Essay topic "Democracy creates stability in a society"
In my opinion, Democracy creates stability in a society. Politically, all parties in the representative democracy can have a fair and equal chance to campaign for the votes of the population. Individuals can vote for the government that will implement the policies, or challenge the government. Democracy allows this kind of freedom in the area of politics, giving people a chance to express themselves results in less complaints about the government, and in turn creates stability as less are unhappy. In Singapore, new parties can be founded or supported to challenge the government.
Socially, as democracy means that the majority wins, the country becomes more stable with the majority backing, as the leader would be met with less resistance when he proposes something; he was after all elected by the majority. There would be less uproar, as the majority has probably been satisfied through voting. As such, there would be stability due to less unhappiness, resulting in fewer riots that cause instability due to deaths of innocents.
A strong economy represents economic stability. Democracy allows for investments and economic opportunities in the country, as the government is less likely to hold a dominance over the economy, as this would upset the people. Greater freedom within the economy for people to set up their own businesses provides good opportunities for entrepreneurs and businessmen to invest. Investors are likely to support a country that has less social uproar, as it symbolizes instability. Therefore, political and social stability results in economic stability. Singapore encourages local business, and investors invest money, strengthening Singapore’s economy.
However, politically, voters who are uninterested in the process would not vote seriously, possibly resulting in an inefficient or corrupt party being elected. Also, the voters may be voting for their self-interest instead of what’s best for the country. The government may not be able to appease as many people as possible if everyone were to vote for their own interest or throw their vote away. In Malaysia, many malays would vote for UMNO to get special rights.
Socially, Democracy can result in instability. As the majority indirectly decide on the policies, it is possible for the tyranny of the majority to compromise on the rights of the minority. This would result in the minority being unhappy, even resulting in riots or even internal conflicts. An example is Sri Lanka, when the Tamils were “bullied” by the Singhalese, leading to a civil war.
The economy is dependent on social and political situations. If social and political factors suffer, the economy would suffer due to reasons already stated. Sri Lanka’s economy suffered after there were internal conflicts.
In conclusion, democracy creates stability, as the underlying basis for stability is for the country to be at peace. In today’s world, the UN will detect any problems with abuse of the minority, rarely will the situation growing to the extent of a civil war. When the people are at peace, then the political and economic aspects can flourish.
Word Count: 495
Chia Chen Wei
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
I agree with all the points that Jin Fu, Haozhi and Chester have raised. However, i would like to elaborate more on the last point that Jin Fu has raised. In my opinion, i would not worry about the minority being suppressed to the point that they would start a civil war. Although it has happened before in history, the world is much more globalized these days. If a government is mistreating the minority too much, the other countries would certainly step in to provide mediation. In any case, in my opinion, Sri Lanka is a isolated case, as the races were already having racial tension long before democracy was implemented, although it did cause certain problems.
In singapore's context, the political power is already slowly shifting towards opposition. Although PAP is still holding a monopoly on the votes, many threats are already beginning to appear. Yeah, i agree that there should be a check on the maximum power the majority can hold. If left unchecked, it could potentially be a big problem in facing the minority.
In singapore's context, the political power is already slowly shifting towards opposition. Although PAP is still holding a monopoly on the votes, many threats are already beginning to appear. Yeah, i agree that there should be a check on the maximum power the majority can hold. If left unchecked, it could potentially be a big problem in facing the minority.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
SS Discussion-6
I think we have agreed to a macro view instead of going into micro details. Therefore i feel there is no need to go into further minor case studies all over the world since as mentioned before, different societies has different circumstances.
However before rounding up a discussion, i feel that since we are looking at the strengths of democracy along a general line (citizen's right to freedom of opinion etc.), we should also look at its weakness along the general fields. Since we cannot define society due to its vagueness of conditions, we can weigh the general strengths against the general weakness and therefore come to a conclusion on whether democracy creates stability in societies in general.
So far, to summarize its weaknesses:
1. Popular vote may not be the best vote for the country i.e. Majority is not always right
2. Voters might be biased against the country and more for themselves.
3. Voters may be inadequately informed and ignorant to the full picture, thus making uninformed decisions. ( Could be the dominant force calling the bluffs in act of deceit).
4. Immaturity of voters in democracy, therefore allocating more votes to the better decision makers could prove better, however it goes against equal power of individual vote in democracy. (i.e. the class room setting, whereby the teacher's vote should count more).
5. This is something new i wish to raise. Though democracy allows us to voice out our opinions, it is the majority that wins in the end and the power of the majority could be too overwhelming to an extent the rights of the minority is suppressed, resulting in violent rebellion. (Think Sri Lanka) The decision process is fair since it goes by majority, but there is need for a check-pace, and is opposition really successful in giving that check? (Dominating political party) -Think Singapore, appearing as democratic, but is it really that way?
I think, since we have agreed on the strengths, we should agree on the weakness before coming to a conclusion. Please discuss.
Disclaimer: My use of case studies is not to stabalize the point of view, but to just give a clearer picture of what i am saying.
However before rounding up a discussion, i feel that since we are looking at the strengths of democracy along a general line (citizen's right to freedom of opinion etc.), we should also look at its weakness along the general fields. Since we cannot define society due to its vagueness of conditions, we can weigh the general strengths against the general weakness and therefore come to a conclusion on whether democracy creates stability in societies in general.
So far, to summarize its weaknesses:
1. Popular vote may not be the best vote for the country i.e. Majority is not always right
2. Voters might be biased against the country and more for themselves.
3. Voters may be inadequately informed and ignorant to the full picture, thus making uninformed decisions. ( Could be the dominant force calling the bluffs in act of deceit).
