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.

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

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

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