Imagine if you could read the minds of people around the world to fathom what they were thinking about most.
What do you think it would it be? Global warming and the dangers climate change poses for their children?
Rising oil prices? Rising food costs?
Democracy? Human rights? Freedom?
Family? Relationships? Sex?
Well, the international polling organisation Gallup sought to find out with its first World Poll. It bills this as a "window into the minds of six billion people in over 140 countries", or 95 per cent of the world's adult population.
And the answer?
"What the whole world wants is a good job," Gallup chairman and chief executive officer Jim Clifton wrote in an article titled "Global Migration Patterns and Job Creation", published last October.
"That is one of the single biggest discoveries Gallup has ever made...
"If you and I were walking down the street in Khartoum, Teheran, Berlin, Lima, Los Angeles, Baghdad, Kolkata or Istanbul, we would discover that on most days the single most dominant thought carried around the heads of most people you and I see is, 'I want a good job'.
"It is the new current state of mind, and it establishes our relationship with our city, our country and the whole world around us."
Now this might well seem blindingly obvious, hardly something you need to poll six billion people to discover. After all, didn't then prime minister Goh Chok Tong declare in 2001 that the election then was all about "jobs, jobs, jobs"?
Gallup's Mr Clifton, however, believes the discovery is "game changing", to borrow one of Mrs Hillary Clinton's pet phrases.
Writing in the Gallup Management Journal, he argues: "Humans used to desire love, money, food, shelter, safety and/or peace of mind more than anything else. The last 25 years have changed us. Now we want to have a good job.
"This changes everything for world leaders. Everything they do – from waging war to building societies – will need to be done within the new context of the human need for 'good jobs'...
"Everything leaders do must consider this new global state of mind, lest they put their cities and countries at risk."
This too will sound familiar in Singapore, where the economic imperative has always been primary. Only in recent years have other concerns such as the need to boost creativity and enterprise, encourage environmental sustainability and strike a work-life balance gained in importance, without quite displacing economic priorities.
But the significance of the Clifton thesis lies in his view that in the face of the new global state of mind, countries and cities will have to compete for what he calls "brain gain" to stay ahead.
"Brain gain is the 'big-bang' theory of economic development. The challenge leaders face is how to trigger brain gain in their cities,'' he adds, referring to a society's ability to draw talented people, whose exceptional abilities and knowledge have a sort of multiplier effect on its economy.
He calls such people "stars". By this he does not just mean intellectually bright people, but includes innovators, entrepreneurs, superstars (like brand-name chefs, architects, musicians, actors and artists) and super-mentors (political leaders, philanthropists and others who take on the challenge of developing their communities).
The more of these stars a city or country can attract and keep, the better its prospects.
The United States, he notes, has streaked ahead of Japan and Germany – which many pundits said in the 1980s would soon rule the world – because it has been singularly successful at drawing such stars from around the world.
Similarly, those predicting that China's economic juggernaut would edge past the US before long might be "colossally wrong" as they fail to factor in the big unknown – whether China is politically and socially prepared to be a talent magnet like the US.
Singapore, with its long history of immigration, going back right to its founding in 1819, is the quintessential "brain gain" city. It has always drawn in people from the region with the wit and the will to create a better life for themselves and their families, and in the process, for the wider community too.
In recent years, Singapore has been experiencing another wave of "brain gain" with many more stars heading here, giving the place an even more cosmopolitan feel.
This point was brought home to me last Sunday evening, as I watched a video of a recent trip by my wife and her father to his ancestral village in Chaozhou, in southern China.
It was his first visit since he had journeyed to Singapore in the 1930s as a seven-year-old boy. Taking in the scenes of the village, reminiscent of Singapore in the 1960s and 1970s, you could not help but be struck by how very differently life would have turned out for him and his family had he not made that fateful boat trip.
Later, he met and married a fellow Teochew here, and they had five children. My mother-in-law often recounts how she climbed over the school gates in the wee hours of the morning just to make sure that her daughters got a place in a good English-speaking mission school, which laid the foundation for their successful careers today.
Yet, their story is by no means unique. Just about every family in Singapore has a similar tale. It is the Singapore story, of migrants heading to this island with big dreams, just as they continue to do to this day.
Given this backdrop, it never ceases to amaze me how strong the antipathy towards foreigners is among some Singaporeans. The issue continues to simmer and sour the ground, and is easily whipped up.
The latest incarnation of this is the angst over sweet young China waitresses giving beer-lady aunties in heartland kopitiams a run for their money.
Then, there is also the endless carping about the latest wave of immigrants filling service sector jobs although they struggle to speak English.