4. Immaturity of voters in democracy, therefore allocating more votes to the better decision makers could prove better, however it goes against equal power of individual vote in democracy. (i.e. the class room setting, whereby the teacher's vote should count more).
5. This is something new i wish to raise. Though democracy allows us to voice out our opinions, it is the majority that wins in the end and the power of the majority could be too overwhelming to an extent the rights of the minority is suppressed, resulting in violent rebellion. (Think Sri Lanka) The decision process is fair since it goes by majority, but there is need for a check-pace, and is opposition really successful in giving that check? (Dominating political party) -Think Singapore, appearing as democratic, but is it really that way?
I think, since we have agreed on the strengths, we should agree on the weakness before coming to a conclusion. Please discuss.
Disclaimer: My use of case studies is not to stabalize the point of view, but to just give a clearer picture of what i am saying.
SS discussion
I guess we can do away with the possibility of citizens voting for a weak leader due to immaturity. This involves making a major assumption and it is impossible to get majority of the country to focus their votes on an incapable ruler. We should include more examples in our discussion and from the looks of it, our discussion is definitely geared towards supporting the statement: Democracy creates stability in a society.
Haozhi's point number one is indeed a strong backing up for our argument. The system and political ideals are greatly influenced by the citizens and as a result, stability ensues as everyone is appeased and satisfied at the treatment they are receiving and no discrimination is shown as the opinions of every ethnic group is taken into consideration.
Opposition parties act as another one of the important benchmarks. They constantly ensure that the policies are for the good of us citizens and continuously suggest improvement and this is largely beneficial as part of a democratic country thus, allowing the existence of these opposition parties. It would better push the development of our country and speed up its progress.
I think next, we should examine different forms of government or other examples of democracy taking place in countries. It would further bolster our argument greatly by providing examples and currently, our stand is quite strong through the various rebuttal of chen wei's points which are against democracy.
Representative democracy present in the parliament is inevitable to ensure tongues do not wag in the country. Ultimately, we still practise democracy and take into account the key factor of democracy's success which is freedom of expression. However, there is a limit as well and negative ideas should not be voiced out as they do not pose any benefits towards our country. We should not conclude the argument yet but examine more case studies and bolster the strength and cogency of our argument.
Chester Yan (5)
3B
Haozhi's point number one is indeed a strong backing up for our argument. The system and political ideals are greatly influenced by the citizens and as a result, stability ensues as everyone is appeased and satisfied at the treatment they are receiving and no discrimination is shown as the opinions of every ethnic group is taken into consideration.
Opposition parties act as another one of the important benchmarks. They constantly ensure that the policies are for the good of us citizens and continuously suggest improvement and this is largely beneficial as part of a democratic country thus, allowing the existence of these opposition parties. It would better push the development of our country and speed up its progress.
I think next, we should examine different forms of government or other examples of democracy taking place in countries. It would further bolster our argument greatly by providing examples and currently, our stand is quite strong through the various rebuttal of chen wei's points which are against democracy.
Representative democracy present in the parliament is inevitable to ensure tongues do not wag in the country. Ultimately, we still practise democracy and take into account the key factor of democracy's success which is freedom of expression. However, there is a limit as well and negative ideas should not be voiced out as they do not pose any benefits towards our country. We should not conclude the argument yet but examine more case studies and bolster the strength and cogency of our argument.
Chester Yan (5)
3B
Blog Discussion Concluding Ideas
hmm, after reading all the various points of view and stated reason, it is evidently clear that our group members are for the idea of that democracy do bring about stability in societies.
Below are some of the points we have raised.
1) Stability is brought forth as the ruling government has the backing and support of majority of the people
2) In a democratic nation, there would be opposition parties, which serve as a check and balance, and in turn spur for the development of the country
3) In a democratic nation, the freedom to voice out opinions are more emphasized which rules out/minimize the social hierachy or the discrimination of a race
4) as most democratic nation, there would be representatives permanently in the parliment to make sure that their ethnic/religious groups righs are not protected, that would be somewhat touching on the idea of representative democracy
However certain points of contention would be the fact that Democracy is unable to be implemented as 'transparently' and as 'freely' in certain societies, as chen wei has previously brought up.
Although this may be true, but we would be pin pointing specific examples and groups, but we would fail to see the big picture of what the question is asking, which is whether democracy creates stability in societies generally. As such, i would still agree that democracy does bring forth stability.
Another point of contention would be the fact that the audience and people would not have the maturity to vote for the right leader, but instead vote another weak leader as a result of perhaps any factor, his good looks as example. However, once again we would be microdiscussing the question and we should perhaps disregard this point of, or place little importance of this.
I am still quite sure that our group's movement of idealogy supports the fact that democracy creates stability in societies? perhaps someone could also conclude the entire argument?
Quek Hao Zhi (21)
3B
Below are some of the points we have raised.
1) Stability is brought forth as the ruling government has the backing and support of majority of the people
2) In a democratic nation, there would be opposition parties, which serve as a check and balance, and in turn spur for the development of the country
3) In a democratic nation, the freedom to voice out opinions are more emphasized which rules out/minimize the social hierachy or the discrimination of a race
4) as most democratic nation, there would be representatives permanently in the parliment to make sure that their ethnic/religious groups righs are not protected, that would be somewhat touching on the idea of representative democracy
However certain points of contention would be the fact that Democracy is unable to be implemented as 'transparently' and as 'freely' in certain societies, as chen wei has previously brought up.
Although this may be true, but we would be pin pointing specific examples and groups, but we would fail to see the big picture of what the question is asking, which is whether democracy creates stability in societies generally. As such, i would still agree that democracy does bring forth stability.
Another point of contention would be the fact that the audience and people would not have the maturity to vote for the right leader, but instead vote another weak leader as a result of perhaps any factor, his good looks as example. However, once again we would be microdiscussing the question and we should perhaps disregard this point of, or place little importance of this.
