heavy workload that had fallen upon him following Pakistan’s independence from British Rule. Attempting to recuperate, he spent many months at his official retreat in Ziarat. According to his sister, he suffered a hemorrhage on September 1, 1948; doctors said the altitude was not good for him and that he should be taken to Karachi. Jinnah was flown back to Karachi from Quetta.

Jinnah died at 10:20 p. m. at the Governor-General’s House in Karachi on 11 September 1948, just over a year after Pakistan’s independence. It is said that when the then Viceroy of India, Lord Louis Mountbatten, learned of Jinnah’s ailment he said ‘had they known that Jinnah was about to die, they’d have postponed India’s independence by a few months as he was being inflexible on Pakistan’. Jinnah was buried in Karachi. His funeral was followed by the construction of a massive mausoleum—Dina Wadia remained in India after independence, before ultimately settling in New York City.

Jinnah’s grandson, Nusli Wadia, is a prominent industrialist residing in Mumbai. In the 1963–1964 elections, Jinnah’s sister Fatima Jinnah, known as Madar-e-Millat (“Mother of the Nation”), became the presidential candidate of a coalition of political parties that opposed the rule of President Ayub Khan, but lost the election. The Jinnah House in Malabar Hill, Bombay, is in the possession of the Government of India but the issue of its ownership has been disputed by the Government of Pakistan.

Jinnah had personally requested Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to preserve the house and that one day he could return to Mumbai. There are proposals for the house be offered to the Government of Pakistan to establish a consulate in the city, as a goodwill gesture, but Dina Wadia has also laid claim to the property. Recently she has been involved in litigation regarding Jinnah House claiming that Hindu Law is applicable to Jinnah as he was a Khoja Shia. LEGACY: Few individuals significantly alter the course of history.

Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Muhammad Ali Jinnah did all three. Pakistanis view Jinnah as their revered founding father, a man that was dedicated to safeguarding Muslim interests during the dying days of the British Raj. Despite any of a range of biases, it almost impossible to doubt, despite motive and manner, that there is any figure that had more influence and role in the creation of Pakistan than Jinnah. The End

Independence of Student in University Life “Away from home”, a rather simple and common phrase that is no stranger to most of the university students whom are studying overseas. Since young, as a child, we were living under the shades of our parents, handled with care in their hands. For them, we are as precious as diamonds, being protected under their wings and not knowing how the world look like because everything had been done for us by the love of our parents. Even when problem strikes, parents will definitely be the first to stand up for us and solve these difficulties without having us as children worry about it.

Most of us are growing up in this protected environment; we are almost immune from the threats of the world. Bad news is, one day, you will have to leave that comfort zone and explore what the world has for you. That day will come when students are at the age of extending their studies in the overseas. No matter which university they are going, they would not be able to bring their parents along. They will have to learn to be independent and know how to take care of themselves. It is a journey of life which most of us have to go through.

Some may say that university life is a sign of torture because you are leaving your love ones behind, but mostly it is a process of life that helps gain our confidence towards society and letting us be independent and responsible. Many find it hard to achieve independence because most are raised in a perfect environment, which our parents have kindly built for us. Being independent is where you must have self-confident and such belief in yourself that you can achieve anything you have intent to get.

Some people are emotionally dependent to their parents. Well, it is not a fault to depend on your parents because they will never steer you wrong and they love you very much. However, sooner or later, you will realize that they will not be there forever whenever you need them because “flower withers and human perishes”, one must not become overly attached or dependent on their parents but instead exercise self-contained and self-sufficient. Being independent does not mean that you have to abandon your friends and family and draw a line in between.

You will still need someone to talk to during tough times and solve issues that you could not settle on your own. Parents and friends are the pillars that support you, even if they could not help you, they will certainly lend you listening ears, to hear you out whenever you need someone. This is normal as we are only human. As students walk into the world, they will face new things that they had never exposed to. Since they are the “newbies” of the world, it will be difficult for them to differentiate what is right and what is wrong, they will tend to try anything that seems new to them out of curiosity.

