Hello all, recently it dawned on me that my blog might be used as tool for short cuts to certain modules, as i've uploaded a few term papers in my days as NUS undergraduate. I did a search on google for such term papers and the first link that came up was that of my blog's, hence the prospect of plagiarism became apparent to me.
Please do not mistaken my intentions for uploading my papers; i did it so as to attribute to the ever ongoing expansion of knowledge, as well as showboating my words. (: Of course it would be my utmost pleasure if my papers serve as an inspiration to ANYone whom read it, however i do not want my papers to be used under the pretense of another author. I believe that knowledge is gained only when one immerse himself within his own effort and not by riding the waves created in the wake of the person before you. Furthermore i do not know if it is against any rule within the college to upload term papers. Hence i've come to the conclusion to remove my term papers, leaving only lesser papers for future reference for myself and any other individual seeking knowledge.
Cheers
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Saturday, November 27, 2010
WP2201C Assignment 2
The articles “He said she said” from Men’s Health (2009) and “Translating Men-Speak” from Women’s Health (2008) demonstrates the contrast in the approach of men and women magazine to tackle relationship problems. Right at the start, Men’s Health introduces the article in an authoritative tone by telling the readers that the article is the answer to perfecting their communication with women. Whereas in Women’s Health, the article starts off with a hint of acceptance of the flaws in men by referring to their behaviour as being cavemen-like. Both articles offered solutions to some of the common problems faced in relationships, however as the intended audience were different, the style and content of these solutions were directed according to the social stereotype of men and women. The expectations of gender dynamic are played out as the articles persuade the reader of the best course of action to be carried out by respective gender.
In Men’s Health, assumptions are rife as the article focus on addressing the temperamental nature of women. In somewhat of an instructional tone, the article advises men to confront the problem. This method of solving the problems seems to comply with John Gray’s observation that men tend to use less words as they are more direct in expressing their thoughts. Gray mentioned that men possess such great depth of understanding each other to the extent that communication was not needed to solve problems, and that is where women failed to understand men (Gray, 1992).The article did not bother to promote communication as a mean to resolve the problems. Rather they assume that as women are complicated with their usage of words, men need not consider their opinion in resolving the issues. In Women’s Health, the article offered remedy by translating men’s language through the addition of words, which appears to agree with what Men’s Health is indicating. The article emphasize on solving the issue through communication whereby they need to understand men before attempting to move on. The main difference between this and what was advocated in Men’s Health is that women are expected to resolve miscommunication together with men, and not just on their own account.
Both articles took an essentialist stand by laying out the fundamental differences in gender speak. However, unlike what was mentioned in Robin Lakeoff’s book about woman’s place and their language, women are portrayed to communicate differently from men because that is the nature of the way they talk. Lakeoff mentioned that women are restricted to using certain words when they speak because the male dominance in the society at that time does not allow them to use words that might (Lakeoff, 1975). This disparity in language use was clearly shown in Women’s Health and to a lesser extent Men’s Health. Yet both articles did not indicate that power dynamic has any influence over the difference in words usage. Despite that, both articles displayed hints of male dominance in the society as men are assumed to be capable of solving problems on their own, and that women have to resort to try to understand men in their own language before adjusting their course of action.
Despite the differences in the way the articles presented the solutions, both failed to acknowledge any fault in their respective gender but instead focus on the shortcomings of the other gender. They rely on the social stereotype of flaws in the other gender in order to relate to their readers. The miscommunication between genders was highlighted with the notion that men uses less words than women, hence they could not understand the need to express themselves with words and vice versa.
References:
Gray, J. (1992). Different languages. In Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus (pp. 51-92).
Lakeoff, R. (1975). In Language and woman's place (pp. 8-19).
In Men’s Health, assumptions are rife as the article focus on addressing the temperamental nature of women. In somewhat of an instructional tone, the article advises men to confront the problem. This method of solving the problems seems to comply with John Gray’s observation that men tend to use less words as they are more direct in expressing their thoughts. Gray mentioned that men possess such great depth of understanding each other to the extent that communication was not needed to solve problems, and that is where women failed to understand men (Gray, 1992).The article did not bother to promote communication as a mean to resolve the problems. Rather they assume that as women are complicated with their usage of words, men need not consider their opinion in resolving the issues. In Women’s Health, the article offered remedy by translating men’s language through the addition of words, which appears to agree with what Men’s Health is indicating. The article emphasize on solving the issue through communication whereby they need to understand men before attempting to move on. The main difference between this and what was advocated in Men’s Health is that women are expected to resolve miscommunication together with men, and not just on their own account.
Both articles took an essentialist stand by laying out the fundamental differences in gender speak. However, unlike what was mentioned in Robin Lakeoff’s book about woman’s place and their language, women are portrayed to communicate differently from men because that is the nature of the way they talk. Lakeoff mentioned that women are restricted to using certain words when they speak because the male dominance in the society at that time does not allow them to use words that might (Lakeoff, 1975). This disparity in language use was clearly shown in Women’s Health and to a lesser extent Men’s Health. Yet both articles did not indicate that power dynamic has any influence over the difference in words usage. Despite that, both articles displayed hints of male dominance in the society as men are assumed to be capable of solving problems on their own, and that women have to resort to try to understand men in their own language before adjusting their course of action.
Despite the differences in the way the articles presented the solutions, both failed to acknowledge any fault in their respective gender but instead focus on the shortcomings of the other gender. They rely on the social stereotype of flaws in the other gender in order to relate to their readers. The miscommunication between genders was highlighted with the notion that men uses less words than women, hence they could not understand the need to express themselves with words and vice versa.