I am still quite sure that our group's movement of idealogy supports the fact that democracy creates stability in societies? perhaps someone could also conclude the entire argument?
Quek Hao Zhi (21)
3B
I fear that Jin Fu has misunderstood some of the points i was trying to communicate through my previous post. Well, just for clarification, I was trying to view the issue from your point of view, and give my opinion that some ideas that you have expressed was correct. Actually, i was trying to bring across the point that while some democracies may work for a certain situation, we may need to use a different type of democracy in order to effectively confront another situation. On the issue of LKY, i am not saying that he alone brought the change we see in Singapore today. I was saying that Lee Kuan Yew could play the role of the unbiased patriotic leader who chooses potential successors to Singapore because he truly cares about the well-being of Singapore.
However, based on the many examples of societies in the world today, i do agree that the majority of the societies have benefited from having democracy to ensure stability. In my opinion, the benefits of democracy would include economic and military issues, as i stated in my previous post; as governments would strive to bring benefit to all areas of our society in order to keep their popularity.
Chia Chen Wei (7) 3B
However, based on the many examples of societies in the world today, i do agree that the majority of the societies have benefited from having democracy to ensure stability. In my opinion, the benefits of democracy would include economic and military issues, as i stated in my previous post; as governments would strive to bring benefit to all areas of our society in order to keep their popularity.
Chia Chen Wei (7) 3B
Monday, May 19, 2008
SS Discussion-4
Well, i do not understand the sudden change of mind of chen wei. But i would like to raise a few questions. What is the right democracy and what is the wrong democracy? As mentioned in your post. Did LKY not maintain a democratic system or at least make it look like it to gain support? If you are using the singapore context, please look carefully before thinking that dictatorship or a pure naturally talented leader brought us to success, afterall, the PAP was also voted in for popularity.
Now let's not fall into this specific example and stay ontop of specific circumstances. I feel that what we need to debate over is, considering the strengths and weaknesses of democracy, how often/frequent is it successful in societies in creating stability. My stand so far is that it is definitely high.
But then again, we've been arguing purely on social and political stability. Ever ventured into military and economic areas? Furthermore, the point on political stability is kind of vague, pure democracy allows many political parties, will that shake the political foundations of a country?
Jin Fu (14) 3B
Now let's not fall into this specific example and stay ontop of specific circumstances. I feel that what we need to debate over is, considering the strengths and weaknesses of democracy, how often/frequent is it successful in societies in creating stability. My stand so far is that it is definitely high.
But then again, we've been arguing purely on social and political stability. Ever ventured into military and economic areas? Furthermore, the point on political stability is kind of vague, pure democracy allows many political parties, will that shake the political foundations of a country?
Jin Fu (14) 3B
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Just to apply my concept in our local context, I feel that Singapore would be able to benefit from what i have proposed. In our context, that unbiased, patriotic leader could be Lee Kuan Yew. He has given up so much for Singapore, and is known to be a great patriotic man who has achieved international acclaim. However, i do agree with the fact that it may be difficult to find such a man in many other societies of the world. If we are arguing in the context of a general society, it would indeed be difficult for such perfect conditions to appear within a society, the conditions that i have previously mentioned.
I feel that if we are to use democracy in a society, we should choose the correct type of democracy to fit that particular situation. If the wrong type of democracy is chosen, it just might end up in instability.
In previous posts, it is mentioned that Democracy grants free will, which in turn appeases the citizens such that there will not be instability in the country. I feel that it should not be a complete democracy and free will, as certain ideas brought up would potentially danger the country.
Meanwhile, i would like to just propose a few points for why Democracy is acceptable. It is one of the more successful types of government in our modern society. I do agree with Jin Fu's idea that having the majority backing of a policy or the government would greatly help the country in its development. Having the majority backing a policy would ensure that the country would be able to successfully move towards having that policy implemented without much fuss.
It would also be able to ensure stability in the country, as in the worst case scenario, having the minority rebel would of course be better than having the majority turn on the country. It would be easier to appease the minority who are rebelling compared to the majority. As such, democracy would be able to help in the aspect of damage control and stability.
Democracy would also give the people a chance for much freedom in politics. If a person is not pleased with the way the government runs things, he can start his own party and challenge the government for the votes of the people. In this aspect, i feel that democracy creates stability by helping to appease the needs of the citizens, so that they will not complain about having no outlets for freedom. This would solve any possible social and political instabilities.
The party in control of the government would also be pressured to do a good job, lest they get replaced by a new government. They would strive to implement more policies, please the people, improve the country etc. so that people would continue to vote for them. This would ensure a good competitive spirit such that the country would be able to remain competitive globally and not fall into any economic instabillity.
Chia Chen Wei (7) 3B
I feel that if we are to use democracy in a society, we should choose the correct type of democracy to fit that particular situation. If the wrong type of democracy is chosen, it just might end up in instability.
In previous posts, it is mentioned that Democracy grants free will, which in turn appeases the citizens such that there will not be instability in the country. I feel that it should not be a complete democracy and free will, as certain ideas brought up would potentially danger the country.
Meanwhile, i would like to just propose a few points for why Democracy is acceptable. It is one of the more successful types of government in our modern society. I do agree with Jin Fu's idea that having the majority backing of a policy or the government would greatly help the country in its development. Having the majority backing a policy would ensure that the country would be able to successfully move towards having that policy implemented without much fuss.
It would also be able to ensure stability in the country, as in the worst case scenario, having the minority rebel would of course be better than having the majority turn on the country. It would be easier to appease the minority who are rebelling compared to the majority. As such, democracy would be able to help in the aspect of damage control and stability.
