I shall be addressing Suphasak's point about the economic successes of democracy as opposed to other political systems. While I agree that not all democracies have perfect, or even stable economies, there is certainly a greater likelihood for a nation to have economic success if it is democratic. As I have stated in my essay, this would be due to several virtues of democracy, such as the greater amount of support it gets from world superpowers. If you would compare a different political system, such as communism, you would find a distinct gap in the per capita incomes of citizens. For example, in the old USSR, often considered to be the most "perfect" epitome of Communism, citizens earned far less than other democracies of the day, such as the United States.
Also, Suphasak comments on the rich-poor divide. Yes, although it is possible that democracies may suffer from this problem, but if you consider the alternative you would find other political systems suffer from this to an even greater degree! In an country ruled by aristocrats or a tyrant, it is obvious that the oligarchy would inherently fare much better than the plebians, and compared to this, democracy is clearly not so blatant. Additionally, as stated before, most democracies have constitutions which clearly aim to prevent abuse of any one group of people- including the poor. It is likely that a democratic country would have checks and balances to protect the economically disadvantaged, because clearly, it depends on the power of the people.
Monday, 7 July 2008
Disagreement
Anurak has already written down the advantages and disadvantages of democracy, and I agree with his argument to a large extent.
However, there is a point which I will like to point out in his essay that I disagree with.
Anurak has stated that 'democracy creates better standards of living for all the people'. This statement is definitely not true. If democracy is really able to create better standards of living for all the people, then why are there still chaos and instability in a country that is democratic (eg. Thailand)? Even if it is in an economy sense, democracy is not able to create better standards of living for all the people. I agree that free markets are better as people are allowed to choose their own jobs and join labour unions. Moreover, if the government totally control the economy, then there tent to create dishonesty and corruption. Yet, there is a loop hole in the system of free market itself. In countries where great inequality of wealth exists (due to past discrimination or other unfair practices), the states should play a stronger role in them. If not, they poor will definitely be of disadvantages. For example, in Indonesia, the richer becomes richer, and the poorer becomes poorer. The phenomenon becomes a vicious cycle, unable the poor to get out of their social status. Therefore, even in economic sense, democracy fails to become a system which suits the need of all the people, and it is not even come close to a point where everyone's standard of living is better.
Pesonally, I feel that democracy as a system itself is able to create peace within a society. However, what make the system impossible to become as close as a 'utopia' state is because of external factors, such as tyranny of majority or corruption.
How to avoid all these complications?
However, there is a point which I will like to point out in his essay that I disagree with.
Anurak has stated that 'democracy creates better standards of living for all the people'. This statement is definitely not true. If democracy is really able to create better standards of living for all the people, then why are there still chaos and instability in a country that is democratic (eg. Thailand)? Even if it is in an economy sense, democracy is not able to create better standards of living for all the people. I agree that free markets are better as people are allowed to choose their own jobs and join labour unions. Moreover, if the government totally control the economy, then there tent to create dishonesty and corruption. Yet, there is a loop hole in the system of free market itself. In countries where great inequality of wealth exists (due to past discrimination or other unfair practices), the states should play a stronger role in them. If not, they poor will definitely be of disadvantages. For example, in Indonesia, the richer becomes richer, and the poorer becomes poorer. The phenomenon becomes a vicious cycle, unable the poor to get out of their social status. Therefore, even in economic sense, democracy fails to become a system which suits the need of all the people, and it is not even come close to a point where everyone's standard of living is better.
Pesonally, I feel that democracy as a system itself is able to create peace within a society. However, what make the system impossible to become as close as a 'utopia' state is because of external factors, such as tyranny of majority or corruption.
How to avoid all these complications?
Friday, 6 June 2008
“Democracy creates stability in society.”
I would say that this statement is largely true, and will discuss this reasoning in the course of this essay. To start, we must first define the terms within this statement. “Democracy” refers to a state of government where political sovereignty is held by the people, who either exercise it directly in the decision-making process or elect representatives. By “society”, we refer to the general population within the country in which this democracy takes place. Lastly, “stability” means that the people are content politically, socially and economically and as such will not raise protests over issues concerning these areas. I will be basing my argument on the following points: Firstly, democracy ensures that the common man has a choice. Secondly, democracy allows a better standard of living. Thirdly, democracy promotes foreign relations.
