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
Thursday, May 29, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