References:
Gray, J. (1992). Different languages. In Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus (pp. 51-92).
Lakeoff, R. (1975). In Language and woman's place (pp. 8-19).
WP2201C Assignment 1
In chapter 5 of “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” (1992), John Gray proclaims that both genders use different languages when communicating the same issue. He explains that the main reason lies in the fact that men communicate by expressing information whereas women communicate by expressing feelings, and this divergence resulted in the miscommunication. The chapter is made up of assumptions by Gray that couple faces conflicts in their relationship because of the lack of understanding in their spouse’s language. This became the main attraction of the book because it manages to identify with the traits of the audience who were facing problems in their relationship.
In the chapter, Gray listed some common phrases used in the cases of women speech and men speech and explained how they come across with different meaning to the other gender, which he then offered solutions on how to rephrase their words so as to express the meaning that they intended. I feel that Gray is taking the essentialist’s point of view when writing the book as he did not acknowledge for social development between genders and simply stereotype women as emotional creatures and men as egoistic creatures. He also took an authoritative approach when giving solutions to the problems stated in the book. In it, he proposed alternative usage of words but failed to account for other factors that may be hindering communication.
The book was written in a slightly informal tone as Gray uses the examples of himself and his wife as a way to communicate with the audience, even categorizing men’s behaviour as being caveman-like. In doing so, he achieved the purpose of reaching out and connecting to an audience who were seeking reassurance with the problems they were facing. However, due to the nature of the intended audience, Gray left out the power dynamics played by couples of the same gender and how these miscommunications affect the social structural of gender.
Given the glaring title of the book, Gray was able to attract attention from audience who were baffled by the way they failed to communicate with the opposite sex. He took an essentialist stand and made a stereotype of gender differences. This way, he was able to come up with simple and practical solutions as opposed to a constructivist stand, which he then has to address social issues and bored the readers. This book might not be suitable for academic purposes but i felt that Gray achieved his purpose of writing a book that was based on gender differences, which eventually became a bestseller.
In the chapter, Gray listed some common phrases used in the cases of women speech and men speech and explained how they come across with different meaning to the other gender, which he then offered solutions on how to rephrase their words so as to express the meaning that they intended. I feel that Gray is taking the essentialist’s point of view when writing the book as he did not acknowledge for social development between genders and simply stereotype women as emotional creatures and men as egoistic creatures. He also took an authoritative approach when giving solutions to the problems stated in the book. In it, he proposed alternative usage of words but failed to account for other factors that may be hindering communication.
The book was written in a slightly informal tone as Gray uses the examples of himself and his wife as a way to communicate with the audience, even categorizing men’s behaviour as being caveman-like. In doing so, he achieved the purpose of reaching out and connecting to an audience who were seeking reassurance with the problems they were facing. However, due to the nature of the intended audience, Gray left out the power dynamics played by couples of the same gender and how these miscommunications affect the social structural of gender.
Given the glaring title of the book, Gray was able to attract attention from audience who were baffled by the way they failed to communicate with the opposite sex. He took an essentialist stand and made a stereotype of gender differences. This way, he was able to come up with simple and practical solutions as opposed to a constructivist stand, which he then has to address social issues and bored the readers. This book might not be suitable for academic purposes but i felt that Gray achieved his purpose of writing a book that was based on gender differences, which eventually became a bestseller.
SSA2209 Assignment 2
“Singapore is not democracy”. Discuss.
Singapore, officially the Republic of Singapore, has been recognized as a representative democratic state since August 1965. Its government constitutes of a parliament with the People’s Action Party (PAP) dominating it. To discuss and answer the question of Singapore is not democracy, we must first define the definition of democracy and its parameters, and how Singapore fits into this definition. The word ‘democracy’ originated from M.Fr. democratie in the 1570s, with ‘demo’ referring to common people and ‘cratie’ referring to rule or strength (Douglas, 2010). Hence, by definition, Singapore is a democratic country as her citizens are given the power to decide their own government. However, democracy is not just about fair elections; there are many other components and various degrees to class it under. Singapore’s policies defer from the general expectations of what a democratic country should be and as such, a better statement would be to extent Singapore is democratic.
My own definition of democracy is a multi-party political system in which citizens has the absolute power of electing the best candidates through fair and equal elections. A Humanities studies lecture in Hilla University stated that democracy can be defined as four elements: a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections, the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life, protection of human rights of all citizens and a rule of law in which all laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens (Hilla University, Humanities Studies, 2004) Hence, to discuss the democracy of Singapore, we have to break it down into political system, rights and equality.
The political structure of Singapore is a unique design that evolved from the Westminster structure during post-independence days. As the society progress, policies such as GRCs, NMPs and NCMPs were introduced to adapt with the changes. At first glance, these policies appear to be democratic as it actually provides more opportunities for weaker oppositions to step into the parliament. Yet the GRC system has been deemed to be highly detrimental to the democratic development of Singapore as it has been constantly introducing Singapore Parliament members who have not been directly voted in by the people. Because of that, some of them have become out of touch, unsympathetic, or even condescending to the very people that they are supposed to serve (Boon, 2009). The electoral changes in Singapore political arena may appear to be democratic on the surface, but a deeper understanding of these changes seems to suggest that PAP is building a totalitarian state.