Democracy would also give the people a chance for much freedom in politics. If a person is not pleased with the way the government runs things, he can start his own party and challenge the government for the votes of the people. In this aspect, i feel that democracy creates stability by helping to appease the needs of the citizens, so that they will not complain about having no outlets for freedom. This would solve any possible social and political instabilities.
The party in control of the government would also be pressured to do a good job, lest they get replaced by a new government. They would strive to implement more policies, please the people, improve the country etc. so that people would continue to vote for them. This would ensure a good competitive spirit such that the country would be able to remain competitive globally and not fall into any economic instabillity.
Chia Chen Wei (7) 3B
Blog Discussion
I would think now we should have a more lively discussion instead of long essays. Basically i would find that the question of whether "democracy creates stabilty in society", they would basically want us to generalise society, as perhaps communities of people living together in a same geographically bound place.
that would be my personal opinion.
as such perhaps we could tweak our points to this defination? what do you guys think?
Quek Hao Zhi (21)
3B
that would be my personal opinion.
as such perhaps we could tweak our points to this defination? what do you guys think?
Quek Hao Zhi (21)
3B
SS Discussion-3
"Democracy creates stability in society"
After looking through the previous arguements, i think that what is really important is the context of this question which we are discussing, the time, the people, the circumstances as well as the many other factors.
For example, we are all using different examples from different societies in this discussion, i feel that this is not very accurate. Singapore, Parkistan and Taiwan has major differences in their societies, so applying the idea of democracy in this 3 different countries and using the result to argue our way round definitely would not get us anywhere.
Furthermore, there are certain assumptions made. For example, it is assumed that people might all be illterate and that they might in turn choose the wrong path for the country should they be given the right to an uneducated vote. Also, it is assumed that there is a possibility of a unbiased patriotic person to choose a leader, even so, would his attributes be credible amongst the citizens. Compare an ruler who is average in terms of governing skills but is loved by his people and a ruler who is a lot of times more effecient but is hated by his people. Popularity does play a major role in the success of the ruler.
Taking the example of Chen Shui Bian, do we bash all form of democratically elected leader from one failure? If that is the case, is there any case of perfect system? And i am sure there are many more failed examples of communism, dictatorship etc. I.e. USSR and China to a certain extent.
Now all that aside, my arguement is along the line of basic citizen rights. As citizens of the country, we are the ones who make up the country. If we are unable to decide what we want for ourselves, what is the point of staying in that country? Would we want our lives to be under the control of others or have a say in it at least?
Furthermore, though minority could be right in circumstance, note that the country's policy is highly dependent on the heart of its citizens. Even with the right policies but with unconvinced majority of citizens, it would not work out. Whereas wont following the majority unify the country even if the road chose would be a tougher one?
I have raised many questions and doubts, so feel free to discuss. However, i must state that due to the vagueness of the term "society" and what conditions carries in it, we should not go giving specific examples since democracy could work for some circumstances but not others, that is definitely indisputable as it is not a perfect system. We should either define a proper and specific "society" OR argue along the general lines of society and go by generalisation, instead of minute detailed, single-countried examples. I.e. just because a small part of it is wrong does not mean it is wrong, it is admittedly imperfect but could still work under many circumstances.
Jin Fu (14) 3B
After looking through the previous arguements, i think that what is really important is the context of this question which we are discussing, the time, the people, the circumstances as well as the many other factors.
For example, we are all using different examples from different societies in this discussion, i feel that this is not very accurate. Singapore, Parkistan and Taiwan has major differences in their societies, so applying the idea of democracy in this 3 different countries and using the result to argue our way round definitely would not get us anywhere.
Furthermore, there are certain assumptions made. For example, it is assumed that people might all be illterate and that they might in turn choose the wrong path for the country should they be given the right to an uneducated vote. Also, it is assumed that there is a possibility of a unbiased patriotic person to choose a leader, even so, would his attributes be credible amongst the citizens. Compare an ruler who is average in terms of governing skills but is loved by his people and a ruler who is a lot of times more effecient but is hated by his people. Popularity does play a major role in the success of the ruler.
Taking the example of Chen Shui Bian, do we bash all form of democratically elected leader from one failure? If that is the case, is there any case of perfect system? And i am sure there are many more failed examples of communism, dictatorship etc. I.e. USSR and China to a certain extent.
Now all that aside, my arguement is along the line of basic citizen rights. As citizens of the country, we are the ones who make up the country. If we are unable to decide what we want for ourselves, what is the point of staying in that country? Would we want our lives to be under the control of others or have a say in it at least?
Furthermore, though minority could be right in circumstance, note that the country's policy is highly dependent on the heart of its citizens. Even with the right policies but with unconvinced majority of citizens, it would not work out. Whereas wont following the majority unify the country even if the road chose would be a tougher one?
I have raised many questions and doubts, so feel free to discuss. However, i must state that due to the vagueness of the term "society" and what conditions carries in it, we should not go giving specific examples since democracy could work for some circumstances but not others, that is definitely indisputable as it is not a perfect system. We should either define a proper and specific "society" OR argue along the general lines of society and go by generalisation, instead of minute detailed, single-countried examples. I.e. just because a small part of it is wrong does not mean it is wrong, it is admittedly imperfect but could still work under many circumstances.
Jin Fu (14) 3B
Saturday, May 17, 2008
I would like to clarify on my previous post, as i fear that chester has misunderstood what i was trying to say. When i spoke about the majority voting for a policy, i was trying to bring across
the point that firstly, the people may be more concerned with what may benefit them, rather than what may benefit the country.
For example, if there was a policy that completely shut off all foreigners to Singapore, would the majority vote for it? I think they would, as it would decrease the stiff competition experienced here by locals when competing for jobs. In this case, would this really be good for the country? It would affect many aspects, such as development in science, marketing schemes etc, as we lose the foreign talent.