Let me ask a pointed question: Just what sets the Singaporean Chinese woman today apart from the "China girls" some speak so condescendingly about other than the fact that the forebears of one got here earlier than the other?
And are those language snobs who lament in their choice Singlish that new immigrants cannot speak "proper English" very different from the old colonialists who turned up their noses at the "uncultured and uncouth" early immigrants – in other words, your parents and mine – to these shores?
Given our immigrant history, Singaporeans should really be more gracious, and show more compassion and understanding towards newcomers to the island, to help them settle in.
They don't speak English? Well, they will soon learn, as their children surely will.
Being open and embracing towards newcomers is not only the decent thing to do, but it might also be in our own self-interest.
As Mr Clifton puts it: "Today's explorers migrate to the cities that are most likely to maximise innovation and entrepreneurial talents and skills. Wherever they can freely migrate is where the next economic empires will rise. San Francisco, Mumbai and Dublin have become hotbeds of job creation. This phenomenon has occurred in other hot cities from Austin to Boston and Seoul to Singapore."
The Government will have to do its part to woo talent here, adding that critical buzz to the city, and tackling issues such as rising housing costs, lack of office space or school places. But these efforts alone will not be enough, unless Singaporeans make those drawn here feel welcome.
So the next time you feel like letting fly against the growing number of foreigners here, remember this – you and I are the products of an earlier wave of immigration and "brain gain".
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Blog Entry 3
Hi, this is my third entry for my EL Blog.
Our government’s vision for Singapore is that we will live as a society uncontaminated by xenophobia, with doors open wide for foreigners to enter at will. Of course, based on our faithful devotion to the system of meritocracy, the doors are thrown open even wider for foreigners with distinction stamped on their academic certificates, also known as Foreign Talent. They have the potential to give our economy a boost, that extra kick that bestows upon us the international prestige that so many countries around the world are vying for.
However, on the other end of the spectrum of foreigners entering our nation, we have another collection of aliens whose contributions to our economy seem minimal but are most definitely not. They are none other than the Foreign Workers who work long hours at construction sites to erect the skyscrapers that Singapore prides in, and work as domestic helpers to care for the children of Singaporeans who often get too caught up with their work. They, unfortunately, are not given a celebratory welcome when they enter our country. Unlike foreign talents who enjoy the best harvest of our fields, Singaporeans seem to be able to find problems with foreign workers time and again. I believe that we need to change our attitude towards foreign workers, while maintaining the positive attitude that the government has towards foreign talents.
Foreign workers may not be major contributors to our thriving economy, but I believe that they are crucial all the same. The part they play in the advancement of our country can be likened to the role of the smallest toenail of the human body. I draw from the experience of my pastor who said that there was never a time when he missed his small toenail more than when he damaged it and had it surgically removed. That too is our situation – we will only appreciate the part that foreign workers play in the development of our nation when they are not here to build our buildings, look after our children and provide food for us at hawker centres.
Granted, we are not the only ones at fault in this conflict between us and foreign workers. There has been a plethora of complaints against them over the years. However, they all seem to share one common characteristic – foreign workers are not integrated in our society. This is something that no government can solve alone. As citizens of this nation, it is our duty to at least attempt to make foreigners feel welcome.
I totally agree with the writer of the article “Making Singapore a ‘brain gain’ city”. Many Singaporeans have stories similar to those of the foreign workers who come to Singapore searching for better economic prospects. In fact, I can relate to the foreigners who come to Singapore. My father migrated to Singapore because he found a job here. Not one day goes by that I don’t thank God for bringing my family to this beautiful nation. In the same way, I hope that all Singaporeans will adopt this perspective. Weren’t the forefathers of this nation “foreign workers” too? That being the case, by shunning foreign workers, we are being rather hypocritical.
It is time to open those doors a bit wider.
Our government’s vision for Singapore is that we will live as a society uncontaminated by xenophobia, with doors open wide for foreigners to enter at will. Of course, based on our faithful devotion to the system of meritocracy, the doors are thrown open even wider for foreigners with distinction stamped on their academic certificates, also known as Foreign Talent. They have the potential to give our economy a boost, that extra kick that bestows upon us the international prestige that so many countries around the world are vying for.
However, on the other end of the spectrum of foreigners entering our nation, we have another collection of aliens whose contributions to our economy seem minimal but are most definitely not. They are none other than the Foreign Workers who work long hours at construction sites to erect the skyscrapers that Singapore prides in, and work as domestic helpers to care for the children of Singaporeans who often get too caught up with their work. They, unfortunately, are not given a celebratory welcome when they enter our country. Unlike foreign talents who enjoy the best harvest of our fields, Singaporeans seem to be able to find problems with foreign workers time and again. I believe that we need to change our attitude towards foreign workers, while maintaining the positive attitude that the government has towards foreign talents.