As my first point, I say that democracy ensures that the common man has a choice. This means that the everyman has the right to make his own decisions and play an active role in developing the future of his country. Obviously, the people believe that they themselves should know what is best for their country. By letting them make this choice, democracy satisfies them and makes them content. For example, in Myanmar, people protested vigorously because the junta did not allow them to have any say while making the decisions. This led people to campaign for democracy and freedom of speech in the country.
In democracy, the people are able to take matters into their own hands, instead of just feebly protesting the decisions made by the government which they feel are wrong. Although this is most apparent in direct democracy, where the people get to vote during each and every decision, this is also true for representative democracy. Voters get to select a candidate whose policies they agree with, so they can be assured that the choices their representative makes are correct, in their opinion. All of this means that socially, society will be stable because of the contentment people experience in making their own choices.
Secondly, democracy creates better standards of living for all the people, in an economic sense. Democracies have a free market, where the people themselves regulate the economy, and the government imposes little control over the prices or market forces. This generally means that there are fewer taxes, as compared to other political systems like totalitarianism, and would mean that the people can prosper. In an oligarchy or autocracy, for example, there is a significant divide between the ruling classes and the so-called plebians, who suffer from this system. This definitely will not promote stability, for the disparity would surely draw much ire from the citizens.
Some might bring up the idea of communism, where the people share all possessions and wealth, ensuring that there is little disparity. In theory, this sounds good, but if we turn to nations such as Soviet Russia, we can see that it did not work. The government heavily regulated the prices of resources and ended up increasing inflation, to the point where the economy was in danger of collapsing. Thus, from these examples we can see that democracy, in which people can make their own economic choices, promotes economic stability as well.
Thirdly, democracy promotes foreign relations as well. Cynical as it may seem, democracy indeed allows a country to have better foreign ties, especially with world superpowers such as the United States of America. In fact, the United States is so keen on democracy that they actively try to “convert” other, non-democratic nations to their political system. We also know that it has different, better foreign policies for countries which practice democracy, and is more likely to give foreign aid to a democratic country. In fact, one interesting example would be the way “democracy” and its derivatives are used in the names of countries. North Korea, though clearly a dictatorship under Kim Jong Il, calls itself the “Democratic People's Republic of Korea”. It lives under a façade of democracy in order to improve relations, though this did not work. Thus, democracy gives a country an advantage in its ties and relations with other countries, and allows it political stability.
However, there are still problems with the concept of democracy, and some criticism must be made. Firstly, democracy as a process is inefficient, especially direct democracy. If there is a vote taken every time a decision has to be made, this would surely delay the process and take up time. Even if representatives are used, some time would still be needed to debate the issue in Parliament among the government and opposition members. In a dictatorship, for example, the dictator can instantly pass a bill without needing to consult anyone. This ensures efficiency, which is important in the running of a country.
Secondly, majority rule in a democracy sometimes leads to marginalization of the minority of the people. If the people decide to push a bill which is disadvantageous to a minority group, and then vote to pass it, they could successfully marginalize this group. It would be a case of the strong bullying the weak, because it can wield greater political clout. This detracts from social stability.
Thirdly, and perhaps most relevant would be the fact that the common man may not know what is best for himself. A normal man on the street might not be perceptive or politically aware enough to make a decision for his country, or choose the best representative to make these kinds of decisions. It could be argued that decision-making should be left to experts in the respective fields, such as politics and economics, for they know what is best for the country in their fields.
I shall address these criticisms point by point. To the first point, that democracy is inefficient, this is untrue. With the advent of technology, the government can streamline the voting process. An example of this would be in Switzerland, where citizens can take part in polls online. This still ensures that the country is not bogged down by its own decision making process.
To the second point, there are always safeguards against this in all nations. Normally, this would be in the constitution upon which the nation is founded, such as in the United States of America. It states that “every man has the right to pursue his own happiness”, meaning that every individual has rights which cannot be infringed on. The constitution, or any similar document, ensures this social stability.
