Democracy seems to be able to create stability in a nation because it allows freedom of expression of its people. However, the flipside is also true.
While freedom of speech seems important to a nation, it can also produce several adverse side-effects. Firstly, freedom of speech provides a wide spectrum of viewpoints from the nation's people. Some of these remarks made by the citizens may offend other parties in the process. Take for example young and democratic Singapore in the 1960s. Everyone was allowed to express their own viewpoints. However, being humans, there was certainly disagreements. Thus, because of free speech, riots broke out in Singapore as different people set out to settle their own differences. This clearly shows that freedom of speech may not be that useful in achieving social stability after all; disagreements will be common, and these may lead to more severe consequences such as riots.
Therefore, can democracy really achieve stability if it can spark conflict due to free speech?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Continuing with the discussion
HI!!!! With a logical flow in mind, I shall continue with examining the links between the characteristics of democracy and stability/ instability. Evidently, the scope for democracy's potential impacts are expansive, therefore I shall narrow the scope down to economic and social impacts brought by democracy. I shall concentrate on the first point on allowing freedom of expression from various parties like the media, government, and the general body of citizens. This is in a way socially effective because there is in a way respecting human rights and the freedom of speech. Look at the outroar China created when her government effectively stamped out Tibet's connection with the outside world and used her immense influence to destroy any possibility of oppression or expression of views. This merely signals the increasing importance of respecting human rights and it would be globally correct to allow freedom of speech. In my opinion, allowing humans to speak up is a plus-point for both the government and the rest of the community( media, activist groups, citizens). On the community's side, the freedom of speech equates to being able to express one's thoughts, emotions and views and rationally, who would want to be told to "SHUT UP!" I recall that in authoritarian rule, the government restricted media to one sole company and controlled everything released to the public. This is not the case in democracy, as limitless broadcasting corporations are allowed with a wide spectrum of viewpoints. This would certainly increase the media appeal of the country and more foreign investors would flock to the country due to the increase in awareness and the economic viability promised. However, I personally feel that the whole crux of this argument is the link. Allowing citizens and groups to speak up would definitely reduce the possibility of conflicts, but deep inside, it creates stability. The government is exposed to a wide range of viewpoints from those supporting her policies to those not. Stability is maintained because words are used here, when the government proves the counter-perspectives wrong verbally. This can be contrasted with what happened in post-war Japan, when the military was buying its influence into the people's hearts. Being authoritarian, they killed anyone who went against them and this kind of bloody conflicts would not occur in democracy; by virtue of the fact that democracy involves PEACEFUL EXCHANGE OF OPINIONS !!!
Hello everyone!
To begin with, we should define the criterias of democracy. Theoretically, democracy allows freedom of expression from various parties like the media, government, and the general body of citizens. It also involves equal distribution of political involvement to all citizens, ensuring that everyone have equal rights to influence the government's decision-makings. A democracy has a law formed by the consensus of the government and the citizens, to govern the whole state.
SS discussion on democracy begins
I shall begin this discussion by establishing the flow of this discussion. To determine if democracy creates stability in a society, we must first discover its defining characteristics. Next, we must find the influences these characteristics have on the stability of a society. At this point in time, we must also state explicitly which aspects of stability we are going to discuss. Finally, we will arrive at a conclusion as to whether democracy creates stability in a society.
discussion on democracy
There will be a discussion on democracy involving four people: Sher Yin, Andy, John and I (Aloysius). The posts for the discussion will be published soon. My commentary for English will be published separately.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Urbanisation in South Asia
An article entitled 'Balancing growth and social tension' (The Straits Times, Feb 9) was recently written by Shreekant Gupta, containing his personal views on urbanisation in South Asia and its challenges. In his article, Mr. Gupta wrote about the need for South Asia to 'make its towns and cities liveable' for its people and commented on the three problems South Asia currently face in the quest for urbanisation; governments are not accountable to their people, public servants are largely inefficient and inadequate funds are being obtained from the wrong sources.
In essence, the article's key idea can be exemplified by the situation India is in. India is widely regarded as a rising power in the modern world, but her push for urbanisation and growth is restricted because of problems such as corruption and insufficient finances. The alarming number of poor people living in urban areas (100 million or more) is a testament to the predicament India currently faces.