A democratic society has to have fair and equal elections in the process of voting for the parliament. The elections in Singapore are fair as it allows equal opportunities for both PAP and oppositions to showcase their policies and engage the general public. Yet there are several techniques employed by PAP that seem to swing the advantage to their side. Although adjusting policies right before an election will mean that all parties will be affected, PAP will be affected the least because of its long domination of the government and its overwhelming parliamentary majority (Gomez, 2005). In the latest change made to the constituencies, the maximum number of six NCMPs has been increased to nine. This latest change might seem as an effort by the PAP to even the playing field, as the disparity between them and the oppositions is just too large. But on taking a closer look, one finds that such changes are actually imposing a false impression that with opposition members will be nominated as NCMPs into the government; there is less need to vote for oppositions. Furthermore, we know that NCMPs are only letting their voices be heard in the parliament while lacking the voting power that ultimately makes the difference, making them mere figures.
Free and fair elections are one of the strongest factor as why Singapore pride itself as a democratic state, its voting process being considered as one of the most transparent in the world. Yet the democracy index, which rates countries based on political freedoms and civil liberties, rates Singapore at a lowly 84th rank in the world. It listed Singapore under the category of “Hybrid regimes” along with countries such as Iraq and Kenya (Kekic, 2007). It is an understatement to say that Singapore is democracy just because there are many political parties.
The situation of the political arena in Singapore is such that PAP is often confused as the government itself and opposition exist only as a form of check and balance for the PAP. As a result, opposition presence is only there to check on the complacency on the part of the ruling party leading to problems most commonly associated with a monopoly (Stark, 2007). This scenario is largely different from other democracy, where most parties have equal chances of winning an election. Although a multi-political party system exists in Singapore, the role played by opposition is different from the democracy that other country practises.
The PAP has been at the driving seat of Singapore’s politics since its separation from Malaysia in 1965. This hegemony of more than 40 years has allowed them to handpick talents even before they enter the political scene, leaving the oppositions without any credible personnel to mount a real challenge on PAP. Although the citizens are given the free will of choosing the people they want to be placed in parliament, a Hobson’s choice will still occur, meaning that they will still choose the better alternative which is PAP. This violates the meaning of democracy as the members of parliament are not elected by choice; rather they are chosen due to the lack of choice.
During the Singapore general election in 2001, PAP won 82 out of 84 seats in the election, including 55 walkovers. Once again, majority of the parliament got in without actually depending on the votes of the citizens themselves. The dominance of a one party rule meant that even with free elections, there was not much of an option except to keep the dominant party in place. Using an analogy of marriage to illustrate my point; when it comes to choosing a spouse, one has the freedom of picking the partner of their choice. However, if all except one of the available choices are below expectation, it is in human’s nature to pick the one that stands out from the remaining unattractive options. My point is not that PAP is an incompetent party and the only reason the citizens voted for them is because the rest are worst, rather it is how PAP dominated the political scene that left no room for another party to enter, hence there was not much of a democracy to begin with.
There have been many strong accusations by the opposition that the PAP controls the mass media for their own advantage. PAP has been monitoring the mass media since gaining its dominance, and oppositions such as Singapore Democrats (SDP) accused the PAP of regulating the cyberspace during elections, fearing that this new media might provide a foothold for oppositions (Singapore Democrats, 2010). This lack of freedom in mass media puts Singapore under an authoritarian state rather than democratic; however PAP argues that it controls the mass media to prevent any malicious intent from harming the social structure. Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong claims a liberal press is not necessarily good for every country (Lloyd, 2005).
The PAP sees itself as the umpire of Singapore, denying pluralism in the media and it feels that media are able to manifest threats to the social development of Singapore. To make the situation worse, Singapore has the culture of political timidity. Timidity creates a culture of self-censorship and a readiness to censor others around us who might speak up, out of fear that their speaking up might put themselves at risk, because they may be assumed to be associated with them in some ways (Waipang, 2009). This ends up multiplying the effect of the initial intention of the government to keep the mass media at bay.
As pointed out by Freedom House, press freedom in Singapore media is constrained to such a degree that majority of journalists practise self-censorship rather than risk being charged with defamation or breaking the country’s criminal law on permissible speech (House, 2004). Although the degree of censorship is not as severe as other countries such as China, the curbing the freedom of media, results in a restriction of human rights.
Another interesting point to note is that the period between each election is slightly longer than other major democratic countries such as United States, where elections have been held consistently for every four years since 1792. This means that the political system of Singapore is not as flexible as other democratic states. In the event that the population demand to have an election, that will not take place as the citizens do not even have the knowledge of the exact period in which elections are held, as the government only announce news about the election just before the election itself. This takes away the sacred rights of the people in deciding when they want to have an election.
Nonetheless, opportunities and human rights are equally distributed among Singaporeans; from education to business to medical service. The society operates on a meritocratic basis, whereby rewards will be given based on their performance, regardless of language, religion, race or social status. The votes of every individual are equal, with no preference of who is more important. The law protects the rights of every individual, where no one is above the law, not even ministers or the elected president. Singapore has prided itself as being one of the safest and fairest country to live in.
To conclude, Singapore is still a long way from being a democratic state. It has made reforms to the political structure that suits only the community of Singapore. These reforms deviated from the Westminster model commonly seen in other democratic states. While there might be dubious policies that seem ambiguous as to which party it actually benefits, we cannot deny the fact that democracy is still upheld in Singapore. It will be harsh to say that Singapore is not democratic just because of certain curtailment in media and political arena. The political struggle of the past and the unique community of Singapore have shaped its politics into what it is today. In the end, Singapore is a still a democracy whose uniqueness is a by-product of its past.
Bibliography
Boon, A. (2009, May 11). GRC system detrimental to democratic development of Singapore. Retrieved March 24, 2010, from Civic Advocator: http://civicadvocator.net/grc-system-detrimental-to-democratic-development-of-singapore
democracy. (n.d.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
Freedom House. (2007, May). Freedom of the press 2007: drafting country reports and ratings. Available:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2007/fopdraftreport.pdf [July 24, 200].