To the last point, this problem is easily resolved in representative democracy. If the people do not make their decisions directly, they can always elect a representative to make their decisions for them, to the best of their interests. Detractors might ask, “What if the people do not know which representative is best for them?” To this I answer that the leaders of their country always have a limited term in which they can serve in office, so they can always re-elect a different representative to power if they are unsatisfied with their current one. In direct democracy, experts on their fields could be brought in to advise the public before they make a decision, so that the public will know the advantages and disadvantages of each choice they are making. Additionally, as stated before, letting the people choose actually contributes to the stability of the nation as well.
In conclusion, we can see that democracy does indeed create stability in society, in terms of political, economic and social factors, and the advantages it offers far outweigh its disadvantages, if there are any at all.
Thursday, 6 March 2008
My reflections on the article
After reading this article on the internet, I have to say that I am growing increasingly disturbed by a trend. Apparently, many teens, who are around the same age as my peers and I, are into this 'emo' fad, and some go to the extent of slashing their wrists and other body parts in order to show how tormented they feel. They mutilate themselves in order to feel 'better', or to relieve themselves of their angst, and are often depressed and socially inactive.
Firstly, I shall cover what I think is the reason behind this 'emo' fad, which seems to be all the rage now. The first group of teens who mutilate themselves would be those who are attention-seekers. They feel that they are not loved or noticed by their parents enough, so they slash at their wrists in an attempt to draw attention to themselves. By cutting themselves, they seem to be saying, "Look at me! I'm so pitiful, I have to resort to this to deal with my emotions!"
The second group of people who would cut themselves would be the 'sheep', or those who subcribe to the herd mentality. After watching some of their peers act depressed, write sorrowful poetry and cut themselves, these teens think this is 'cool' and do it themselves. This might be a way of fitting in with friends who also mutilate themselves, or might be an attempt to impress others with their newfound anguish.
Now, it is obvious why this trend of self-mutilation is extremely worrying and should be stopped as soon as possible. Not only is there an enormous risk of physical harm, such as losing too much blood and permanent scarring, there is also the psychological and emotional aspect too. The 'emo' teens might form a dependancy on cutting themselves, and rely on it to release their pent up emotions, instead of other healthier ways such as talking to their parents.
There are various problems which complicate this issue as well. One would be the extent to which this 'emo' trend has spread. Even in school, I encounter many classmates and friends who seem depressed, whether because of stress or personal problems. I myself admit to have a penchant for black clothes, and there was even a point in time where I would lock myself in my room and write angst-ridden poetry for hours on end.
However, I feel that if 'emo' behavior is limited to this, it is acceptable. As long as a person does not start hurting himself, he is free to wear whatever colour clothes he wants, or to write any kind of poetry. On the other hand, once his thoughts become more morbid, and turn to self-mutilation and suicide, something is wrong.
I beseech all teens to think twice before continuing on this trend. One thing to note would be the fact that many teens who do such things are actually from stable families, and are getting younger. However, what is there to be depressed about now? As long as you have a roof over your head and food to eat, why is there a the need for such tormented lamentations of agony? It is said that a person's childhood is the most carefree period in his or her life, so why mar it with such extreme overreaction to minor problems?
I conclude by saying that although teens should be allowed to express themselves in whatever way they see fit, it is certainly not okay to go to the extent of hurting themselves to do so.
Firstly, I shall cover what I think is the reason behind this 'emo' fad, which seems to be all the rage now. The first group of teens who mutilate themselves would be those who are attention-seekers. They feel that they are not loved or noticed by their parents enough, so they slash at their wrists in an attempt to draw attention to themselves. By cutting themselves, they seem to be saying, "Look at me! I'm so pitiful, I have to resort to this to deal with my emotions!"
The second group of people who would cut themselves would be the 'sheep', or those who subcribe to the herd mentality. After watching some of their peers act depressed, write sorrowful poetry and cut themselves, these teens think this is 'cool' and do it themselves. This might be a way of fitting in with friends who also mutilate themselves, or might be an attempt to impress others with their newfound anguish.
Now, it is obvious why this trend of self-mutilation is extremely worrying and should be stopped as soon as possible. Not only is there an enormous risk of physical harm, such as losing too much blood and permanent scarring, there is also the psychological and emotional aspect too. The 'emo' teens might form a dependancy on cutting themselves, and rely on it to release their pent up emotions, instead of other healthier ways such as talking to their parents.
