Global citizenship and ethical leadership, for me, come down to working carefully, being answerable, and fixing course when the facts or the people affected point another way. 

At UCL, I was reading everything I could and comparing claims. That forced simple habits: note what the evidence really supports, flag where it doesn’t, and avoid stretching results to fit a neat story. The point wasn’t style; it was accuracy and being clear about limits.

Presenting at Columbia pushed the same discipline in public. I tried to state what would change my mind, separate disagreements about facts from differences in values, and answer plainly. Listening first made the discussion shorter and better.

Working with the Hong Kong Society for the Deaf made clarity non-negotiable. I learned to cut jargon—if a sentence needed decoding, it failed. We rewrote guides in plain language, tested them with families, and kept examples concrete so the materials were easy to use.

From the Oxford Character Project I kept a few routines that hold this together: ask someone to challenge the plan and track both visible and unseen work so credit and responsibility are shared. I’ll keep applying these habits—write a brief plan, explain choices in plain speech, and build with users from the start. That’s my working version of global citizenship and ethical leadership: less talk, more steady practice.