Foreign workers may not be major contributors to our thriving economy, but I believe that they are crucial all the same. The part they play in the advancement of our country can be likened to the role of the smallest toenail of the human body. I draw from the experience of my pastor who said that there was never a time when he missed his small toenail more than when he damaged it and had it surgically removed. That too is our situation – we will only appreciate the part that foreign workers play in the development of our nation when they are not here to build our buildings, look after our children and provide food for us at hawker centres.
Granted, we are not the only ones at fault in this conflict between us and foreign workers. There has been a plethora of complaints against them over the years. However, they all seem to share one common characteristic – foreign workers are not integrated in our society. This is something that no government can solve alone. As citizens of this nation, it is our duty to at least attempt to make foreigners feel welcome.
I totally agree with the writer of the article “Making Singapore a ‘brain gain’ city”. Many Singaporeans have stories similar to those of the foreign workers who come to Singapore searching for better economic prospects. In fact, I can relate to the foreigners who come to Singapore. My father migrated to Singapore because he found a job here. Not one day goes by that I don’t thank God for bringing my family to this beautiful nation. In the same way, I hope that all Singaporeans will adopt this perspective. Weren’t the forefathers of this nation “foreign workers” too? That being the case, by shunning foreign workers, we are being rather hypocritical.
It is time to open those doors a bit wider.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
A few posts earlier, Kirk pointed out that the government can intervene when things go awry. However, it is not so easy for the government to intervene in a democracy. When the government intervenes, it goes against the spirit of democracy like Zi Yang said. The people of the country would certainly not like it when they are not listened to. For instance, just look at Malaysia now. They have just reduced the subsidies on their fuel. The people did not want the price increase but the government decided to do it any way for the good of the country's economy. This could be an example of "government intervention". The result was protests from the citizens of Malaysia. Thus, not only does governmenty intervention go against the spirit of democracy, but it also brings about uhappinesss in a country, reducing its stability. As a result, government intervention is not always a viable option when dealing with unpopular policies disliked by the majority.
Kirk also mentioned that educated people would be able to make a decision for the benefit of the whole nation. However this is not true. Not everyone is so selfless. Especially when it comes to money and economic policies, people are not so agreeable. The same example of fuel subsidies can be used for this. In the same way, it becomes hard for he government to implement some of the more unpopular but necessary policies.
Kirk also mentioned that educated people would be able to make a decision for the benefit of the whole nation. However this is not true. Not everyone is so selfless. Especially when it comes to money and economic policies, people are not so agreeable. The same example of fuel subsidies can be used for this. In the same way, it becomes hard for he government to implement some of the more unpopular but necessary policies.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Democracy
Hi everyone,
I guess what Zi Yang is referring to is Representative Democracy. In other words, the people vote for representatives in the government who they believe will represent their ideas and beliefs so that their voice can be heard in the government. I guess earlier on, in my previous post, I was slightly confused about something which I must clarify now.
In democracy, although I said that the people make decisions, that is not entirely true. It is the government that makes policies and decisions. The exception would be in the case of a referendum, where the government consults the people to see what they want. But usually, in Singapore, the government makes a decision and if the people really don't like it or want it to be modified, there are many platforms to voice their different opinions. Thus, when I said that the people make decisions by voting for it, that was not entirely true, at least in the context of Singapore. I mean, did the government actually ask us to vote if we wanted a 2% hike in GST? No, the government decided on that, and if there was any "consultation of the people" to get their votes, it probably only included the people who were in the government, or people who contributed to the financial sector of Singapore.
So we can see something from here. The government is not going to ask 4 million people what they think unless it is a huge decision, such as the Merger with Malaysia in 1963. On the other hand, a democratic government will not make decisions entirely by itself, because that would be authoritarianism. No, I believe that the government asks certain people or groups of people for what they think, then they make the decision, and then the people who were not involved in making the decision, like us, can then voice their opinion. For example, passing a law requires Bills, reviewing by the Legislative Assembly, etc. but the government will not ask 4 million people what they think about passing a new law before passing it.
There are some implications of this system. If the government chooses a select group of people to vote or voice their opinion about a new policy, we can look at this action of the government in two ways. We can say that they are doing something for the good of the nation because they are asking educated professionals on what they think. And if they are experts in their field (finance, for example), then they should make the best decision for all of us. However, we can also say that the government is not doing the right thing because, like what Zi Yang pointed out, there is always the fear that the majority might not make the right decision.
What happens when the majority makes a wrong decision? To tell you the truth, I'm really not sure. I mean, back in 1963, when 71% of the people wanted to merge with Malaysia, they didn't have the foresight to see that the Merger would not work. This has probably been a problem with democracy since it was first used. All we can do is hope that the people know what they want. When it comes to voting for political parties, the people must really imagine life with that party in power before voting.