There are various problems which complicate this issue as well. One would be the extent to which this 'emo' trend has spread. Even in school, I encounter many classmates and friends who seem depressed, whether because of stress or personal problems. I myself admit to have a penchant for black clothes, and there was even a point in time where I would lock myself in my room and write angst-ridden poetry for hours on end.
However, I feel that if 'emo' behavior is limited to this, it is acceptable. As long as a person does not start hurting himself, he is free to wear whatever colour clothes he wants, or to write any kind of poetry. On the other hand, once his thoughts become more morbid, and turn to self-mutilation and suicide, something is wrong.
I beseech all teens to think twice before continuing on this trend. One thing to note would be the fact that many teens who do such things are actually from stable families, and are getting younger. However, what is there to be depressed about now? As long as you have a roof over your head and food to eat, why is there a the need for such tormented lamentations of agony? It is said that a person's childhood is the most carefree period in his or her life, so why mar it with such extreme overreaction to minor problems?
I conclude by saying that although teens should be allowed to express themselves in whatever way they see fit, it is certainly not okay to go to the extent of hurting themselves to do so.
Parents, beware the emo kids
Parents, beware the emo kids BY SANDRA DAVIE
EDUCATION CORRESPONDENT
IF YOU have teenage kids and have not heard of the latest teen fad "emo", it is time you looked it up.
Shops catering to teens say this angst-filled youth sub-culture, called emo, short for "emotional", has been gathering a following here.
It has also left youth counsellors worried if the fad is behind the increasing incidence of teenagers cutting their wrists.
Emo fashion is characterised by teens wearing dark T-shirts, a little undersized or deliberately worn down to look old.
Their choice of sneakers is Converse canvas shoes. Look closer and these might have words like "pain'' scribbled in red ink or a drawing of a broken heart.
But the defining trademark for emo kids has to be the heavily lined eyes and long fringed hair which covers half their face.
The point of that, said emo teen Mervyn Lee, 17, a polytechnic student, is because "we are tortured souls unable to face the world".
Another tell-tale sign – they listen to angst-filled music from bands like Hawthorne Heights, Aiden, The Used, My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy, which performed here earlier this month.
Youth counsellors interviewed say they are worried that the fad, carried to extremes, can lead to self-
mutilation or even suicidal thoughts.
As it is, some emo teens have penned poems about suicide and death and slashing their wrists to "ease their pain''.
The trend may be behind the increased incidence of teenagers injuring themselves.
There have been no studies done on how prevalent self-injury is, but five youth counsellors interviewed said they have seen an alarming increase in their young charges cutting themselves.
Anecdotally, it seems more common among girls, and they are getting younger.
Just last month, The Straits Times reported that a group of 12-year-olds in an all-girls primary school made a collective pact and slashed their arms with penknives. The incident came to light after teachers discovered the scars the next morning. The girls were counselled and are being monitored.
Said Dr Carol Balhetchet, Singapore Children's Society director of youth services: "It is okay for kids to follow a fashion. That is very normal. What is worrying is if they start blindly following the other things like cutting themselves and writing poems glorifying their suicide attempts.''
Eight of 12 teens The Straits Times spoke to, who follow emo fashion, admitted as much.
One, an 18-year-old girl from a junior college, said she started cutting herself out of curiosity after listening to songs by an emo rock band.
She said she now does it weekly, but hides the scars from her doctor father and accountant mum.
Another emo teen, an 18-year-old polytechnic boy, said it is part of the fashion.
"It's a form of expression, just like the poems I write. I will go mad if I can't, don't have these forms of release,'' he said.
What is surprising is that most of these angst-filled teens come from stable homes, where their parents are professionals.
When pressed, they admitted there were no issues that were really depressing.
Parents seem clueless. One, Mrs Daisy Lim, 48, a businesswoman, said she had heard her daughter using the word "emo" but never realised it was a teen fad.
Her 16-year-old daughter wears under-sized, worn-out tees over tight black jeans. On weekends, the Secondary 4 girl also wears two lip rings and six earrings on one ear alone.
Mrs Lim recently discovered that her daughter cuts her wrists with a razor. She is trying to get her to seek help.
But counsellors say parents should not overreact.
Said Dr Balhetchet: "They should talk to the kids to find out the extent of it.
"If the child has taken the fad to the extent of harming himself, they should not panic and scream at the child. They should be open to listening him out.
