sorry guys, didnt know that i ahve to accept invitationXD. i hope this is not too late although it most probably will be. anyway, this is to show that i, too, have thought about this.
I agree to Joel's point that a one-party governament would bring hell and chaos to a country should it ever be corrupted. Also, a democratic state when ruled properly would also bring glory and stability to a country.
However, does democracy really means stability to a country? The answer is definitely no. Democracy may bring stability--it is not stability itself. Why do i say so? This is because in a true blue democratic state, multiple parties are given the power over the same opportunites, that is, be given the power they were voted by the public. Singapore currently has only the basic model for this concept--opposition takes a mere fraction of the total parliament seating, their views and power is severely limited.
Democracy may prevent issues like corruptions or disputes within the party from affecting the country to a large extent. However, just like how the splitting of power creates balance, it also causes certain other issues to break out.
Take Taiwan as an example, its democratic government structure allow the people to remove the current government as soon as negative things are discovered. This may allow the government to always function at its prime state. However, should the parties have disputes over one another, the seperate barracks of supporters could easily escalate into major conflicts.
Therefore, although the characteristic of democracy ,which includes the seperation of power concentration prevents major porblems that arise when a government is deemed to be imcompetent,or have internal dispute allows a democratic state to mitigate this effect to the maximum extent, the conflicts between powergroups or parties will also create indisputable conflicts. Therefore democracy does not necessarily mean stability to a country.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
probably one of the last post XD
With regard to Li Yu’s query, I never said that democracy was “a curse for
I guess to make myself clearer I should just define what I mean by stability and democracy. As for stability, as Jeremy has mentioned before, there is social, political and economic stability. For me throughout this entire ‘dialogue’ I have taken stability as social stability while there is no real definition for democracy. From wikipedia alone I can count, 6, 7, 8… and many more types of democracy.
Moving on the topic of democracy creating stability within a country, I agree as well along with the rest of you. By investing the power in the people, the chance that they will revolt or go on strikes is much lesser than when the power is invested solely in the government. However, along with democracy will also come a small minority of people who are not content with the direction the country is developing. It is hard to expect what they might do when facing such a problem. If the country is lucky the minority will not be violent and will merely voice out its opinion but as we can see all over the world many organizations representing minorities often resort to violent means to their own ends. By saying this however I must acknowledge the fact that such a thing as consensus democracy exists, that is, a kind of democracy that requires various degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. Basically consensus democracy aims to protect the minority rights from majority rule. I personally think that there is no form of government that can possibly fulfill the wishes of every single person in their country and therefore total stability cannot be achieved. However, democracy does, to a large extent bring countries to stability as it satisfies majority of the people in the country.
Another Response - To Li Yu
I would have to say that Singapore might be an exception - at the moment. Singapore is a very young nation, and we cannot yet see the effect that Singapore 's form of government- right now a socialist democracy may have in the future.
At the moment, our government is still governing the country decently. However, in the future this might not be so. Singapore might not be as politically and economically stable in the future as it is now with this form of government. We are very lucky that our government is not corrupt. At least it appears to have little, if any, corruption. If the government was corrupt, Singapore would not last long with this form of government. A one-party government which is corrupt heralds hell for the country.
I think that Singapore, so as to ensure the stability that we have at the moment, should have at least a credible opposition to provide checks and balances to the government. This opposition need not be critical, and tear down the work of the government. Instead, the opposition should, upon seeing cracks, instead of haranguing the government on it, mend the cracks, improving the society, and at the same time improving their own political position and credibility.
Therefore, I believe that Singapore's political atmosphere and position has to change, otherwise, if PAP becomes corrupt, or not as competent as it was before, and when or if this happens, there will be no one to take over the reins. A one-party government is always risky. It great is the government is all full of virtues and wants the best for the country and her citizens. However, the world is not perfect, and there is bound to be a day that the government that comes to power is not the kind of government we want to be under. At that point, to ask for an alternative option or government to lead Singapore might be too late.
