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
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)