"Then they will find it easier to persuade him to seek counselling help.''
sandra@sph.com.sg
WHY TEEN CUTS HIMSELF
"It's a form of expression, just like the poems I write. I will go mad if I can't, don't have these forms of release."
AN 18-YEAR-OLD EMO TEEN
OK UNTIL THEY START HURTING THEMSELVES
"It is okay for kids to follow a fashion. That is very normal. What is worrying is if they start blindly following the other things like cutting themselves and writing poems glorifying their suicide attempts."
DR CAROL BALHETCHET, Singapore Children's Society director of youth services
EDUCATION CORRESPONDENT
IF YOU have teenage kids and have not heard of the latest teen fad "emo", it is time you looked it up.
Shops catering to teens say this angst-filled youth sub-culture, called emo, short for "emotional", has been gathering a following here.
It has also left youth counsellors worried if the fad is behind the increasing incidence of teenagers cutting their wrists.
Emo fashion is characterised by teens wearing dark T-shirts, a little undersized or deliberately worn down to look old.
Their choice of sneakers is Converse canvas shoes. Look closer and these might have words like "pain'' scribbled in red ink or a drawing of a broken heart.
But the defining trademark for emo kids has to be the heavily lined eyes and long fringed hair which covers half their face.
The point of that, said emo teen Mervyn Lee, 17, a polytechnic student, is because "we are tortured souls unable to face the world".
Another tell-tale sign – they listen to angst-filled music from bands like Hawthorne Heights, Aiden, The Used, My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy, which performed here earlier this month.
Youth counsellors interviewed say they are worried that the fad, carried to extremes, can lead to self-
mutilation or even suicidal thoughts.
As it is, some emo teens have penned poems about suicide and death and slashing their wrists to "ease their pain''.
The trend may be behind the increased incidence of teenagers injuring themselves.
There have been no studies done on how prevalent self-injury is, but five youth counsellors interviewed said they have seen an alarming increase in their young charges cutting themselves.
Anecdotally, it seems more common among girls, and they are getting younger.
Just last month, The Straits Times reported that a group of 12-year-olds in an all-girls primary school made a collective pact and slashed their arms with penknives. The incident came to light after teachers discovered the scars the next morning. The girls were counselled and are being monitored.
Said Dr Carol Balhetchet, Singapore Children's Society director of youth services: "It is okay for kids to follow a fashion. That is very normal. What is worrying is if they start blindly following the other things like cutting themselves and writing poems glorifying their suicide attempts.''
Eight of 12 teens The Straits Times spoke to, who follow emo fashion, admitted as much.
One, an 18-year-old girl from a junior college, said she started cutting herself out of curiosity after listening to songs by an emo rock band.
She said she now does it weekly, but hides the scars from her doctor father and accountant mum.
Another emo teen, an 18-year-old polytechnic boy, said it is part of the fashion.
"It's a form of expression, just like the poems I write. I will go mad if I can't, don't have these forms of release,'' he said.
What is surprising is that most of these angst-filled teens come from stable homes, where their parents are professionals.
When pressed, they admitted there were no issues that were really depressing.
Parents seem clueless. One, Mrs Daisy Lim, 48, a businesswoman, said she had heard her daughter using the word "emo" but never realised it was a teen fad.
Her 16-year-old daughter wears under-sized, worn-out tees over tight black jeans. On weekends, the Secondary 4 girl also wears two lip rings and six earrings on one ear alone.
Mrs Lim recently discovered that her daughter cuts her wrists with a razor. She is trying to get her to seek help.
But counsellors say parents should not overreact.
Said Dr Balhetchet: "They should talk to the kids to find out the extent of it.
"If the child has taken the fad to the extent of harming himself, they should not panic and scream at the child. They should be open to listening him out.
"Then they will find it easier to persuade him to seek counselling help.''
sandra@sph.com.sg
WHY TEEN CUTS HIMSELF
"It's a form of expression, just like the poems I write. I will go mad if I can't, don't have these forms of release."
AN 18-YEAR-OLD EMO TEEN
OK UNTIL THEY START HURTING THEMSELVES
"It is okay for kids to follow a fashion. That is very normal. What is worrying is if they start blindly following the other things like cutting themselves and writing poems glorifying their suicide attempts."
DR CAROL BALHETCHET, Singapore Children's Society director of youth services
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)