Well on your point that Singapore’s current government is essentially a one-party government I don’t really agree. A democracy is a multi-party system where more than one political party must participate in elections and play a role in the government and I think that Singapore fits this description. Singapore does have more political parties than just the PAP and this means that opposition to the winning party is made possible, which is an important part of democracy. I however concede to your point that Singapore does not practice “true blue” democracy, or rather direct democracy as the notes call it. Other that the fact that the citizens of Singapore, unlike in Switzerland, do not have to vote on every single issue that affects them, Singapore also does not practice having referendums and initiatives. In Singapore, the government always has the last say in the issues. For example, many people protested against the demolition of the old National Library but the government went on with their plans because they listen to reasons not sentiments. Also in Singapore when a government is selected since there is no voting on the various issues that can be brought up (ranging from building of facilities to national issues like should we host the Youth Olympics) the government chosen by the people is assumed to be the representative of the people and whatever decision they make is assumed to be the choice of the people, which I personally think isn’t very nice. What do you all think? Perhaps you guys might also want to bring up other case studies like the US or compare two countries that practice democracy and find the similarities and differences?
1 comment:
um just to tell you i posted at the same time as joel's second post so this post is only about joel's first post and my own point(s) of view.
Post a Comment