Thanks
Kirk
Democracy: Majority vs. Minority?
Hi all,
Actually this is more of a clarification...what exactly do we classify as "democracy"? As I gather from previous discussion, democracy here would encompass freedom of speech etc., and if the government intervenes, then would the intervention oppose the spirit of "democracy"?
Kirk, could you also elaborate on your point please, I'm not sure if I get what you mean. Actually, the "decisions" I mentioned in my previous post include the elections of political parties; if that decision alone is biased, how and why would the government intervene? Besides, how would you define "awry" and how would you determine if something is awry?
Thanks.
Zi Yang
Actually this is more of a clarification...what exactly do we classify as "democracy"? As I gather from previous discussion, democracy here would encompass freedom of speech etc., and if the government intervenes, then would the intervention oppose the spirit of "democracy"?
Kirk, could you also elaborate on your point please, I'm not sure if I get what you mean. Actually, the "decisions" I mentioned in my previous post include the elections of political parties; if that decision alone is biased, how and why would the government intervene? Besides, how would you define "awry" and how would you determine if something is awry?
Thanks.
Zi Yang
Democracy: Majority vs. Minority?
Thanks Zi Yang for your post. I understand that the majority may not always make decisions that are for the good of the nation but that is why there needs to be a government to step in when something is awry. Anyway, the way I see it, if we were to take a country which has a high literacy rate, good education system, etc. such as Singapore, I think that most people would be able to make good decisions based on what they know and what they've learnt that will undoubtedly benefit the nation.
Kirk
Kirk
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Democracy
Hi everyone.
Given, deomcracy will be able to solve many problems, as it is the representative opinion of the people. However, what if the representative opinion of the people is detrimental to the society? Would democracy then create stability?
Consider a not-so-hypothetical example of a country faced with majority vs minority problems. If democracy is implemented, wouldn't that cause the decisions to be in favour of the majority? Yes, they can state their views, but are their voices really heard?
Zi Yang
Given, deomcracy will be able to solve many problems, as it is the representative opinion of the people. However, what if the representative opinion of the people is detrimental to the society? Would democracy then create stability?
Consider a not-so-hypothetical example of a country faced with majority vs minority problems. If democracy is implemented, wouldn't that cause the decisions to be in favour of the majority? Yes, they can state their views, but are their voices really heard?
Zi Yang
Thursday, May 29, 2008
More about Democracy
Hi, Kirk here.
I agree with Daniel has said and I'd like to add on. I think one very unique thing about democracy is that it listens to even the tiniest voice. A government definitely needs to do what the majority wants because otherwise, there will be a huge public outcry. But if it decides to ignore the cries of the minority groups in Singapore, or worse still, suppress their cries, then there will never be stability in our nation. Instead, a government needs to be willing to listen to the cries of the minority groups and then find a way to satisfy them or turn them down for the good of the nation.
Thanks
Kirk
I agree with Daniel has said and I'd like to add on. I think one very unique thing about democracy is that it listens to even the tiniest voice. A government definitely needs to do what the majority wants because otherwise, there will be a huge public outcry. But if it decides to ignore the cries of the minority groups in Singapore, or worse still, suppress their cries, then there will never be stability in our nation. Instead, a government needs to be willing to listen to the cries of the minority groups and then find a way to satisfy them or turn them down for the good of the nation.
Thanks
Kirk
Democracy
Hi all.
This is Daniel.
This are my views on the articles for 'Blogging About Democracy'
I feel that the article on the website 'http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/street/pl38/demo.htm'
about 'How Democracy Can be Bad for You' differs from my opinion. I agree that even though many people vote for something, it does not mean that that group of people are correct. (In democracy, the majority wins) This would certainly be committing the fallacy Bandwagon. However, i feel that every individual has his/her own opinion and that all humans are equal. Thus even though the majority may not be right, their opinion (in democracy's case, vote) should still be carried out.
Cheers
Daniel
This is Daniel.
This are my views on the articles for 'Blogging About Democracy'
I feel that the article on the website 'http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/street/pl38/demo.htm'
about 'How Democracy Can be Bad for You' differs from my opinion. I agree that even though many people vote for something, it does not mean that that group of people are correct. (In democracy, the majority wins) This would certainly be committing the fallacy Bandwagon. However, i feel that every individual has his/her own opinion and that all humans are equal. Thus even though the majority may not be right, their opinion (in democracy's case, vote) should still be carried out.
Cheers
Daniel
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Can Democracy Create Stability?