Therefore, these overseas students must be strong in their stands and not easily swayed by negative activities such as smoking, drugs, vandalism and so on. The activities that they are participating now will definitely be an influence to their future. A wrong step might lead to a narrow or dim future. At this point, it will be the time to reap what our parents have sown into us – to see how much we have absorbed from their teaching and hopefully the roots of it grows deep in us to avoid temptations of life.

In order to allow readers to visualize the big picture more clearly, I had personally interviewed 2 students whom are around school leaving age. A hospitality student, Clement Chai, whom is currently 19 years old stated that, “Well, before coming over to Singapore, my parents already taught me day by day on how to be independent. Basically living with them is already preparing me to live independently”. Another student that I had interviewed was a Korean student, Yee Won Chan. The 18-year-old enthusiastically mentioned that, “In such a modern country like Korea, I helped myself to be very independent by learning and memorizing directions.

This has helped me a lot whenever I went overseas. I would never miss my school bus as I would always use the right road to get to the bus station and memorizing would always get me back home before the last train. I wouldn’t stress myself too much as I know it would only trouble me and so I took things simple and have a simple life at home”. Based on the above interviews, we can determine that learning to be independent is where the parents must learn to let go of their children and letting them make their own decisions as how Clement Chai has stated previously.

This in a way will show the kids that different decisions will lead to different consequences and they will have to learn from it. This is all part of the learning process of being independent. A child has to learn that mum and dad are not going to be always there for you. Hence, at one point, they will have to rely on their own abilities to achieve their own goals and for that to happen, parents need to allow kids to experience the real world that they aren’t always there to fix the problem.

Nevertheless, some people might still live with their parents after finishing university, but university is a step forward which will allow them to learn how to be “on their own” so to say. For example, managing finances, taking care of the car, making sure to have sufficient food and so on. In a nutshell, university is indeed a platform and also a battleground to train students to become more independent. There may be tough times where these students might not be able to have things done on their own. A true testimony will be from me personally, I lived in Kota Kinabalu but for a better study environment, I have to come to Kuala Lumpur.

What strikes me the most is the fear of leaving home. My parents used to do everything for me and I did not know how it is like to be out there in the world. But now when I face problem, there is nobody there anymore to help me out. In this situation, I have learned to be independent, doing my own chores, solving problems, save money, and also cook my own meal. It is not easy doing all these but one thing for sure, this has turn me into a strong girl who is able to face the society with strength and confident.

The American war for Independence was a new revolution that was relevant for various political and social reasons. Due to the changes caused by such revolution, the changes that happened during this event greatly changed the course of American History. In order to fully understand the radical nature of the American Revolution, it is first important to briefly discuss the events during this period. Occurring in the latter half of the 18th century, the American Revolution was the event that allowed the Thirteen (13) Colonies to become the United States of America.

This was also the event that finally granted these colonies the independence that they desired from the British Empire. The American War of Independence or Revolutionary War that ensued from 1775 to 1783 was largely radical in nature because of the fact that it was the first instance that a colony had tried and succeeded to gain independence from the British Empire. One of the key developments resulted from this revolution was the birth and growth of enlightenment philosophy in America.

The influence of this wave of thinking created a certain sect that was opposed to an absolute monarchy, such as that of the British Empire, and instead embraced a new form of government that was revolutionary for its time. The broad intellectual and social paradigm shifts within the colonies introduced new ideas with regard to republican ideals that began to take hold among the members of the colonies. Democracy soon began to play a larger role in the determination of the new government that was going to replace the absolute monarchy.

The steadily expanding role of democracy in government caused the deterioration of traditional social hierarchies that existed. Instead a new ethic was created within the core of American Political values. While the United States was arguably not the first democracy to ever exist, the neo-classical model that arose during this time was largely unheard of in other parts of the world, particularly from a British Colony.

These social and political changes greatly impacted the way that the world saw the Americas from that point on. As the birthplace of modern democracy as the world now recognizes it, the United States of America soon became the symbol of world democracy. The birth of new ideas with regard to government, representation and social class were all altered by this event. It was so influential that it became the foundation of the American Constitution and the reason why the United States will always be known as the land of the free.