Gomez, J. (2005). Freedom of expression and the media in Singapore. Article 19 , 13.
Hilla University, Humanities Studies. (2004). What is democracy? stanford.
Kekic, L. (2007). The economist intellegience unit's index of democracy. Retrieved March 24, 2010, from Economist: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/Democracy_Index_2007_v3.pdf
Kolar, M. (2005, August 17). What is Democracy? Retrieved March 23, 2010, from whatisdemocracy: http://www.whatisdemocracy.net/
Lloyd, P. (2005, November 1). Former Singapore PM defends lack of media freedom. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from ABC News: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/11/01/1495616.htm
Singapore Democrats. (2010, March 12). PAP nervous about new media, introduces "guildlines". Retrieved March 24, 2010, from Singapore Democrats: http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/3486-pap-nervous-about-new-media-introdcues-qguidelinesq
Stark, N. (2007, Auguest 19). Of the Singapore opposition. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from nedstark: http://nedstark.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/of-the-singapore-opposition/
Waipang, A. (2009, May 29). Latest electoral changes only treat the symptons. Retrieved March 24, 2010, from Yawning Bread: http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1031.htm
Singapore, officially the Republic of Singapore, has been recognized as a representative democratic state since August 1965. Its government constitutes of a parliament with the People’s Action Party (PAP) dominating it. To discuss and answer the question of Singapore is not democracy, we must first define the definition of democracy and its parameters, and how Singapore fits into this definition. The word ‘democracy’ originated from M.Fr. democratie in the 1570s, with ‘demo’ referring to common people and ‘cratie’ referring to rule or strength (Douglas, 2010). Hence, by definition, Singapore is a democratic country as her citizens are given the power to decide their own government. However, democracy is not just about fair elections; there are many other components and various degrees to class it under. Singapore’s policies defer from the general expectations of what a democratic country should be and as such, a better statement would be to extent Singapore is democratic.
My own definition of democracy is a multi-party political system in which citizens has the absolute power of electing the best candidates through fair and equal elections. A Humanities studies lecture in Hilla University stated that democracy can be defined as four elements: a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections, the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life, protection of human rights of all citizens and a rule of law in which all laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens (Hilla University, Humanities Studies, 2004) Hence, to discuss the democracy of Singapore, we have to break it down into political system, rights and equality.
The political structure of Singapore is a unique design that evolved from the Westminster structure during post-independence days. As the society progress, policies such as GRCs, NMPs and NCMPs were introduced to adapt with the changes. At first glance, these policies appear to be democratic as it actually provides more opportunities for weaker oppositions to step into the parliament. Yet the GRC system has been deemed to be highly detrimental to the democratic development of Singapore as it has been constantly introducing Singapore Parliament members who have not been directly voted in by the people. Because of that, some of them have become out of touch, unsympathetic, or even condescending to the very people that they are supposed to serve (Boon, 2009). The electoral changes in Singapore political arena may appear to be democratic on the surface, but a deeper understanding of these changes seems to suggest that PAP is building a totalitarian state.
A democratic society has to have fair and equal elections in the process of voting for the parliament. The elections in Singapore are fair as it allows equal opportunities for both PAP and oppositions to showcase their policies and engage the general public. Yet there are several techniques employed by PAP that seem to swing the advantage to their side. Although adjusting policies right before an election will mean that all parties will be affected, PAP will be affected the least because of its long domination of the government and its overwhelming parliamentary majority (Gomez, 2005). In the latest change made to the constituencies, the maximum number of six NCMPs has been increased to nine. This latest change might seem as an effort by the PAP to even the playing field, as the disparity between them and the oppositions is just too large. But on taking a closer look, one finds that such changes are actually imposing a false impression that with opposition members will be nominated as NCMPs into the government; there is less need to vote for oppositions. Furthermore, we know that NCMPs are only letting their voices be heard in the parliament while lacking the voting power that ultimately makes the difference, making them mere figures.
Free and fair elections are one of the strongest factor as why Singapore pride itself as a democratic state, its voting process being considered as one of the most transparent in the world. Yet the democracy index, which rates countries based on political freedoms and civil liberties, rates Singapore at a lowly 84th rank in the world. It listed Singapore under the category of “Hybrid regimes” along with countries such as Iraq and Kenya (Kekic, 2007). It is an understatement to say that Singapore is democracy just because there are many political parties.
The situation of the political arena in Singapore is such that PAP is often confused as the government itself and opposition exist only as a form of check and balance for the PAP. As a result, opposition presence is only there to check on the complacency on the part of the ruling party leading to problems most commonly associated with a monopoly (Stark, 2007). This scenario is largely different from other democracy, where most parties have equal chances of winning an election. Although a multi-political party system exists in Singapore, the role played by opposition is different from the democracy that other country practises.
The PAP has been at the driving seat of Singapore’s politics since its separation from Malaysia in 1965. This hegemony of more than 40 years has allowed them to handpick talents even before they enter the political scene, leaving the oppositions without any credible personnel to mount a real challenge on PAP. Although the citizens are given the free will of choosing the people they want to be placed in parliament, a Hobson’s choice will still occur, meaning that they will still choose the better alternative which is PAP. This violates the meaning of democracy as the members of parliament are not elected by choice; rather they are chosen due to the lack of choice.