Hi, this is my blog entry for Term 2 on the topic "Can Democracy Create Stability?" The article that I referred to is entitled "Why Democracy is Good for Development" by Anita Inder Singh and it can be found in the blog entry directly below this one. Alternatively, you can visit this website
http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/issue3/0306p29.htm
____________________________________________
Recently, in my class, we examined a hypothetical case study in which an authoritarian regime had come to an end. The aim of the assignment was to design a democratic government for the country. My classmates started asking, “Why democracy?” I thought that that was a really apt question. The viewpoint that democracy equates to stability – a state of political, economic and social progress in which a country is far from conflict – is rooted deeply in our thinking in this day and age. I have come to agree with this viewpoint because democracy is based on consensual agreement and brings power to the people.
Each human being has the intellectual capability to think for himself. Of course people’s thinking can be influenced by others but nevertheless, each of us can form our own ideas and viewpoints. This unique feature of man has been the bane of humanity since the beginning of time because it has led to conflicts in perspectives time and again. Democracy is the only political system that is able to curb this predicament as it is founded on the principle of consensus. Everyone has a say in what the government decides and the best possible outcome is achieved through the process of discussion, debating and eventually, compromise and consensus. Undeniably, this situation seems a tad too idealistic as governmental policies will never get the support of the entire nation. However, even if consensus cannot be reached, the next best thing to do would be to adopt the viewpoint of the majority without ignoring the minority group. An authoritarian regime would suppress the cries of the opposition but a democratic government must open its ears to even the tiniest of voices. Indeed, democracy creates stability because its fundamental principle is consensus.
Every decision that a person makes is influenced by his perception of the situation at hand. Thus, those who believe in democracy must have a common perception. I believe that this perception is that humans are able to make the right decision. This assumption is often criticised but to me, it is what makes democracy so attractive. Who wants to live a life that is fully governed? The ability to make our own choices is a gift that should be used for the benefit of mankind. With all of us being inherently flawed, I would think that placing a national issue in the hands of the people would be a much more astute decision than placing it on the shoulders of just one or a few people. Democracy is the key to allowing the people to have some degree of power so that when it’s time to make a decision, many heads can be put together and the decision made will be in the best interests of everyone. Once again, stability is achieved.
Being established on the important principle of consensus and the ability to grant power to the people, democracy creates stability in a society. We must always remember that every voice matters, even the smallest.
http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/issue3/0306p29.htm
____________________________________________
Recently, in my class, we examined a hypothetical case study in which an authoritarian regime had come to an end. The aim of the assignment was to design a democratic government for the country. My classmates started asking, “Why democracy?” I thought that that was a really apt question. The viewpoint that democracy equates to stability – a state of political, economic and social progress in which a country is far from conflict – is rooted deeply in our thinking in this day and age. I have come to agree with this viewpoint because democracy is based on consensual agreement and brings power to the people.
Each human being has the intellectual capability to think for himself. Of course people’s thinking can be influenced by others but nevertheless, each of us can form our own ideas and viewpoints. This unique feature of man has been the bane of humanity since the beginning of time because it has led to conflicts in perspectives time and again. Democracy is the only political system that is able to curb this predicament as it is founded on the principle of consensus. Everyone has a say in what the government decides and the best possible outcome is achieved through the process of discussion, debating and eventually, compromise and consensus. Undeniably, this situation seems a tad too idealistic as governmental policies will never get the support of the entire nation. However, even if consensus cannot be reached, the next best thing to do would be to adopt the viewpoint of the majority without ignoring the minority group. An authoritarian regime would suppress the cries of the opposition but a democratic government must open its ears to even the tiniest of voices. Indeed, democracy creates stability because its fundamental principle is consensus.
Every decision that a person makes is influenced by his perception of the situation at hand. Thus, those who believe in democracy must have a common perception. I believe that this perception is that humans are able to make the right decision. This assumption is often criticised but to me, it is what makes democracy so attractive. Who wants to live a life that is fully governed? The ability to make our own choices is a gift that should be used for the benefit of mankind. With all of us being inherently flawed, I would think that placing a national issue in the hands of the people would be a much more astute decision than placing it on the shoulders of just one or a few people. Democracy is the key to allowing the people to have some degree of power so that when it’s time to make a decision, many heads can be put together and the decision made will be in the best interests of everyone. Once again, stability is achieved.
Being established on the important principle of consensus and the ability to grant power to the people, democracy creates stability in a society. We must always remember that every voice matters, even the smallest.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Why Democracy is Good for Development by Anita Inder Singh
By Anita Inder Singh
Can democracy deliver? The good news is, yes, it can. Most of the countries with the highest level of human development are democracies, while most of the poorest are autocracies.