Therefore, true democracy will lead to stability in the long run, as both the incumbents and the opposition will fight to make the country a better place to get into or remain as the government. However a one-party democracy, which isn't really a democracy at all, may not be good for the country in the long run.
Joel.
At the moment, our government is still governing the country decently. However, in the future this might not be so. Singapore might not be as politically and economically stable in the future as it is now with this form of government. We are very lucky that our government is not corrupt. At least it appears to have little, if any, corruption. If the government was corrupt, Singapore would not last long with this form of government. A one-party government which is corrupt heralds hell for the country.
I think that Singapore, so as to ensure the stability that we have at the moment, should have at least a credible opposition to provide checks and balances to the government. This opposition need not be critical, and tear down the work of the government. Instead, the opposition should, upon seeing cracks, instead of haranguing the government on it, mend the cracks, improving the society, and at the same time improving their own political position and credibility.
Therefore, I believe that Singapore's political atmosphere and position has to change, otherwise, if PAP becomes corrupt, or not as competent as it was before, and when or if this happens, there will be no one to take over the reins. A one-party government is always risky. It great is the government is all full of virtues and wants the best for the country and her citizens. However, the world is not perfect, and there is bound to be a day that the government that comes to power is not the kind of government we want to be under. At that point, to ask for an alternative option or government to lead Singapore might be too late.
Therefore, true democracy will lead to stability in the long run, as both the incumbents and the opposition will fight to make the country a better place to get into or remain as the government. However a one-party democracy, which isn't really a democracy at all, may not be good for the country in the long run.
Joel.
Query
i have a query about democracy in singapore's context. Many of you said that singapore cannot be a true blue democratic nation. However, even after examinging all the possible factors that singapore is not suitable for such goverment, I feel that we still cannot predict the definite happenings, in the sense that we will not know how it turns out unless we try. Following my point on people being the power, I feel that if the people wants it, democracy can be a boon rather than a curse for singapore. Although stability does not come immediately, it can be realised with a progress in democracy. However, I am also aware of the fact that right now in Singapore, stability is seen. So my guess is that singapore is used as a case of disagree due to the fact that the change is unecessary. What is your opinion?
Li Yu
李毓
リ・イー
Li Yu
李毓
リ・イー
Agree!@!
I think democracy can bring stability to a country. Rather than thinking of democracy as a form of goverment whereby the country suffers from unrests from protests, I feel that a democratic country is more of a process to stability, thus brings stability in a sense. Let me try my best to explain...
Democracy need not bring stability overnight, but it can bring stablity, or at least increase stability through phases of progression and nurturing. For example, because i do not know my case studies well... lets talk about the one that i know best - taiwan(Republic of China).
Taiwan can be considered as a young country in terms of democratic development. It saw the transision from a capitalist state into a democratic goverment in the 1990s. However, due to the fact democracy was young and the generation had gone been through the "white horror (martial law) " era, many did not understand the idea of democracy. Using a more recent case, in the 2004 elections, there has been cases of buying votes and protests which resulted in conflicts. Politicians tried their best to win votes at the expanse of segregation of communities which supported different parties. However, in 2008, these signs are not evident as before. There has been fewer reported cases of buying votes. Even when the outcomes of the elections were not desirable, no malicious protests were made. Thus we can see this as a sort of stability in itself. According to analysits, Taiwan's democracy has progressed into a state whereby people can decide for themselves and conduct themselves appropriately as a citizen of democratic state. Democracy has made its people more politically conscious and people have the say in things, not the goverment. Democracy involves a process of going through a phychological change of the citizens whereby they are made rational in their thinking before they act. Thus, when the people are rational and more self controlled, stability can be ensured. Thus democracy brings about stability through process.