During the Singapore general election in 2001, PAP won 82 out of 84 seats in the election, including 55 walkovers. Once again, majority of the parliament got in without actually depending on the votes of the citizens themselves. The dominance of a one party rule meant that even with free elections, there was not much of an option except to keep the dominant party in place. Using an analogy of marriage to illustrate my point; when it comes to choosing a spouse, one has the freedom of picking the partner of their choice. However, if all except one of the available choices are below expectation, it is in human’s nature to pick the one that stands out from the remaining unattractive options. My point is not that PAP is an incompetent party and the only reason the citizens voted for them is because the rest are worst, rather it is how PAP dominated the political scene that left no room for another party to enter, hence there was not much of a democracy to begin with.
There have been many strong accusations by the opposition that the PAP controls the mass media for their own advantage. PAP has been monitoring the mass media since gaining its dominance, and oppositions such as Singapore Democrats (SDP) accused the PAP of regulating the cyberspace during elections, fearing that this new media might provide a foothold for oppositions (Singapore Democrats, 2010). This lack of freedom in mass media puts Singapore under an authoritarian state rather than democratic; however PAP argues that it controls the mass media to prevent any malicious intent from harming the social structure. Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong claims a liberal press is not necessarily good for every country (Lloyd, 2005).
The PAP sees itself as the umpire of Singapore, denying pluralism in the media and it feels that media are able to manifest threats to the social development of Singapore. To make the situation worse, Singapore has the culture of political timidity. Timidity creates a culture of self-censorship and a readiness to censor others around us who might speak up, out of fear that their speaking up might put themselves at risk, because they may be assumed to be associated with them in some ways (Waipang, 2009). This ends up multiplying the effect of the initial intention of the government to keep the mass media at bay.
As pointed out by Freedom House, press freedom in Singapore media is constrained to such a degree that majority of journalists practise self-censorship rather than risk being charged with defamation or breaking the country’s criminal law on permissible speech (House, 2004). Although the degree of censorship is not as severe as other countries such as China, the curbing the freedom of media, results in a restriction of human rights.
Another interesting point to note is that the period between each election is slightly longer than other major democratic countries such as United States, where elections have been held consistently for every four years since 1792. This means that the political system of Singapore is not as flexible as other democratic states. In the event that the population demand to have an election, that will not take place as the citizens do not even have the knowledge of the exact period in which elections are held, as the government only announce news about the election just before the election itself. This takes away the sacred rights of the people in deciding when they want to have an election.
Nonetheless, opportunities and human rights are equally distributed among Singaporeans; from education to business to medical service. The society operates on a meritocratic basis, whereby rewards will be given based on their performance, regardless of language, religion, race or social status. The votes of every individual are equal, with no preference of who is more important. The law protects the rights of every individual, where no one is above the law, not even ministers or the elected president. Singapore has prided itself as being one of the safest and fairest country to live in.
To conclude, Singapore is still a long way from being a democratic state. It has made reforms to the political structure that suits only the community of Singapore. These reforms deviated from the Westminster model commonly seen in other democratic states. While there might be dubious policies that seem ambiguous as to which party it actually benefits, we cannot deny the fact that democracy is still upheld in Singapore. It will be harsh to say that Singapore is not democratic just because of certain curtailment in media and political arena. The political struggle of the past and the unique community of Singapore have shaped its politics into what it is today. In the end, Singapore is a still a democracy whose uniqueness is a by-product of its past.
Bibliography
Boon, A. (2009, May 11). GRC system detrimental to democratic development of Singapore. Retrieved March 24, 2010, from Civic Advocator: http://civicadvocator.net/grc-system-detrimental-to-democratic-development-of-singapore
democracy. (n.d.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
Freedom House. (2007, May). Freedom of the press 2007: drafting country reports and ratings. Available:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2007/fopdraftreport.pdf [July 24, 200].
Gomez, J. (2005). Freedom of expression and the media in Singapore. Article 19 , 13.
Hilla University, Humanities Studies. (2004). What is democracy? stanford.
Kekic, L. (2007). The economist intellegience unit's index of democracy. Retrieved March 24, 2010, from Economist: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/Democracy_Index_2007_v3.pdf
Kolar, M. (2005, August 17). What is Democracy? Retrieved March 23, 2010, from whatisdemocracy: http://www.whatisdemocracy.net/
Lloyd, P. (2005, November 1). Former Singapore PM defends lack of media freedom. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from ABC News: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/11/01/1495616.htm
Singapore Democrats. (2010, March 12). PAP nervous about new media, introduces "guildlines". Retrieved March 24, 2010, from Singapore Democrats: http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/3486-pap-nervous-about-new-media-introdcues-qguidelinesq
Stark, N. (2007, Auguest 19). Of the Singapore opposition. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from nedstark: http://nedstark.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/of-the-singapore-opposition/
Waipang, A. (2009, May 29). Latest electoral changes only treat the symptons. Retrieved March 24, 2010, from Yawning Bread: http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1031.htm
SSA2209 Assignment 1
SINGAPORE'S MIGRATION POLICY SINCE THE 1990S - AN ASSET OR A LIABILITY?
Founded in 1819, Singapore has been a tiny jewel in the British colonial empire. Since then, immigrants have flocked to Singapore seeking a better future, creating a multiracial society, consisting of four main groups - Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others. Under the guidance of capable leaders, Singapore flourished into an economic hub. In order to be on the frontier on the global economy, the government then devise the migration policy to attract foreign talents.
This led to a proliferation of skilled workers in Singapore which allowed a rapid economic growth in the past four decades, with GDP rising by 76 percentage points in between 1960 and 1991.
In addition, declining birth rates among Singaporeans has further increase the need to bring in foreigners to stabilize the labour force participation rates. The proportion of the population aged 65 and above is expected to reach 20 per cent of the total population. Immigration is seen as the best resort to ensure the productivity of the work force.