But democracy is not necessary for development. Singapore and South Korea, considered to be among the world's richest countries, prove the point: the reasons for their rapid progress range from high levels of education to sound economic policies. On the other hand, China and India, the world's most populous nations, are both medium-level development countries. Authoritarian China (ranked 85 in the 2005 Human Development Index) is ahead of India (127), but far behind Japan (11), which along with India has been one of Asia's most stable democracies since the end of the Second World War.
If there is no obvious link between dictatorship and economic progress, or between democracy and poverty reduction, why is democracy better for development? Democracy is about the means used to achieve goals. Democratic values and processes imply peace, reconciliation, dialogue, consensus and, above all, intellectual and political choice.
The stability of democracies does not depend on force, but on the consensus of the governed. And consensus can only be forged through democracy. From 1950 to 1990, riots and demonstrations in many countries but caused greater destabilization in dictatorships. Moreover, authoritarian States experienced more wars, with their high economic costs.Collapsed States have tended to be authoritarian, such as the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, which were once regarded as models of development. They disintegrated because their intolerant rulers failed to build consensus for political and economic liberalization. Elected rulers have to be more accountable to voters, so they are more likely to have the incentive to improve the lives of citizens. Whatever the faults of democracies, none has ever experienced a famine, in contrast to many authoritarian States, including British India, China and Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), where millions of people lost their lives in man-made famines.
Democracy implies concern about the means through which development takes place, without the great death tolls brought about and justified by dictators in the name of modernization. Poverty is about lack of resources, thus obstructing free expression of political preferences and demands for accountable, transparent government and better life chances on a level playing field. That does not mean that a poor country is necessarily undemocratic, or a rich nation liberal, but poverty eradication could contribute to the achievement of democracy in its fullest sense.
Taken together, democracy and development enable people to choose their rulers and their way of life. Both can be mutually reinforcing: they require the rule of law, independent courts that can enforce the law impartially, and political parties and parliaments that represent voters.
Democracy and development also complement each other. The political choices offered by democracy are linked to the social and economic choices offered by development. Choice-the freedom to determine one's destiny-is the hallmark of both democracy and development. Through its multifaceted work on advancing human development and human security, the international community should do all it can to increase those choices.
Can democracy deliver? The good news is, yes, it can. Most of the countries with the highest level of human development are democracies, while most of the poorest are autocracies.
But democracy is not necessary for development. Singapore and South Korea, considered to be among the world's richest countries, prove the point: the reasons for their rapid progress range from high levels of education to sound economic policies. On the other hand, China and India, the world's most populous nations, are both medium-level development countries. Authoritarian China (ranked 85 in the 2005 Human Development Index) is ahead of India (127), but far behind Japan (11), which along with India has been one of Asia's most stable democracies since the end of the Second World War.
If there is no obvious link between dictatorship and economic progress, or between democracy and poverty reduction, why is democracy better for development? Democracy is about the means used to achieve goals. Democratic values and processes imply peace, reconciliation, dialogue, consensus and, above all, intellectual and political choice.
The stability of democracies does not depend on force, but on the consensus of the governed. And consensus can only be forged through democracy. From 1950 to 1990, riots and demonstrations in many countries but caused greater destabilization in dictatorships. Moreover, authoritarian States experienced more wars, with their high economic costs.Collapsed States have tended to be authoritarian, such as the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, which were once regarded as models of development. They disintegrated because their intolerant rulers failed to build consensus for political and economic liberalization. Elected rulers have to be more accountable to voters, so they are more likely to have the incentive to improve the lives of citizens. Whatever the faults of democracies, none has ever experienced a famine, in contrast to many authoritarian States, including British India, China and Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), where millions of people lost their lives in man-made famines.
Democracy implies concern about the means through which development takes place, without the great death tolls brought about and justified by dictators in the name of modernization. Poverty is about lack of resources, thus obstructing free expression of political preferences and demands for accountable, transparent government and better life chances on a level playing field. That does not mean that a poor country is necessarily undemocratic, or a rich nation liberal, but poverty eradication could contribute to the achievement of democracy in its fullest sense.
Taken together, democracy and development enable people to choose their rulers and their way of life. Both can be mutually reinforcing: they require the rule of law, independent courts that can enforce the law impartially, and political parties and parliaments that represent voters.
Democracy and development also complement each other. The political choices offered by democracy are linked to the social and economic choices offered by development. Choice-the freedom to determine one's destiny-is the hallmark of both democracy and development. Through its multifaceted work on advancing human development and human security, the international community should do all it can to increase those choices.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Questions on Democracy
Hi, to my Social Advocacy Group, please post all your questions on Democracy for our Social Studies essay assignment. We always regard democracy as the best form of government for any country. Does democracy really lead to stability? If we were to examine human nature, is there really such a thing as an ideal form of government? If there is, is it democracy?