Also, from the US point of view, due to the nature of democracy which states that all people should be treated with equal accord and provided with equal opportunites, the blacks in the 1960s have demanded their rights to be treated equally. In martin luthur king jr.'s speech, he had the desire of eradicating racism and conflict and that all men will become brothers. As a result, USA has become one of the most racial harmonious nation, due to the fact that democracy emphasises on equality. With tolerance, there will be less conflicts as people will set aside their differences and progress as a nation. Thus democracy can bring stability in the racial point of view.
Thus, democracy brings stability to a country.
Ps: haha i finish in time!! because you ppple have covered like all the factors in a prodedness delivery, i oso follow suit... lol... nvm... so i just write 2 factor nia.. aiyoh jeremy who ask u to spam so much, more enthu than i do to my blog sia =P
Li Yu
李毓
リ・イー
Democracy need not bring stability overnight, but it can bring stablity, or at least increase stability through phases of progression and nurturing. For example, because i do not know my case studies well... lets talk about the one that i know best - taiwan(Republic of China).
Taiwan can be considered as a young country in terms of democratic development. It saw the transision from a capitalist state into a democratic goverment in the 1990s. However, due to the fact democracy was young and the generation had gone been through the "white horror (martial law) " era, many did not understand the idea of democracy. Using a more recent case, in the 2004 elections, there has been cases of buying votes and protests which resulted in conflicts. Politicians tried their best to win votes at the expanse of segregation of communities which supported different parties. However, in 2008, these signs are not evident as before. There has been fewer reported cases of buying votes. Even when the outcomes of the elections were not desirable, no malicious protests were made. Thus we can see this as a sort of stability in itself. According to analysits, Taiwan's democracy has progressed into a state whereby people can decide for themselves and conduct themselves appropriately as a citizen of democratic state. Democracy has made its people more politically conscious and people have the say in things, not the goverment. Democracy involves a process of going through a phychological change of the citizens whereby they are made rational in their thinking before they act. Thus, when the people are rational and more self controlled, stability can be ensured. Thus democracy brings about stability through process.
Also, from the US point of view, due to the nature of democracy which states that all people should be treated with equal accord and provided with equal opportunites, the blacks in the 1960s have demanded their rights to be treated equally. In martin luthur king jr.'s speech, he had the desire of eradicating racism and conflict and that all men will become brothers. As a result, USA has become one of the most racial harmonious nation, due to the fact that democracy emphasises on equality. With tolerance, there will be less conflicts as people will set aside their differences and progress as a nation. Thus democracy can bring stability in the racial point of view.
Thus, democracy brings stability to a country.
Ps: haha i finish in time!! because you ppple have covered like all the factors in a prodedness delivery, i oso follow suit... lol... nvm... so i just write 2 factor nia.. aiyoh jeremy who ask u to spam so much, more enthu than i do to my blog sia =P
Li Yu
李毓
リ・イー
Oops I just realized I kind of diverged from the given topic. Well, about this idea of stability, we can basically classify it into economic, political and social stability. In peoples' opinion of Singapore as a socialist democracy, the economic strength of Singapore is rather secured through governmental influence, whilst resulting in social stability through satisfaction of needs in a relatively affluent society. In Singapore's case, we are stable politically, with the ruling party taking authority over many matters, and not having changed for the past few decades, are not radically different and thus do not upset the balance. As such, I feel the type of "democracy" Singapore is practicing, whatever critics deem it as, contribute immensely to the stability of our society, which is no doubt one of the government's biggest priorities. So, back to the question at hand - Does Democracy bring stability to a country? The underlying basis for that question is the definition of democracy we classify. In my opinion, Democracy has no "fixed or proper form", and even direct democracy, though seemingly closer to the ideal, is not a perfect system. However, as can be seen from the example of Singapore, a mixture of "socialist democracy" and almost "authoritarian" can merge to result in stability in the different aspects of life.
Jeremy
Jeremy
Democracy brings stability to a country
I do believe that Democracy brings stability to a country
For one, take for example Singapore, which is a stable country. Despite us being a multi-racial society, we have not had much of any racial conflicts for the last few decades. There have been no nationwide racial riots. However, I doubt that democracy has much to do with this. It is because that the people have voted in, for now, the right party to run the country.