In the above case, it would result in a decline for the country, as it stubbornly refuses to hire outside help. Singapore has a similar situation to this, as more and more locals are complaining about foreigners taking up jobs. Thus, this could be a good example to look at.
Chia Chen Wei (7) 3B
the point that firstly, the people may be more concerned with what may benefit them, rather than what may benefit the country.
For example, if there was a policy that completely shut off all foreigners to Singapore, would the majority vote for it? I think they would, as it would decrease the stiff competition experienced here by locals when competing for jobs. In this case, would this really be good for the country? It would affect many aspects, such as development in science, marketing schemes etc, as we lose the foreign talent.
In the above case, it would result in a decline for the country, as it stubbornly refuses to hire outside help. Singapore has a similar situation to this, as more and more locals are complaining about foreigners taking up jobs. Thus, this could be a good example to look at.
Chia Chen Wei (7) 3B
Thursday, May 15, 2008
SS blog discussion
“Democracy creates stability in a society”
The previous posts were definitely enlightening. I would now pick on points in the previous posts to support and rebut. Society as haozhi defined, is ever changing in every country and I shall be linking democracy, stability and society together.
Democracy as jinfu has said, gives the citizens, the people an opportunity to voice their thoughts. It allows them to suggest implementations of various policies like examples of social advocacy amongst our midst, this is all done by kind-hearted citizens. Democracy defined as a freedom of speech is indeed important to a country for it to survive without riots. Democracy is a unifying form of governance that involves the whole country to decide on the leaders for the country example through the form of voting.
In my opinion, i would be for the fact that democracy creates stability in a society. However, i would also attempt to support chen wei's argument. Freedom of speech is like giving people a voice to speak, allow their thoughts to be heard. In singapore, a small country with four races, depriving certain ethnic groups of voting rights would certainly be 'suicidal' for Singapore. The next thing that would happen is that the country would be split into 4groups going head on into each other with riots and the country would basically disintegrate.
If other forms of government are practised in Singapore, let me illustrate the results. As for dictatorship, let's say a malay leader emerges. Won't everyone view him with a slanted perspective? For the other ethnic groups like the Chinese and Tamils, they would immediately make their complaints heard. A malay leader would also be naturally bias for the malays. Favouring one race over the other is sending a direct provocative message to the other three pillars of Singapore: Chinese, Tamils and Eurasians. I believe within a short period of time, riots would be inevitable. Democracy helps prevent this from happening and ensures stability. Although our president is not Chinese, however, we are allowed to make our voices heard and any grievances would be addressed by the government.
I would also like to rebut Chen Wei's point about what if majority of the society vote for something negative. Firstly, we are assuming that the society is flawed in this situation. Which country is corrupted till a point that actually more than half of the society would vote for something not advisable for the country. The quote is "what if what they want is unadvisable for the country?" this point is definitely worth rebutting and makes unsupported assumptions that the nation's citizens are all corrupted or illiterate. In Singapore's point of view, that is clearly not the case. Our government has a reputation of being among the least corrupt countries present throughout the world. Our system of voting has also not brought us any problems so far.
Developing on Haozhi's point that there would be opposition parties in a democratic form of government also ensures continual progress and improvement of the nation's political ideals and policies ensuring stability in the society and harmonious living among the citizens in the country. These opposition parties serve to 'balance' out the government's policies and making them ideal for us citizens, example delaying the GST hike etc.
Democracy is definitely beneficial at least to a country like Singapore. For other countries, basically everyone wants equal rights. In countries with unbalanced ratios of ethnic groups, democracy allows equal distribution of rights as the smaller ethnic group is allowed to speak up. Therefore, democracy definitely creates stability in a society. Even though representative democracy is another good idea, however, proving representative democracy is good does not disprove the fact that democracy indeed helps to create stability in society. Democracy gives each one of us the right to speak and that alone is the most important point of democracy which allows each one of us to voice out our grievances. With this continual suggestion of improvements to long standing policies, stability would grow as everyone would be pleased and our society and ultimately, country would continue its fast-paced development.
Chester Yan (5) 3B
The previous posts were definitely enlightening. I would now pick on points in the previous posts to support and rebut. Society as haozhi defined, is ever changing in every country and I shall be linking democracy, stability and society together.
Democracy as jinfu has said, gives the citizens, the people an opportunity to voice their thoughts. It allows them to suggest implementations of various policies like examples of social advocacy amongst our midst, this is all done by kind-hearted citizens. Democracy defined as a freedom of speech is indeed important to a country for it to survive without riots. Democracy is a unifying form of governance that involves the whole country to decide on the leaders for the country example through the form of voting.
In my opinion, i would be for the fact that democracy creates stability in a society. However, i would also attempt to support chen wei's argument. Freedom of speech is like giving people a voice to speak, allow their thoughts to be heard. In singapore, a small country with four races, depriving certain ethnic groups of voting rights would certainly be 'suicidal' for Singapore. The next thing that would happen is that the country would be split into 4groups going head on into each other with riots and the country would basically disintegrate.
If other forms of government are practised in Singapore, let me illustrate the results. As for dictatorship, let's say a malay leader emerges. Won't everyone view him with a slanted perspective? For the other ethnic groups like the Chinese and Tamils, they would immediately make their complaints heard. A malay leader would also be naturally bias for the malays. Favouring one race over the other is sending a direct provocative message to the other three pillars of Singapore: Chinese, Tamils and Eurasians. I believe within a short period of time, riots would be inevitable. Democracy helps prevent this from happening and ensures stability. Although our president is not Chinese, however, we are allowed to make our voices heard and any grievances would be addressed by the government.