Remember that we must define democracy. Theoretically speaking, there are many types of democracy. In the real world, there are even more forms of democracy, with some countries following the political ideology closer than others. Although it would be easier to focus on democracy theoretically, we must remember that the essay that we are writing is on Social Studies and thus, we have to constantly bring in examples of democratic nations around the world.
In a democratic society, people get to influence the decisions made by the government. They can do this by voting for a policy or electing a representative into the government. The assumption made in this political ideology is that people know how to make the right choices. I feel that we should question this assumption. Isn't there the danger of the Bandwagon fallacy in democracy (where one person makes a certain decision because the rest are doing so)? Do people really know how to make the right choices? A scientist (I can't remember who, sorry) once published a report claiming that humans are naturally selfish. So in a democratic society, although the ideal situation would be that everybody wants to achieve a common good for society, is that really the case? Or does everyone just vote for what they want?
Let's examine this logical flow - if humans are naturally selfish, that goes to say that people will vote for what they want and advocate what they want. Since there are always conflicts in the viewpoints and ideas that different people have, that means that people want different things. If people want different things for their satisfaction, is there really such a thing as a common good for the society? Who determines this "common good"?
Of course, to ensure that ideas that are outrightly detrimental to the society are not carried out, the government has to intervene. The government always promises to listen to the people and not necessarily grant them whatever they want. Thus, in any democracy, there will be instances when the government makes decisions that go against what the majority wants because it feels that that is the right thing to do. How often can a government do this without arousing anger in the people? Does the government always know when to make the right choice?
OK, these are some of the questions that I brainstormed. Perhaps you might want to pick some of them up and discuss them in the Comments section.
Thanks
Kirk
Remember that we must define democracy. Theoretically speaking, there are many types of democracy. In the real world, there are even more forms of democracy, with some countries following the political ideology closer than others. Although it would be easier to focus on democracy theoretically, we must remember that the essay that we are writing is on Social Studies and thus, we have to constantly bring in examples of democratic nations around the world.
In a democratic society, people get to influence the decisions made by the government. They can do this by voting for a policy or electing a representative into the government. The assumption made in this political ideology is that people know how to make the right choices. I feel that we should question this assumption. Isn't there the danger of the Bandwagon fallacy in democracy (where one person makes a certain decision because the rest are doing so)? Do people really know how to make the right choices? A scientist (I can't remember who, sorry) once published a report claiming that humans are naturally selfish. So in a democratic society, although the ideal situation would be that everybody wants to achieve a common good for society, is that really the case? Or does everyone just vote for what they want?
Let's examine this logical flow - if humans are naturally selfish, that goes to say that people will vote for what they want and advocate what they want. Since there are always conflicts in the viewpoints and ideas that different people have, that means that people want different things. If people want different things for their satisfaction, is there really such a thing as a common good for the society? Who determines this "common good"?
Of course, to ensure that ideas that are outrightly detrimental to the society are not carried out, the government has to intervene. The government always promises to listen to the people and not necessarily grant them whatever they want. Thus, in any democracy, there will be instances when the government makes decisions that go against what the majority wants because it feels that that is the right thing to do. How often can a government do this without arousing anger in the people? Does the government always know when to make the right choice?
OK, these are some of the questions that I brainstormed. Perhaps you might want to pick some of them up and discuss them in the Comments section.
Thanks
Kirk
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Despite more help, suicide rate for young has not fallen
Section: Home
By: ARTI MULCHAND
Publication: The Straits Times 09/03/2006
Page: H3
No. of words: 731
Experts worry that rate has not changed much for those under 20, with a rise between 1998 and 2000
MORE groups are in place to counsel troubled youngsters, but the suicide rate among those under 20 is not falling, and this is concerning psychologists.
Of the 1,723 people who killed themselves between 2000 and 2004, 88, or 5 per cent, were aged 20 and under.
The suicide rate has not changed much since 1995, when fewer help groups - such as counsellors in schools and in neighbourhood civic groups - existed. In fact, the 1998 to 2000 period saw a rise in suicide rates among males and females aged under 20.
Dr Alex Su, head of emergency services at the Institute of Mental Health, said this trend is 'worrying'.
He said: These are young, healthy people. They should not want to die. And they can get help, yet they choose to kill themselves. We need to look at how to build their resilience, and find protective factors, instead of waiting for things to happen.'
He added that although a network of counseling and support services for troubled youths is already in place in the schools and neighbourhoods, 'in reality, there are still youths who fall through the cracks. There may be new factors, areas that can be addressed better, like how they handle stress or breakups'.