Also, stability is found in economic stability. If the economy is stable and is growing, the general populace will not be living in poverty, and will therefore not be angry or disillusioned with the government, and thus will probably not riot or revolt. Also, even if the population does not like their government, and wishes for others to govern them, they are able to peacefully bring the party out of office, via an election. I am assuming that the party follows the law and steps down peacefully. This way, the stability of a country will not be disrupted by any civil wars or riots.
Another way that democracy brings stability to a country is moderation. In a democracy, the citizens will be represented in one way or another. The majority will be dominant, but the minority is generally given rights also. Therefore, both parties' needs are met. The people's views are also taken into consideration, and that would make the citizens more contented. When the citizens are contented and do not have any major grievances, they are less likely to make trouble, once again contributing to the stability of a country.
However, one might say that an authoritarian state would be very stable as well. I do not think this is true. While there would definitely be no disagreements in the government, the citizens may not agree on their government's policy. And because the government does not need the citizens to keep them in power, they have no obligations to the citizens, and thus might not care so much for the welfare of the citizens and the country. They might often forgo the welfare of the citizens in exchange for economic growth or other perceived benefits. The citizens might not agree, and thus this would foment unrest in the country, leading to first political, then economic instability.
Thus, I believe that democracy is better for a country's stability, though economic growth might not be as fast, the trade-off - growth for stability, is worth it.
For one, take for example Singapore, which is a stable country. Despite us being a multi-racial society, we have not had much of any racial conflicts for the last few decades. There have been no nationwide racial riots. However, I doubt that democracy has much to do with this. It is because that the people have voted in, for now, the right party to run the country.
Also, stability is found in economic stability. If the economy is stable and is growing, the general populace will not be living in poverty, and will therefore not be angry or disillusioned with the government, and thus will probably not riot or revolt. Also, even if the population does not like their government, and wishes for others to govern them, they are able to peacefully bring the party out of office, via an election. I am assuming that the party follows the law and steps down peacefully. This way, the stability of a country will not be disrupted by any civil wars or riots.
Another way that democracy brings stability to a country is moderation. In a democracy, the citizens will be represented in one way or another. The majority will be dominant, but the minority is generally given rights also. Therefore, both parties' needs are met. The people's views are also taken into consideration, and that would make the citizens more contented. When the citizens are contented and do not have any major grievances, they are less likely to make trouble, once again contributing to the stability of a country.
However, one might say that an authoritarian state would be very stable as well. I do not think this is true. While there would definitely be no disagreements in the government, the citizens may not agree on their government's policy. And because the government does not need the citizens to keep them in power, they have no obligations to the citizens, and thus might not care so much for the welfare of the citizens and the country. They might often forgo the welfare of the citizens in exchange for economic growth or other perceived benefits. The citizens might not agree, and thus this would foment unrest in the country, leading to first political, then economic instability.
Thus, I believe that democracy is better for a country's stability, though economic growth might not be as fast, the trade-off - growth for stability, is worth it.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Well, continuing on the point that Singapore is not a "True blue democracy", I agree to a large extent. Critics of Singapore argue that Singapore is closer to an illiberal democracy, or even an authoritarian state, as compared with our perception of ourselves as democratic. Not to blaspheme or slander the government or anything, but the ruling party of Singapore has been around and in control for decades, and have "tweaked" the rules to strengthen their position. For example, there have been numerous high profile cases of opposition representatives being sued for defamation of the ruling party, and thus being forced to declare bankruptcy and drop out of the elections. There also have been numerous claims of bias in allocating funds for projects in opposition ruled GRCs. However, it is true that Singapore does have basis for its claim to be democratic, as there are elections and the "right to vote" for candidates who successfully manage to run for MP in the GRC. However, I feel the claim of Singapore more as a socialist democracy, with large governmental influences in areas such as the economy, and housing, more evidently, can be better justified. This large influence of the government means that Singapore will never become a true democratic state.