I would also like to rebut Chen Wei's point about what if majority of the society vote for something negative. Firstly, we are assuming that the society is flawed in this situation. Which country is corrupted till a point that actually more than half of the society would vote for something not advisable for the country. The quote is "what if what they want is unadvisable for the country?" this point is definitely worth rebutting and makes unsupported assumptions that the nation's citizens are all corrupted or illiterate. In Singapore's point of view, that is clearly not the case. Our government has a reputation of being among the least corrupt countries present throughout the world. Our system of voting has also not brought us any problems so far.
Developing on Haozhi's point that there would be opposition parties in a democratic form of government also ensures continual progress and improvement of the nation's political ideals and policies ensuring stability in the society and harmonious living among the citizens in the country. These opposition parties serve to 'balance' out the government's policies and making them ideal for us citizens, example delaying the GST hike etc.
Democracy is definitely beneficial at least to a country like Singapore. For other countries, basically everyone wants equal rights. In countries with unbalanced ratios of ethnic groups, democracy allows equal distribution of rights as the smaller ethnic group is allowed to speak up. Therefore, democracy definitely creates stability in a society. Even though representative democracy is another good idea, however, proving representative democracy is good does not disprove the fact that democracy indeed helps to create stability in society. Democracy gives each one of us the right to speak and that alone is the most important point of democracy which allows each one of us to voice out our grievances. With this continual suggestion of improvements to long standing policies, stability would grow as everyone would be pleased and our society and ultimately, country would continue its fast-paced development.
Chester Yan (5) 3B
"Democracy can create stability in society"
After reading the previous 2 blog posts, i have realised both points of contention. Not attempting to repeat the previous points, i would state some of my concerns and evidence.
Firstly, i would feel that the term 'society' in the question requires to be defined. We should be defining this term, a matured developed society, or a society just breaking free from dictatorship or colonialism etc. This would indeed be important as in the 2 previous arguments stated by Chen Wei and Jinfu, it is evident that both of them have points that are suited to different societies, quoting examples from different times.
However, my base line would be that Democracy do indeed help create stability in society. Democracy is a political system in which the government is chosen and elected by the people themsevles, hence the term 'popular government'. In current context, it is often understood by a system of where the majority rules, however it still requires a check and balance.
Hence, the developement of opposition parties. At this point of time, i would like to state a fundemental benefit of a democratic society - it pushes the country to develop. In a democratic society such as Singapore, there is a presence of opposition parties which keeps the government in change and prevent our current political system to develop into aristocracy and etc. The friendly and positive competition drives forth the fact that the society would not regress or stay stagnant at any particular point.
Although what kind of societies gets tie into the question, it is still clear that democracy still benefit any kind of society. Bringing in the example of Pakistan, Musharaf government intends to bring in the ideal state of democracy to curb and permanently stop the continual violence in the nation. As said, only through transparent, free, fair can democratic rule be implemented, and the violence would thus be able to be slowly stopped.
Having a democratic society is beneficial to such a conflicting country, as often the stem factor of any conflict is the disproportion of treatment and benefits. With the implementation of democracy, slowly the state would be on the right route to progression. Although the start could be slow, but there would be an exponential growth and development for the countries if democracy is able to hold out.
As such, to me that one strong point against democray would be the factor of time. The question does not bring in the factor of time, however we should be using it nonetheless as a short term and long term scale of the benefits of democracy and check if democracy is truly able to promote stability.
Quek Hao Zhi (21)
3B
After reading the previous 2 blog posts, i have realised both points of contention. Not attempting to repeat the previous points, i would state some of my concerns and evidence.
Firstly, i would feel that the term 'society' in the question requires to be defined. We should be defining this term, a matured developed society, or a society just breaking free from dictatorship or colonialism etc. This would indeed be important as in the 2 previous arguments stated by Chen Wei and Jinfu, it is evident that both of them have points that are suited to different societies, quoting examples from different times.
However, my base line would be that Democracy do indeed help create stability in society. Democracy is a political system in which the government is chosen and elected by the people themsevles, hence the term 'popular government'. In current context, it is often understood by a system of where the majority rules, however it still requires a check and balance.
Hence, the developement of opposition parties. At this point of time, i would like to state a fundemental benefit of a democratic society - it pushes the country to develop. In a democratic society such as Singapore, there is a presence of opposition parties which keeps the government in change and prevent our current political system to develop into aristocracy and etc. The friendly and positive competition drives forth the fact that the society would not regress or stay stagnant at any particular point.
Although what kind of societies gets tie into the question, it is still clear that democracy still benefit any kind of society. Bringing in the example of Pakistan, Musharaf government intends to bring in the ideal state of democracy to curb and permanently stop the continual violence in the nation. As said, only through transparent, free, fair can democratic rule be implemented, and the violence would thus be able to be slowly stopped.
Having a democratic society is beneficial to such a conflicting country, as often the stem factor of any conflict is the disproportion of treatment and benefits. With the implementation of democracy, slowly the state would be on the right route to progression. Although the start could be slow, but there would be an exponential growth and development for the countries if democracy is able to hold out.
As such, to me that one strong point against democray would be the factor of time. The question does not bring in the factor of time, however we should be using it nonetheless as a short term and long term scale of the benefits of democracy and check if democracy is truly able to promote stability.
Quek Hao Zhi (21)
3B
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
SS blog Discussion-2
“Democracy creates stability in a society”
In my opinion, Democracy does not create stability. In fact, this system sometimes causes instability. Although many countries have this system, we cannot assume that it is the main key to a stable society. I will rebut the policies of certain types of democracy, occasionally making references to Jin Fu’s previous post. Firstly, let us view a hypothetical situation.
