National Service, aimed to defend the country, was implemented in 1967. Recently, there is a public debate about whether National Service still works for Singapore. In my opinion, National Service is still suitable for Singapore. In proving my point, I would like to discuss and compare the advantages and disadvantages of National Service.
The advantages of National Service are very manifest. National Service is fair to everyone since it requires every able-bodied man to serve regardless of race, religion or background, which can eliminate the recruitment bias. Through the training, the Singaporeans can learn to defend their country. The training can also help the Singaporeans to bond together since they share a common adventure, experience and objective during the training.
In addition, it is less expensive as compared to recruiting mercenaries, and can help to de-glorify war since the citizens will realize the consequences of taking like. This will also help Singaporeans to develop a sense of loyalty, patriotism and a shared destiny, which is very essential and vital for Singapore currently. To sum up, National Service is an investment in citizens’ loyalty to home which achieves twin goals of defence and economic development.
However, due to the compulsory nature of National Service, motivation among the enlisted would be lacking among many, especially at the beginning of the conscription. This could bring about resentments and disgruntlements among many people since they believe that they are coerced to be trained in a harsh environment where their life may ends.
According to Art.3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, ”everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” In Singapore, where conscientious objection is not an option, the compulsory nature of National Service can be viewed as violation of individual rights. In addition, the government can be accused of sexism, since females are not compulsory to serve but males are.
Some people claim that quite a large sum of money is spent in National Service. In terms of economic and social development, the government can actually use the money spent in National Service to invest in other areas such as education, transportation system. This will definitely benefit the citizens as well as further promoting the economy.
Nevertheless, National Service makes Singapore stronger and tougher. Without National Service, other countries like Malaysia may deem Singapore as vulnerable and may launch an invasion at any time. History of Japanese invasion has proven to us that only Singaporeans are reliable to protect their own country.
Furthermore, the population in Singapore is rather smaller compared to other countries like China. National Service ensures that there will be a trained armed force ready at any time. If National Service is abolished, the number of soldiers ready at emergency cannot be guaranteed.
Hence, I believe that National Service is suitable for Singapore.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Can democracy create stability? It depends.
Nowadays, there is a controversy in the world about whether democracy is able to create stability in the society or not. However, in my opinion, whether democracy is able to create stability depends on the situation of the country.
To begin with, democracy can create stability in a society. The ideal of democracy is that the all the people in the country have a chance in deciding what they want and the majority of the preference decide how the policy will perform. It also gives opportunity to people to let off their resentment as it acts as a channel to dispel their dissatisfactions. Take Switzerland for example, which is widely considered one of the world's most stable countries, is a direct democracy where elections as well as many other things are also decided by public votes. It is the closest existing form to the ideal democracy. Switzerland is famous for its economic stability in terms of prosperity, growth figures and GDP. It is a perfect example to prove that democracy can actually bring stability to a society.
Another form of democracy, liberal representative democracy, is slightly different from direct democracy that the representatives elected by the populace will represent them as their voice. In the case of the United States, which uses this form of democracy, there is also economic stability in that it is a world super economy; politically stable because there are no multiparty conflicts since there are only two parties; and social stability because the people there lead a very comfortable life. Here too we see that democracy allows for the society to have stability.
However, democracy may not create stability in a society. Let’s take a familiar instance, Sri Lanka, which is a democracy country that has been plagued by ethnic collisions between Tamils and Sinhalese. There is little social stability with so many conflicts. In addition, the LTTE and other Tamil activists are always acting against the Sinhalese government. Because of so many problems, there is also no stability. One of the causes of the conflict is the elected government itself. From the very beginning, the Sinhalese and Tamils voted for parties of their own ethnicity in the elections. Because the Sinhalese are the majority, the Sinhalese parties always win. This resulted in permanent resentment in the Tamil groups. From this, we can see that democracy may not create stability in a society. In a situation like this, democracy only adds fuel to the fire of instability.
While democracy may or may not create stability in a society, I want to emphasize that conditions may not be suitable to implement democracy in some countries. For instance, it could not be implemented in China after the fall of the emperor because of the state of despair at that time. Someone had to come down and make things work, or conflicting opinions will aggravate chaos. China-Special Socialism helped to consolidate and lift the society as well as greatly improving the economy and the international status of the country.
The largest democracy in the world, India, is a good example to argue on the pros and cons of the democratic system. While democracy and its companion capitalistic beliefs have just propelled India into a super economy and given it economic stability, this increased capitalism has widened the income gap at the same time. Thus the socio-economic status of the bottom half of the society degrades while the upper half make even big progress. This is expected to impact the social stability and might lead to things getting out of control. Too much freedom also wreaks havoc because there are so many different parties with different ideals, which paralyses the functioning of the government sometimes, and often results in hung decisions.
As I have mentioned above, democracy works very well in Switzerland and US, but fails terribly in countries like Sri Lanka and Northern Ireland and is in a limbo in countries like India. So in conclusion, whether or not democracy creates stability in a society is a subjective development and can vary depending on various factors that surround each situation.
