Title: Ban on outdoor demos eased from Monday
Author: By Sue-Ann Chia, political correspondent
THE STRAITS TIMES front page Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Do you think there are any issues in Singapore which you have a dying need to voice out? Please, voice it out, because you now have a better chance of voicing your opinions out with the ease of the ban on outdoor demonstrations.
I think Singapore’s political liberalization has indeed taken a small step forward with outdoor demonstrations being permitted at Speakers’ Corner. Ever since the Speakers’ Corner was opened up for people to speak in 2001, it had been under utilized because the process to register for it was deemed too "big-brother-ish". Not only did potential speakers need to apply at the nearby police post, but they were banned from using microphones and loud hailers. This greatly discourages people who want to voice out their views to the public. I think this defeats the purpose of having a Speaker’s Corner if people cannot speak out their views to their fullest. Allowing outdoor demonstrations is one step closer to giving freedom of speech.
I feel that with the ease of the ban on outdoor demos, people will have more chances of voicing their opinions and sharing each others’ viewpoints. Words alone are not strong enough to bring across an opinion. Demonstrations are a more effective way to propagate a cause and it also catches public and media attention. Once the demonstrator can hold the media’s attention, he is also grabbing the worldwide attention. Hence more people will know more about politics and be more aware of issues that they are ignorant about. They will also be less apathetic towards Singapore politics.
Demonstrations allow people to sensationalize their viewpoints, especially their grievances. It helps gain sympathy from the public and more support can be gained from them. Through demonstrations, the government will have a good sense of what some quarters of the population think and they will then review existing policies. Recently in Malaysia, people demonstrated against the petrol hike. Thereafter, the government reduced petrol prices to appease public demands.
Once there is more chance to speak up, people will know how to question government policies, becoming more politically attuned. They will no longer take everything that is put to them and can be courageous enough show disapproval to issues like rising prices of goods and services.
Demonstrations also provide platforms for other civil groups like civil rights group and environmental rights group to promote their cause, shape public opinion and mindset and influence government policies to address their causes.
If demonstrations continue to be banned, society will be too controlled, edging towards an authoritarian state. If people are not allowed to speak their mind, it will infringe human rights to freedom of speech.
On the other hand, demonstrations may be detrimental to the society if the demonstrator’s main aim may not be to discuss views but they may have a vested interest. For example, opposition parties may hold demonstrations to brainwash people. Foreigners who have vibes against the government, like people who had brushes with the law, may also want to discredit the government.
Terrorists may even work underground to instigate unhappy citizens of Singapore to go against the government. This will severely damage the peace and harmony in our society.
If the demonstration is too big a group, the speakers’ corner alone may not be able to contain the demonstrators. And if the demonstrations get too fiery, it can even lead to riots and cause social unrest and traffic standstill. For example, demonstrations in Thailand spiralled out of control until airports had to close.
Participating in demonstrations can also lead to loss of work hours and affect the country’s economy. For example, in South Korea, there are frequent demonstrations which affect the economy of the country.
In conclusion, I support peaceful demonstrations at designated places only. Demonstrations cannot be allowed in the whole of Singapore otherwise it will create disorder. Just in case demonstrators have ulterior motives, the government will still have to screen would-be demonstrators to ensure that they are not used as proxies to foreign powers that may jeopardize the stability of Singapore.
Let me end off by quoting a quote by Thomas Carlyle. “Every human being has a right to hear what other wise human beings have spoken to him. It is one of the Rights of Men; a very cruel injustice if you deny it to a man!” It is indeed wise for the government to permit outdoor demonstrations.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
inter-disciplinary studies: social studies - political systems
Title: Why Democracy is Good for Development
Author: By Anita Inder Singh
US Chronicle Online Edition (Issue: Bringing the UN forward)
http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/issue3/0306p29.htm
In this article, the writer wants to tell people that democracy is essential for development. He is in favour of democracy, but he thinks authoritarianism does not work. He cited examples of authoritarian societies which had fallen – Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. He also showed that authoritarian states like British India, China and Zaire experience man-made famines while democratic states do not. His argument is that democracy implies peace and consensus, and because there is consensus, people can choose their own rulers and their way of life. Thus the country will be ruled in a proper way.