In an underdeveloped nation, let us refer to it as nation X. Nation X works on the concept of democracy, and has many political parties. Each promise many things for the people, but there is one that clearly stands above the rest. This party’s policies’ are grand, and will benefit the country greatly. However, the people, who are generally illiterate and do not have a good grasp of how policies work in countries, may not vote for the party. They may, instead be attracted by the other parties, who have policies that are imperfect but more appealing to the common citizen.
Jin Fu stated, “People now wish to grasp hold of their own lives and wants their voices heard during policy making of their own country”. But as seen above, what if what they want is unadvisable for the country?
The common citizen would not be able to choose what is best for the nation this way. In fact, many voters may be uninterested in policies of the nation, and may throw or waste his vote. This would result to an inaccurate representation of what the general public really wants. Another scenario would be that the policy is so complicated to the extent that many of the voters cannot understand it. If this is so, then how are they to vote on the issue? This would just result with many voters getting puzzled with the policy and would not know how to respond to it.
In order to stop voters from not voting, governments tend to carry out the policy of “compulsory voting”. Every citizen is forced to vote, and this goes against the whole idea of democracy, which is to emphasize the idea of freedom.
The common solution to this would be Representative democracy, where government officials are selected by the people to represent them. However, the representatives would have to be elected by the people, and would have to go through the flawed process of voting. The earlier paragraphs reflect the result of voting.
Take the example of Taiwan. In a previous occasion, Chen Shui Bian was shot. Firstly, it reflects on the fact that the country can descend into chaos when there is an attempted assassination. Secondly, it also reflects on how democracy may not be the best government. In the years that Chen Shui Bian took charge, the country’s economy suffered terrible losses, and the people were unhappy with the choices that he made. This shows that the majority vote is not always correct.
Popularity does not usually reflect the fact that the person elected is the best person for the job. A simple example can be seen in the Primary School classroom. When the teacher asks for nominations for the monitor, it is likely that the immature kids will vote someone who is funny, popular, ignoring the most important trait of all, the trait of good leadership and qualities of a leader.
In this case, it would be better for the teacher to pick who she knows is the most suited to be the monitor. However, we are of course assuming that the teacher is not biased towards any student.
In my opinion, the person most suited to the job should rise to the challenge. He/ She should be either chosen by an unbiased, wise leader of the country, and lead the country to glory. The important decisions should be done and handled by he or she. In the rare event that this person is corrupt with power, he or she will simply be replaced with someone new. This is similar to the concept of dictatorship, and I feel that it is a better choice rather than Democracy, as the leader can only be replaced by someone who is more efficient.
Chia Chen Wei
3B
(7)
In my opinion, Democracy does not create stability. In fact, this system sometimes causes instability. Although many countries have this system, we cannot assume that it is the main key to a stable society. I will rebut the policies of certain types of democracy, occasionally making references to Jin Fu’s previous post. Firstly, let us view a hypothetical situation.
In an underdeveloped nation, let us refer to it as nation X. Nation X works on the concept of democracy, and has many political parties. Each promise many things for the people, but there is one that clearly stands above the rest. This party’s policies’ are grand, and will benefit the country greatly. However, the people, who are generally illiterate and do not have a good grasp of how policies work in countries, may not vote for the party. They may, instead be attracted by the other parties, who have policies that are imperfect but more appealing to the common citizen.
Jin Fu stated, “People now wish to grasp hold of their own lives and wants their voices heard during policy making of their own country”. But as seen above, what if what they want is unadvisable for the country?
The common citizen would not be able to choose what is best for the nation this way. In fact, many voters may be uninterested in policies of the nation, and may throw or waste his vote. This would result to an inaccurate representation of what the general public really wants. Another scenario would be that the policy is so complicated to the extent that many of the voters cannot understand it. If this is so, then how are they to vote on the issue? This would just result with many voters getting puzzled with the policy and would not know how to respond to it.
In order to stop voters from not voting, governments tend to carry out the policy of “compulsory voting”. Every citizen is forced to vote, and this goes against the whole idea of democracy, which is to emphasize the idea of freedom.
The common solution to this would be Representative democracy, where government officials are selected by the people to represent them. However, the representatives would have to be elected by the people, and would have to go through the flawed process of voting. The earlier paragraphs reflect the result of voting.
Take the example of Taiwan. In a previous occasion, Chen Shui Bian was shot. Firstly, it reflects on the fact that the country can descend into chaos when there is an attempted assassination. Secondly, it also reflects on how democracy may not be the best government. In the years that Chen Shui Bian took charge, the country’s economy suffered terrible losses, and the people were unhappy with the choices that he made. This shows that the majority vote is not always correct.
Popularity does not usually reflect the fact that the person elected is the best person for the job. A simple example can be seen in the Primary School classroom. When the teacher asks for nominations for the monitor, it is likely that the immature kids will vote someone who is funny, popular, ignoring the most important trait of all, the trait of good leadership and qualities of a leader.
In this case, it would be better for the teacher to pick who she knows is the most suited to be the monitor. However, we are of course assuming that the teacher is not biased towards any student.
In my opinion, the person most suited to the job should rise to the challenge. He/ She should be either chosen by an unbiased, wise leader of the country, and lead the country to glory. The important decisions should be done and handled by he or she. In the rare event that this person is corrupt with power, he or she will simply be replaced with someone new. This is similar to the concept of dictatorship, and I feel that it is a better choice rather than Democracy, as the leader can only be replaced by someone who is more efficient.
Chia Chen Wei
3B
(7)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
SS Discussion-1
"Democracy creates stability in a society"
Democracy is currently one of the most popular form of political systems in the world. Though there might not be many pure democratic systems around, more or less every other system carries a slight form of it at the very least in their systems, Why? Because it is one of the main keys to a stable society which is peaceful and suitable for development.