Yet many Singaporeans do not agree with how the migration policy has benefited the society on the whole, they regard the influx of foreigners as nothing more than an irritation. Majority of these foreigners are actually blue collar workers bought in by the government to fill up jobs that are unwanted by Singaporeans. These workers often display behaviours that might have been acceptable in their culture but are frowned upon by the locals. They also do not put in effort to blend in with the locals thus adding to the locals irks. Adding to the displeasure of the locals, the increasing competitiveness of the work force due to the input of these workers has led a certain amount of Singaporeans emigrating to look for greener pasture.
A more disturbing effect in the policy is the gradual loss of national identity. Since gaining full independence, the government has been emphasizing that maintaining the multicultural complexion is vital for the survival of Singapore. However the constant input of foreigners has change the ratio of diversity among races. In 2009, Singapore’s population is roughly five million with foreigners contributing to a quarter of it. Also, foreigners attracted by our migration policy lack a sense of loyalty to Singapore. They are not required to complete national service, and they do not understand the racial harmony that Singaporeans hold so dearly.
The policy of migration might have been one of the wise decisions made by the government. It is essential to recruit talents from overseas, in order for the economy to maintain at its peak. However, there has to be a point in which the policy crosses from being an asset to a liability, and currently the work force has already met its saturation and further continuation will only add to the discord amongst Singaporeans. The harmony cherished deeply by Singaporeans is slowly losing its value, and it is only a matter of time before we lose our identity. Our national identity is at stake.
Bibliography:
Asia Pacific Migration Research Network. “Issue papers from Singapore.” Migration issues in the Asia Pacific http://www.unesco.org/most/apmrnw13.htm (accessed February 21, 2010).
Kenneth Bercuson, Robert G. Carling. “Singapore: a case study in rapid development.” http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=xBmD0lhGKNoC&pg=PT19&lpg=PT19&dq=what+is+gdp+for+singapore+in+past+three+decades&source=bl&ots=oMU_j_NPqy&sig=YniSY8QJmEY2x9tWRiiIS5SD3NA&hl=en&ei=zTuBS4OmMYSxrAe2rrXBBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CA8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20gdp%20for%20singapore%20in%20past%20three%20decades&f=false (accessed February 21, 2010).
Brenda S.A. Yeoh. “Singapore: Hungry for Foreign Workers at All Skill Levels.” January 2007 http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=570 (accessed February 21, 2010).
Founded in 1819, Singapore has been a tiny jewel in the British colonial empire. Since then, immigrants have flocked to Singapore seeking a better future, creating a multiracial society, consisting of four main groups - Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others. Under the guidance of capable leaders, Singapore flourished into an economic hub. In order to be on the frontier on the global economy, the government then devise the migration policy to attract foreign talents.
This led to a proliferation of skilled workers in Singapore which allowed a rapid economic growth in the past four decades, with GDP rising by 76 percentage points in between 1960 and 1991.
In addition, declining birth rates among Singaporeans has further increase the need to bring in foreigners to stabilize the labour force participation rates. The proportion of the population aged 65 and above is expected to reach 20 per cent of the total population. Immigration is seen as the best resort to ensure the productivity of the work force.
Yet many Singaporeans do not agree with how the migration policy has benefited the society on the whole, they regard the influx of foreigners as nothing more than an irritation. Majority of these foreigners are actually blue collar workers bought in by the government to fill up jobs that are unwanted by Singaporeans. These workers often display behaviours that might have been acceptable in their culture but are frowned upon by the locals. They also do not put in effort to blend in with the locals thus adding to the locals irks. Adding to the displeasure of the locals, the increasing competitiveness of the work force due to the input of these workers has led a certain amount of Singaporeans emigrating to look for greener pasture.
A more disturbing effect in the policy is the gradual loss of national identity. Since gaining full independence, the government has been emphasizing that maintaining the multicultural complexion is vital for the survival of Singapore. However the constant input of foreigners has change the ratio of diversity among races. In 2009, Singapore’s population is roughly five million with foreigners contributing to a quarter of it. Also, foreigners attracted by our migration policy lack a sense of loyalty to Singapore. They are not required to complete national service, and they do not understand the racial harmony that Singaporeans hold so dearly.
The policy of migration might have been one of the wise decisions made by the government. It is essential to recruit talents from overseas, in order for the economy to maintain at its peak. However, there has to be a point in which the policy crosses from being an asset to a liability, and currently the work force has already met its saturation and further continuation will only add to the discord amongst Singaporeans. The harmony cherished deeply by Singaporeans is slowly losing its value, and it is only a matter of time before we lose our identity. Our national identity is at stake.
Bibliography:
Asia Pacific Migration Research Network. “Issue papers from Singapore.” Migration issues in the Asia Pacific http://www.unesco.org/most/apmrnw13.htm (accessed February 21, 2010).
Kenneth Bercuson, Robert G. Carling. “Singapore: a case study in rapid development.” http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=xBmD0lhGKNoC&pg=PT19&lpg=PT19&dq=what+is+gdp+for+singapore+in+past+three+decades&source=bl&ots=oMU_j_NPqy&sig=YniSY8QJmEY2x9tWRiiIS5SD3NA&hl=en&ei=zTuBS4OmMYSxrAe2rrXBBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CA8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20gdp%20for%20singapore%20in%20past%20three%20decades&f=false (accessed February 21, 2010).
Brenda S.A. Yeoh. “Singapore: Hungry for Foreign Workers at All Skill Levels.” January 2007 http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=570 (accessed February 21, 2010).