I agree that democracy is a good political system. Democracy promotes fairness and equality, so everyone has a chance to choose what he wants and has the freedom to raise his viewpoint. Democracy involves the community, and participation is the key role of the citizens. As more citizens participate in politics, they become more well-informed about the government. A more transparent government will make citizens more satisfied with the way they are ruled. Power lies in the people, so they can elect who they deem is best for the country. I think a country’s policies and rules should be based on what the citizens agree to. If a dictator makes all the policies with disagreement among the people, the country cannot run smoothly because the people do not want to abide to the policy and rules. As what the writer said, the stability of democracies does not depend on force, but on the consensus of the governed. Democracy implies concern about the means through which development takes place. Thus a democratic government will ensure that there is minimal poverty as the country develops.
However, if citizens only support policies to suit their own interests and the government is affected by these self-interest groups, then democracy will not work. The government’s policies will be limited to the people’s agenda. For example, democratic Indonesia believes too much in people’s interest, so much so that they try to appease the people by subsidizing priced oil. Hence the government has to channel most of the country’s GDP into these subsidies. This in turn will affect government spending on development in other aspects of the country, thus leading to economic loss.
Although I agree that democracies are usually better, some authoritarian countries are still very successful. Monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Kuwait are all rich countries. They have well managed resources and have one of the highest GDP in the world. This is because the monarchy has better control and autonomy over their resources, so there is no exploitation or mismanagement of resources if it is left to the hands of the citizens.
In his article, the writer raised examples of successful democracies and unsuccessful autocracies only. He did not show that democracies could fail and autocracies could also be successful. Indeed I think that most democracies are successful and most autocracies are unsuccessful, but if an autocratic government controls its country’s resources properly, its economy will still be prosperous.
Author: By Anita Inder Singh
US Chronicle Online Edition (Issue: Bringing the UN forward)
http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/issue3/0306p29.htm
In this article, the writer wants to tell people that democracy is essential for development. He is in favour of democracy, but he thinks authoritarianism does not work. He cited examples of authoritarian societies which had fallen – Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. He also showed that authoritarian states like British India, China and Zaire experience man-made famines while democratic states do not. His argument is that democracy implies peace and consensus, and because there is consensus, people can choose their own rulers and their way of life. Thus the country will be ruled in a proper way.
I agree that democracy is a good political system. Democracy promotes fairness and equality, so everyone has a chance to choose what he wants and has the freedom to raise his viewpoint. Democracy involves the community, and participation is the key role of the citizens. As more citizens participate in politics, they become more well-informed about the government. A more transparent government will make citizens more satisfied with the way they are ruled. Power lies in the people, so they can elect who they deem is best for the country. I think a country’s policies and rules should be based on what the citizens agree to. If a dictator makes all the policies with disagreement among the people, the country cannot run smoothly because the people do not want to abide to the policy and rules. As what the writer said, the stability of democracies does not depend on force, but on the consensus of the governed. Democracy implies concern about the means through which development takes place. Thus a democratic government will ensure that there is minimal poverty as the country develops.
However, if citizens only support policies to suit their own interests and the government is affected by these self-interest groups, then democracy will not work. The government’s policies will be limited to the people’s agenda. For example, democratic Indonesia believes too much in people’s interest, so much so that they try to appease the people by subsidizing priced oil. Hence the government has to channel most of the country’s GDP into these subsidies. This in turn will affect government spending on development in other aspects of the country, thus leading to economic loss.
Although I agree that democracies are usually better, some authoritarian countries are still very successful. Monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Kuwait are all rich countries. They have well managed resources and have one of the highest GDP in the world. This is because the monarchy has better control and autonomy over their resources, so there is no exploitation or mismanagement of resources if it is left to the hands of the citizens.