To begin with, democracy can create stability in a society. The ideal of democracy is that the all the people in the country have a chance in deciding what they want and the majority of the preference decide how the policy will perform. It also gives opportunity to people to let off their resentment as it acts as a channel to dispel their dissatisfactions. Take Switzerland for example, which is widely considered one of the world's most stable countries, is a direct democracy where elections as well as many other things are also decided by public votes. It is the closest existing form to the ideal democracy. Switzerland is famous for its economic stability in terms of prosperity, growth figures and GDP. It is a perfect example to prove that democracy can actually bring stability to a society.
Another form of democracy, liberal representative democracy, is slightly different from direct democracy that the representatives elected by the populace will represent them as their voice. In the case of the United States, which uses this form of democracy, there is also economic stability in that it is a world super economy; politically stable because there are no multiparty conflicts since there are only two parties; and social stability because the people there lead a very comfortable life. Here too we see that democracy allows for the society to have stability.
However, democracy may not create stability in a society. Let’s take a familiar instance, Sri Lanka, which is a democracy country that has been plagued by ethnic collisions between Tamils and Sinhalese. There is little social stability with so many conflicts. In addition, the LTTE and other Tamil activists are always acting against the Sinhalese government. Because of so many problems, there is also no stability. One of the causes of the conflict is the elected government itself. From the very beginning, the Sinhalese and Tamils voted for parties of their own ethnicity in the elections. Because the Sinhalese are the majority, the Sinhalese parties always win. This resulted in permanent resentment in the Tamil groups. From this, we can see that democracy may not create stability in a society. In a situation like this, democracy only adds fuel to the fire of instability.
While democracy may or may not create stability in a society, I want to emphasize that conditions may not be suitable to implement democracy in some countries. For instance, it could not be implemented in China after the fall of the emperor because of the state of despair at that time. Someone had to come down and make things work, or conflicting opinions will aggravate chaos. China-Special Socialism helped to consolidate and lift the society as well as greatly improving the economy and the international status of the country.
The largest democracy in the world, India, is a good example to argue on the pros and cons of the democratic system. While democracy and its companion capitalistic beliefs have just propelled India into a super economy and given it economic stability, this increased capitalism has widened the income gap at the same time. Thus the socio-economic status of the bottom half of the society degrades while the upper half make even big progress. This is expected to impact the social stability and might lead to things getting out of control. Too much freedom also wreaks havoc because there are so many different parties with different ideals, which paralyses the functioning of the government sometimes, and often results in hung decisions.
As I have mentioned above, democracy works very well in Switzerland and US, but fails terribly in countries like Sri Lanka and Northern Ireland and is in a limbo in countries like India. So in conclusion, whether or not democracy creates stability in a society is a subjective development and can vary depending on various factors that surround each situation.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Would casinos benefit Singapore?
There was always a public controversy on whether S’pore should build a casino or not. And not long ago, the government of Singapore endorsed the proposal of setting up 2 casinos in Marina Bay and Santosa Island. It will be investing S$5 billion and will be in operation by 2009. I personally quite approve of this sensible decision. I believe both the two casinos will become world-famous integrated resorts and S’pore will be more vigorous and energetic in terms of economic growth, attracting foreign investment, and so on.
The government has proposed to build up the two casinos, with the aim of booming both tourism and tourism service. Analysts said that the project will help S’pore to attract 17 million tourists and get a tax income as much as S$30 billion by 2015. With such a huge amount of incomes, the government will be able to improve the public services and to allocate more money to the charity committees. Thus, the casinos will help to enhance the living quality of Singaporeans.
Moreover, the setting up of the casinos will provide a good deal of job opportunities. This will do good to the people who lose their jobs and also help draw down the unemployment rate.
What’s more, the casinos will help to alter some foreigners’ opinion on S’pore. S’pore portrays to foreigners the image that it is a beautiful, clean but a little serious and dull country. The establishing of the casinos may change this point of view. To some extent, the building of the casinos inject vigor into Singapore.
Many citizens concerned that the casinos would bring many problems to Singapore, such as increasing of crime rate, proliferation of loan sharks, excessive gambling and so on. And they also believe that the casinos will destroy the reputation of hard-working, virtuous Singaporeans with high integrity.
However, I trust Singapore’s government as well as its citizens. I know that it is such an honest and clean government that it will be able to put such things to control. Singapore is a highly-developed city and its people have a high level of self-discipline. Gambling games like Blackjack, MaJong, have been popular for a long time and that prove that Singaporeans are capable of dealing with social problems that gambling brings to them. A survey from MCYS (Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports) showed that 58% of Singaporeans aged above 18 engaged in some form of gambling activities in the past, only 2.1% are probable pathological gamblers.
According to what I mentioned above, the casinos will benefit Singapore and will make a more vigorous and energetic country than ever.
Zhengli (441 words)
References:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)