The future looks bleak for the urban poor, but is there really nothing they can do about it? I beg to differ. Although I do recognise that governments, by virtue of their authority, play an important role in determining the fate of their people, I feel that there are ways in which the urban poor can attempt to break out of the poverty cycle. Conscious efforts made by the urban poor to improve their standard of living will greatly increase the effectiveness of the changes introduced by their governments.
The urban poor must empower themselves in order to strive for a better future. Empowerment comes in two forms; upgrading of self and education of future generations. In the short term, the current generation of people living in poverty can attend various courses organized by their companies to equip themselves with skills which are useful for progress in their working life. This will pave the way for stronger financial security and ensure that their careers do not remain in a state of stagnation.
In the long run, education is essential in allowing the urban poor to break away from their current situation. Future generations of people will have a fair chance of doing well in life if they are educated from an early age. Acceptance of the education system by the urban poor will facilitate their escape from the poverty cycle, as they will not be incapacitated when they enter the workforce. Education also benefits the economy as there is a strong human resource base to rely on.
A prominent example of the above can be found in Singapore, where heavy emphasis is placed on education. During the days of colonial rule, many locals were uneducated and took up laborious jobs which payed very little (many became coolies). However, education has allowed future generations of Singaporeans to escape from the situation their forefathers found themselves trapped in. Singapore is currently regarded as a wealthy nation, and the percentage of poor people in the population is relatively low compared to the past.
I sincerely feel that attempts made by the urban poor to empower themselves, when complemented by well-informed policy making and efficient governance, will result in the overall improvement of living standards for the poor in a rapidly urbanizing South Asia. While it might be difficult to thrive in a modernizing and increasingly competitive society, it is not an impossible task and effort must be put in on an individual level for positive change to occur.
Progress is always welcome, but progress is for everyone. Let us work towards that goal.
Online version of article can be accessed at: http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=02&year=2008&date=09&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2008_8072205
In essence, the article's key idea can be exemplified by the situation India is in. India is widely regarded as a rising power in the modern world, but her push for urbanisation and growth is restricted because of problems such as corruption and insufficient finances. The alarming number of poor people living in urban areas (100 million or more) is a testament to the predicament India currently faces.
The future looks bleak for the urban poor, but is there really nothing they can do about it? I beg to differ. Although I do recognise that governments, by virtue of their authority, play an important role in determining the fate of their people, I feel that there are ways in which the urban poor can attempt to break out of the poverty cycle. Conscious efforts made by the urban poor to improve their standard of living will greatly increase the effectiveness of the changes introduced by their governments.
The urban poor must empower themselves in order to strive for a better future. Empowerment comes in two forms; upgrading of self and education of future generations. In the short term, the current generation of people living in poverty can attend various courses organized by their companies to equip themselves with skills which are useful for progress in their working life. This will pave the way for stronger financial security and ensure that their careers do not remain in a state of stagnation.
In the long run, education is essential in allowing the urban poor to break away from their current situation. Future generations of people will have a fair chance of doing well in life if they are educated from an early age. Acceptance of the education system by the urban poor will facilitate their escape from the poverty cycle, as they will not be incapacitated when they enter the workforce. Education also benefits the economy as there is a strong human resource base to rely on.
A prominent example of the above can be found in Singapore, where heavy emphasis is placed on education. During the days of colonial rule, many locals were uneducated and took up laborious jobs which payed very little (many became coolies). However, education has allowed future generations of Singaporeans to escape from the situation their forefathers found themselves trapped in. Singapore is currently regarded as a wealthy nation, and the percentage of poor people in the population is relatively low compared to the past.
I sincerely feel that attempts made by the urban poor to empower themselves, when complemented by well-informed policy making and efficient governance, will result in the overall improvement of living standards for the poor in a rapidly urbanizing South Asia. While it might be difficult to thrive in a modernizing and increasingly competitive society, it is not an impossible task and effort must be put in on an individual level for positive change to occur.
Progress is always welcome, but progress is for everyone. Let us work towards that goal.
Online version of article can be accessed at: http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=02&year=2008&date=09&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2008_8072205
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)