But what is it that makes democracy successful in current day context? With the American civil war, breaking down of colonialism, the emphasis is having a national identity (independence) and having rights of freedom in speech and choice. People now wish to grasp hold of their own lives and wants their voices heard during policy making of their own country. It is seen as both a right and a need of each citizen, being able to vote for what they wish to see instead of being ignorantly kept in the dark. People have learnt from past experiences (British colonial rule) that they should never leave their country totally in the hands of others.
Basically, every representative group's say in the country's direction and development needs to be heard to satisfy at least the majority of the modern day society. Democracy is able to achieve just that.
Democracy provides a platform for people to voice opinions and gain feedback and it widens tha range of choices and the freedom to express them for every citizen. The generated point of view is therefore larger and caters to a bigger spectrum of needs. Though all might not be met, all can be considered and the majority is satisfied at the end of a day with a viable solution. It gives the people the right to choose their OWN style of life and their OWN leaders to rule them accordingly to how they wish to be ruled. When the majority is satisfied that they are heard and their needs are met, there would be no significant uproar in society and stability thus ensues socially.
Politically, democracy allows a fairer vote of power as the power of the vote is from each liable citizen in the country. The leaders are therefore, voted through popularity based on their credibility, campaign and most importantly the respect and attention they earn from the people. Henceforth, this form of election is alot fairer than a election by a council as it firstly provides a larger group of people to vote which validates the polls due to increased sample size, more importantly, it is able to link directly to the people under effect of the campaigns, which is the people of the country. Thus, a democratic election is able to gain acceptance and popularity of the country's citizens and create content and stability amongst them as the majority's political opinion and power has been expressed the way they want to.
Economically, it provides a larger and more open market ground for more investment, entrprenuership ventures as well as exportations. It increases a flow of trade in the country as the political tension is minimal or resolved, therefore tension is insignificant to restrict any form of economic activity to to create a form of dominance in the economic field in order to maintain political power. There is freedom and space to explore, therefore giving more opportunities to people, allowing rapid development along without the implications/restrictions/binding of the political system or social opinions, therefore it is easier to reach a stable and strong economic status.
Furthermore, looking at past failures of dictatorship and communism, I.e. the Soviet Union, whereby the dictator was unable to tolerate other points of view even when there was major protest against it. It shows the lack of sight and scope of this form of system, something democracy is actually build on. In timed context, it could have worked in the past whereby people's mindset were more conservative and obedient, but with the ongoing strength of the campaign of freedom of choice/speech etc. democracy definitely is the strongest pillars present in today's world to keep the ceilings of the country in place, whereas all the other systems act as sub-supporting pillars in varying circumstances to meet different less major needs. In all they supplement the central pillar of democracy in order to create stability in society.
Jin Fu (14) 3B
Democracy is currently one of the most popular form of political systems in the world. Though there might not be many pure democratic systems around, more or less every other system carries a slight form of it at the very least in their systems, Why? Because it is one of the main keys to a stable society which is peaceful and suitable for development.
But what is it that makes democracy successful in current day context? With the American civil war, breaking down of colonialism, the emphasis is having a national identity (independence) and having rights of freedom in speech and choice. People now wish to grasp hold of their own lives and wants their voices heard during policy making of their own country. It is seen as both a right and a need of each citizen, being able to vote for what they wish to see instead of being ignorantly kept in the dark. People have learnt from past experiences (British colonial rule) that they should never leave their country totally in the hands of others.
Basically, every representative group's say in the country's direction and development needs to be heard to satisfy at least the majority of the modern day society. Democracy is able to achieve just that.
Democracy provides a platform for people to voice opinions and gain feedback and it widens tha range of choices and the freedom to express them for every citizen. The generated point of view is therefore larger and caters to a bigger spectrum of needs. Though all might not be met, all can be considered and the majority is satisfied at the end of a day with a viable solution. It gives the people the right to choose their OWN style of life and their OWN leaders to rule them accordingly to how they wish to be ruled. When the majority is satisfied that they are heard and their needs are met, there would be no significant uproar in society and stability thus ensues socially.
Politically, democracy allows a fairer vote of power as the power of the vote is from each liable citizen in the country. The leaders are therefore, voted through popularity based on their credibility, campaign and most importantly the respect and attention they earn from the people. Henceforth, this form of election is alot fairer than a election by a council as it firstly provides a larger group of people to vote which validates the polls due to increased sample size, more importantly, it is able to link directly to the people under effect of the campaigns, which is the people of the country. Thus, a democratic election is able to gain acceptance and popularity of the country's citizens and create content and stability amongst them as the majority's political opinion and power has been expressed the way they want to.
Economically, it provides a larger and more open market ground for more investment, entrprenuership ventures as well as exportations. It increases a flow of trade in the country as the political tension is minimal or resolved, therefore tension is insignificant to restrict any form of economic activity to to create a form of dominance in the economic field in order to maintain political power. There is freedom and space to explore, therefore giving more opportunities to people, allowing rapid development along without the implications/restrictions/binding of the political system or social opinions, therefore it is easier to reach a stable and strong economic status.
Furthermore, looking at past failures of dictatorship and communism, I.e. the Soviet Union, whereby the dictator was unable to tolerate other points of view even when there was major protest against it. It shows the lack of sight and scope of this form of system, something democracy is actually build on. In timed context, it could have worked in the past whereby people's mindset were more conservative and obedient, but with the ongoing strength of the campaign of freedom of choice/speech etc. democracy definitely is the strongest pillars present in today's world to keep the ceilings of the country in place, whereas all the other systems act as sub-supporting pillars in varying circumstances to meet different less major needs. In all they supplement the central pillar of democracy in order to create stability in society.
Jin Fu (14) 3B
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)