Friday, November 26, 2010
EG1471 Assignment 2
Global temperature has been increasing at a rate unseen in the planet’s history, and scientists have blamed carbon emission as the main culprit. At the rate the climate is changing, just reducing carbon emission alone is insufficient in mitigating climate change. Hence, a controversial theory of injecting sulphur particles into the stratosphere was introduced in a bid to reduce greenhouse gas emission. However as such method is untested and might even reduce the amount of sunlight entering the atmosphere, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or United Nations (UN) should focus on more pressing issues; such as reducing carbon emission, and not focus primarily on a temporary solution such as injecting sulphur particles.
Proponents of sulphur particles injection or more commonly known as solar-radiation management (SRM) argue that due to the high level of uncertainty, even cutting emissions by great magnitude cannot ensure that the climate will resume its normality. Whereas the effectiveness of SRM can be prove in the case of Mount Pinatubo’s eruption in 1991, which cooled the globe by about 0.5 degree Celsius in less than a year by injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere (Keith, Morgan, Parson, 2010). Moreover, sulphur particles are cheap and the cost of operations will only cost up to just billions of dollars per year and will not involve global scale politics (Keith, Morgan, Parson, 2010).
The blockage of sunlight also means that there will also be less solar input. By injecting large amounts of sulphur particles in the atmosphere, the resulting diffusion of light will cut power output of concentrated solar power installations by as much as a fifth (Parker, 2009). This means that there will be less reliance on solar energy as a form of energy and more on conventional resources such as coal, which in turn will increase carbon emission, negating the effects of sulphur introduction.
At the present situation, the concept of sulphur injection has yet to be field tested on large scale basis and potential consequences can only be explored through computer simulations (Mooney, 2008). A trial of one geoengineering scheme showed that tempering with the planet can have unintended consequences; pouring iron into the southern ocean was supposed to simulate a growth of plankton that is supposed to absorb carbon dioxide, but it could result in the production of a potent neurotoxin, putting the lives of birds fish and even humans at risk (Marshall, 2010). To introduce foreign particles into the atmosphere without truly understanding the complexity of it, meant that we might be imposing consequences on the environment that are far beyond our calculations.
It is also vital to remember that a world cooled by managing sunlight will not be the same as one cooled by lowering carbon emission (Keith, Morgan, Parson, 2010). The root of the problem in climate change lies in the fact that carbon emission have exceed the rate at which nature ecosystems are able to break them down. The introduction of SRM will only act as a temporary remedy, as the amount of carbon emission will eventually reach a point whereby even SRM can no longer be effective in reducing global temperature. The reduction of carbon emission might require collateral efforts on international scale, and it might take a while before the process takes effect, but it remains the only process free of consequences in the long run.
While it is likely that the lure of SRM might just overwhelm all reservations and force the UN and IPCC to make it their primary focus, there are several factors and issues they should consider before fully committing to the clause. Geoengineering is not just a linear outcome process; it can produce implicit effects on social and political issues. By focusing primarily on reducing carbon emission, we are focusing on the root of the problem itself and more efforts can be placed on this project, ensuring the sustainability of it.
Reference:
Bleja, D. (2006-2009). CO2 emissions, birth rate & death rate simulation. Retrieved 22 March, 2010, from Breathingearth: http://www.breathingearth.net/
David W, K. Parson, E. Morgan, M, G. (2010). Nature. Research on global sun block needed now, 426-427.
Marshall, J. (15 March, 2010). Ocean geoengineering scheme may prove lethal. Retrieved 29 March, 2010, from Discovery News: http://news.discovery.com/earth/geoengineering-carbon-sequestration-phytoplankton.html
Mooney, C. (23 June, 2008). Can a million tons of sulfur dioxide combat climate change. Retrieved 22 March, 2010, from Wired: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-07/ff_geoengineering?currentPage=all
Parker, R. (11 March, 2009). Atmospheric sulphur particles cut solar power output. Retrieved 22 March, 2010, from FuturePundit: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006032.html
Proponents of sulphur particles injection or more commonly known as solar-radiation management (SRM) argue that due to the high level of uncertainty, even cutting emissions by great magnitude cannot ensure that the climate will resume its normality. Whereas the effectiveness of SRM can be prove in the case of Mount Pinatubo’s eruption in 1991, which cooled the globe by about 0.5 degree Celsius in less than a year by injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere (Keith, Morgan, Parson, 2010). Moreover, sulphur particles are cheap and the cost of operations will only cost up to just billions of dollars per year and will not involve global scale politics (Keith, Morgan, Parson, 2010).
The blockage of sunlight also means that there will also be less solar input. By injecting large amounts of sulphur particles in the atmosphere, the resulting diffusion of light will cut power output of concentrated solar power installations by as much as a fifth (Parker, 2009). This means that there will be less reliance on solar energy as a form of energy and more on conventional resources such as coal, which in turn will increase carbon emission, negating the effects of sulphur introduction.
At the present situation, the concept of sulphur injection has yet to be field tested on large scale basis and potential consequences can only be explored through computer simulations (Mooney, 2008). A trial of one geoengineering scheme showed that tempering with the planet can have unintended consequences; pouring iron into the southern ocean was supposed to simulate a growth of plankton that is supposed to absorb carbon dioxide, but it could result in the production of a potent neurotoxin, putting the lives of birds fish and even humans at risk (Marshall, 2010). To introduce foreign particles into the atmosphere without truly understanding the complexity of it, meant that we might be imposing consequences on the environment that are far beyond our calculations.