He said Singapore needs a more coordinated national plan to bring down suicide rates.
Many other countries already have these. In Britain, for example, the national plan sets a time frame for bringing down the rate to a particular level; it also outlines specific roles that agencies handling potential victims should play.
Citing an example of a teen who overdoses on drugs but survives, he explained that with roles spelt out, the hospital would be the teen's first stop so that his injuries can be treated. After this, he is passed on to an in-house psychiatrist.
If the teen is still considered at a moderately high risk of making another attempt on his life, the Institute of Mental Health gets on board. Down the line, the relevant ministries and family service centres will track the case.
Dr Su said that in Singapore, these protocols have not been formalised.
So why do the young choose to end it all?
Psychologist Chia Boon Hock, who has been studying Singapore's suicide figures between 2000 and 2004, says 'life events' such as getting into relationships or doing badly at school are frequently factors.
Failed relationships were why 56.8 per cent of the under 20s killed themselves in that five-year period. Another 25 per cent did so because of problems with studies; 9 per cent had money troubles.
Legal problems plagued 4.5 per cent, and job-related problems, another 1.1 per cent.
But he qualified that very often, a complex of reasons rather than one single one pushes a suicide over the edge.
Another trend he has noted: More young suicides are leaving behind suicide notes nowadays.
Among suicides aged between 10 and 24 from 2000 to 2004, a good 46.5 per cent left notes. Back between 1969 and 1976, only 23 per cent of young suicides in this same age group did so.
Dr Su said these notes are getting longer and more expressive, because 'people are getting more literate and more anxious to express what they were going through'.
'Young people want others to understand why they are doing the things they do, to justify their actions to family and friends ... The elderly are less emotional about their decision to kill themselves.'
One other trend that shows the sign of the times: suicide notes being sent via SMS.
Dr Chia counted 16 SMS suicide notes in 2004 - 13 of them in English, three in Chinese.
Back in 2001, there were just seven. In all, 45 suicides between 2001 and 2004 chose SMS as a way to say goodbye, mostly to a parent or a partner.
'Almost everyone has a phone and can SMS, so it's now the way people talk,' said Dr Chia, who expects this number to go up.
Suicides by the young will be one key area up for discussion at the 2nd Asia Pacific Suicide Prevention Conference to be held this weekend.
arti@sph.com.sg
Teens Committing Suicide
Hi everyone, here is my first blog entry of the year. The article can be found at http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=03&year=2006&date=09&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2006_3671115
I will also paste the article on my blog...
According to an article published in the Straits Times on the 9th of March 2006, teenagers constitute a large number of people committing suicide in Singapore and the number just doesn’t seem to be decreasing. 5 percent of people who committed suicide between 2000 and 2004 were all below 20 years of age. Besides revealing shocking statistics on the number of teenagers that have fallen prey to suicide, the article also explores the systems that the government has put in place for people on the brink of suicide and the common reasons why people commit suicide, such as failed relationships, academic problems and the like.
What do we need to do to overcome the problem of teenagers committing suicide? The answer is simple – we need to understand why teenagers resort to such dire consequences. Even though suicide is generally disapproved of by society, we should be open to the views of people on the brink of suicide.
One thing we must steer clear of is immediate condemnation. Providing a listening ear has become increasingly essential in today’s day and age because many teenagers are following the trend of being “emo”, which is short for “emotional”. In other words, more teenagers are expressing signs of angst and depression nowadays. Some parents react to this shift in teens’ attitudes in a harsh manner by punishing their children, for example. However, what they do not realise is that this might worsen the situation. Being a teenager myself, I’ve met teenagers who have secluded themselves from their families because their parents did not react properly to the changes in their behaviour. If we don’t learn to sit down with teens showing angst and signs of depression and talk with them, they will never be able to solve their problems and as a result, they might commit suicide.
Of course, when I say “we”, I don’t mean just anybody. We need people who are experienced in dealing with teenagers with problems. I am aware that many secondary schools have professional counselors to handle these problems. However, I’m of the opinion that more needs to be done. Usually, counselors are situated in offices, waiting for students with problems to approach them. I don’t believe that counselors should be restricted to offices. I feel that counselors should be amongst students in their work and play. That’s why many teachers make excellent counselors – they know what teenagers go through in school. Of course, I’m not suggesting that all teachers double up as counselors as well – that would be an administrative disaster and would mean a whole lot more work for teachers as well.
I’ll end with this. People resort to suicide as a way to escape from the pressures of life. That is why resilience needs to be inculcated in Singaporeans from young. This can be achieved by supporting teenagers in their endeavours and encouraging them to be positive in every situation, no matter how bleak it may be.
True strength is found in a positive, joyful attitude.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)