However, back to the idea of a directly democratic state (which I will assume as the "ideal" of democracy), there are numerous famed examples of this form of democracy being successful, for example, back to the example of the National Library saga, we can see the obvious differences in the two systems. Firstly, petitions in Singapore are largely ineffective such as in the aforementioned case. However, in Switzerland, if one were to be able to gather 50,000 signatures within 100 days, there is a high chance of the decision being overturned. I am sure there are many more reasons why Singapore is not a truly democratic state, and the closest workable system to "true democracy" is direct democracy, though there are also flaws in this system)
Jeremy
However, back to the idea of a directly democratic state (which I will assume as the "ideal" of democracy), there are numerous famed examples of this form of democracy being successful, for example, back to the example of the National Library saga, we can see the obvious differences in the two systems. Firstly, petitions in Singapore are largely ineffective such as in the aforementioned case. However, in Switzerland, if one were to be able to gather 50,000 signatures within 100 days, there is a high chance of the decision being overturned. I am sure there are many more reasons why Singapore is not a truly democratic state, and the closest workable system to "true democracy" is direct democracy, though there are also flaws in this system)
Jeremy
Body part 1 o.O?
Well on your point that
Response
So here I am, responding to my own post. Can you guys start posting as soon as possible? Thank you.
I think that we are unable to adopt such an extreme form of democracy as Switzerland does. For one, I do not believe that our society is adapted for such a form of government. Singaporeans are generally too used to letting their government decide on all sorts of policy and are probably not even interesting in voting on government policy, even if they are allowed to do so. Thus, the implementation of Switzerland's form of democracy is not possible in Singapore.
Another reason, as I mentioned earlier, would be Singapore's pace of life. Singaporeans' main reason for not taking a more active role in the community would be that they are too busy, and thus cannot really care less about national policies or happenings unless they are personally affected in some way or another. Therefore, they would not take the time out to get involved in such a voting process. No matter how streamlined this process is, it is bound to take up time, time that Singaporeans may not be willing to spend. After all, the present government is still quite efficient and is governing the country well, and thus Singaporeans do not see any need to involve themselves.
Please, the rest of you. Start posting!
I think that we are unable to adopt such an extreme form of democracy as Switzerland does. For one, I do not believe that our society is adapted for such a form of government. Singaporeans are generally too used to letting their government decide on all sorts of policy and are probably not even interesting in voting on government policy, even if they are allowed to do so. Thus, the implementation of Switzerland's form of democracy is not possible in Singapore.
Another reason, as I mentioned earlier, would be Singapore's pace of life. Singaporeans' main reason for not taking a more active role in the community would be that they are too busy, and thus cannot really care less about national policies or happenings unless they are personally affected in some way or another. Therefore, they would not take the time out to get involved in such a voting process. No matter how streamlined this process is, it is bound to take up time, time that Singaporeans may not be willing to spend. After all, the present government is still quite efficient and is governing the country well, and thus Singaporeans do not see any need to involve themselves.
Please, the rest of you. Start posting!
Monday, May 12, 2008
Introduction. -.-
Okay. Since I created this blog, I'll start the ball rolling. Anyway, I think that true blue democracy is a form of government that cannot be applied in the society of Singapore. Life in Singapore is much too fast paced for true democracy. Much time has to be spent for the citizens to vote on any little subject or issue. Therefore, due to Singapore's pace of life, such a system, no matter how streamlined or efficient, would just not be possible. On the other hand, Singapore current government is essentially a one-party government. Right now, Singapore is still in relatively good hands under our current leadership. But if this one-party government continues, and not so good leaders step up, Singapore might be in trouble. Another issue with Singaporean politics is the weak opposition, in which only two constituencies they hold. Will this one-party thing prove to be a problem in the future? Does Singapore's current political situation reflect democracy. Or does it lean more towards other forms of government. Let's discuss this. Please bring up any of your own points or questions. Thanks! And be quick! We have limited time. Haha.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)