It is also vital to remember that a world cooled by managing sunlight will not be the same as one cooled by lowering carbon emission (Keith, Morgan, Parson, 2010). The root of the problem in climate change lies in the fact that carbon emission have exceed the rate at which nature ecosystems are able to break them down. The introduction of SRM will only act as a temporary remedy, as the amount of carbon emission will eventually reach a point whereby even SRM can no longer be effective in reducing global temperature. The reduction of carbon emission might require collateral efforts on international scale, and it might take a while before the process takes effect, but it remains the only process free of consequences in the long run.
While it is likely that the lure of SRM might just overwhelm all reservations and force the UN and IPCC to make it their primary focus, there are several factors and issues they should consider before fully committing to the clause. Geoengineering is not just a linear outcome process; it can produce implicit effects on social and political issues. By focusing primarily on reducing carbon emission, we are focusing on the root of the problem itself and more efforts can be placed on this project, ensuring the sustainability of it.
Reference:
Bleja, D. (2006-2009). CO2 emissions, birth rate & death rate simulation. Retrieved 22 March, 2010, from Breathingearth: http://www.breathingearth.net/
David W, K. Parson, E. Morgan, M, G. (2010). Nature. Research on global sun block needed now, 426-427.
Marshall, J. (15 March, 2010). Ocean geoengineering scheme may prove lethal. Retrieved 29 March, 2010, from Discovery News: http://news.discovery.com/earth/geoengineering-carbon-sequestration-phytoplankton.html
Mooney, C. (23 June, 2008). Can a million tons of sulfur dioxide combat climate change. Retrieved 22 March, 2010, from Wired: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-07/ff_geoengineering?currentPage=all
Parker, R. (11 March, 2009). Atmospheric sulphur particles cut solar power output. Retrieved 22 March, 2010, from FuturePundit: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006032.html
EG1471 Assignment 1
Discuss the positive and negative consequences of using an integrated approach to limit climate change.
Combating climate change has long been viewed as limiting the usage of resources and reducing carbon emission, however recent studies have shown that this alone is insufficient in halting the damage caused to the planet. In the recent UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) has brought up the issue of integrating natural ecosystem and biodiversity into the fight against climate change.
The natural ecosystem controls carbon and other global biogeochemical cycles, just by reducing deforestation and forest degradation alone, we can slash more carbon emission than the emission of all passengers’ cars in the world combined. Not only is this approach effective, it is also cheap and requires little or no emphasis on technology to ensure that it works. Given the scale and complexity of global warming, protecting our forestation remains the only realistic operation in the coming years.
Another benefit of conserving natural resources is that it acts as a buffer during natural disasters, keeping safe the communities and their possessions. Along the coastline in United States, healthy mangroves have been built to fortify the defence of residents against the wrath of nature. In 1999, a cyclone would probably have taken three times the lives of coastal residents if not for the mangrove forests. By maintaining the abundance of nature ecosystem, it also provides an alternative source of income during unexpected events which may disrupt current source of income.
On the hindsight, such an idealistic approach does not come without negative consequences. In order to limit the amount of carbon produced, a carbon market is set up to keep track on it. This inevitably opens opportunities for corporations to make use of and creates discord amongst nations. Corruption will then take place as individuals abuse the system for personal benefits. Another potential landmine is that countries with more natural resources are likely to make use of this opportunity to raise the price of natural resources. The remaining few nations without natural resources, such as Singapore, will therefore be less supportive of this approach as it provides no benefits for their economy.
Although the integrated approach brings about certain possible problems that countries might face, with the factor of deciding the correct amount of environmental conservation by individual countries as the main concern. But these issues are temporary and as pointed out by REDD, can be ironed out through conferences among nations. Moreover, the contributions from this approach far outweigh the possibility of discord. The state of declining climate condition has reached a point that only a drastic integrated approach can reverse the effect.
Combating climate change has long been viewed as limiting the usage of resources and reducing carbon emission, however recent studies have shown that this alone is insufficient in halting the damage caused to the planet. In the recent UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) has brought up the issue of integrating natural ecosystem and biodiversity into the fight against climate change.
The natural ecosystem controls carbon and other global biogeochemical cycles, just by reducing deforestation and forest degradation alone, we can slash more carbon emission than the emission of all passengers’ cars in the world combined. Not only is this approach effective, it is also cheap and requires little or no emphasis on technology to ensure that it works. Given the scale and complexity of global warming, protecting our forestation remains the only realistic operation in the coming years.
Another benefit of conserving natural resources is that it acts as a buffer during natural disasters, keeping safe the communities and their possessions. Along the coastline in United States, healthy mangroves have been built to fortify the defence of residents against the wrath of nature. In 1999, a cyclone would probably have taken three times the lives of coastal residents if not for the mangrove forests. By maintaining the abundance of nature ecosystem, it also provides an alternative source of income during unexpected events which may disrupt current source of income.
On the hindsight, such an idealistic approach does not come without negative consequences. In order to limit the amount of carbon produced, a carbon market is set up to keep track on it. This inevitably opens opportunities for corporations to make use of and creates discord amongst nations. Corruption will then take place as individuals abuse the system for personal benefits. Another potential landmine is that countries with more natural resources are likely to make use of this opportunity to raise the price of natural resources. The remaining few nations without natural resources, such as Singapore, will therefore be less supportive of this approach as it provides no benefits for their economy.
Although the integrated approach brings about certain possible problems that countries might face, with the factor of deciding the correct amount of environmental conservation by individual countries as the main concern. But these issues are temporary and as pointed out by REDD, can be ironed out through conferences among nations. Moreover, the contributions from this approach far outweigh the possibility of discord. The state of declining climate condition has reached a point that only a drastic integrated approach can reverse the effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)