In his article, the writer raised examples of successful democracies and unsuccessful autocracies only. He did not show that democracies could fail and autocracies could also be successful. Indeed I think that most democracies are successful and most autocracies are unsuccessful, but if an autocratic government controls its country’s resources properly, its economy will still be prosperous.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
teenage and social issues
Title of article: More young people caught lighting up in first two months
Author: By Teh Joo Lin & Chong Chee Kin
The Straits Times Tuesday, March 4 2008
In this article, the writer’s purpose is to raise awareness on the issue that more teenagers have been caught smoking. From the statistics shown, the number of people below the age of 18 caught smoking is increasing and the HSA is trying to curb the problem. From his findings, he felt that the main problem is that outlets are selling cigarettes to youths, and this encourages teenagers to smoke as cigarettes are made easily available. The writer supported his findings by providing information on the number of outlets caught selling cigarettes to minors
I do agree with the writer that one of the main reasons why there is a rise in teenage smoking offences is due to tobacco outlets selling cigarettes to youths without demanding their identification. When cigarettes are sold to youths, they are given a chance to smoke and making cigarettes easily available. This will hinder them from quitting smoking as the temptation to smoke is there.
However there may be other reasons which account for the rise in teenage smoking offences. It could be due to peer pressure. Firstly, someone can only start smoking if he is influenced to do so. He could be influenced by his peers or even his family. An example of influence from peers would be that as most teenagers grow up, they tend to want to be included in groups or cliques. They do not want to be an outcast, or be called a coward if they do not dare to do something. Hence, if their peers encouraged them to smoke, they will do it to prove they are brave and to be part of the group. An example of influence from family would be when a parent smokes in the presence of his child. As the child sees his parent smoke, he will follow suit and also smoke. Depression may also be a cause for teenagers to want to smoke. If a teenager has complicated feelings which he doesn’t dare to express, he may vent it out on smoking.
The writer highlighted that offenders will be fined and he also showed a rise in the number of retailers caught committing the offence and in the number of under-18s caught for smoking. This serves as a warning to others not to commit that offence.
In order to prevent the phenomenon of underage smoking, first of all tobacco stalls have to stop selling cigarettes to youths. Stall owners must be considerate and understand that they are harming the youths if they encourage them to smoke. In families, parents should set a good example for their children and not smoke in front of them. They should teach them from young the harmfulness of smoking. In front of peers, teenagers need to be stronger emotionally so that they can refuse enticement by their peers. They should bear in mind that once they start smoking, there is no going back. If teenagers feel depression, they should be counseled so that they will be self-confident and not easily fall into traps.
Author: By Teh Joo Lin & Chong Chee Kin
The Straits Times Tuesday, March 4 2008
In this article, the writer’s purpose is to raise awareness on the issue that more teenagers have been caught smoking. From the statistics shown, the number of people below the age of 18 caught smoking is increasing and the HSA is trying to curb the problem. From his findings, he felt that the main problem is that outlets are selling cigarettes to youths, and this encourages teenagers to smoke as cigarettes are made easily available. The writer supported his findings by providing information on the number of outlets caught selling cigarettes to minors
I do agree with the writer that one of the main reasons why there is a rise in teenage smoking offences is due to tobacco outlets selling cigarettes to youths without demanding their identification. When cigarettes are sold to youths, they are given a chance to smoke and making cigarettes easily available. This will hinder them from quitting smoking as the temptation to smoke is there.
However there may be other reasons which account for the rise in teenage smoking offences. It could be due to peer pressure. Firstly, someone can only start smoking if he is influenced to do so. He could be influenced by his peers or even his family. An example of influence from peers would be that as most teenagers grow up, they tend to want to be included in groups or cliques. They do not want to be an outcast, or be called a coward if they do not dare to do something. Hence, if their peers encouraged them to smoke, they will do it to prove they are brave and to be part of the group. An example of influence from family would be when a parent smokes in the presence of his child. As the child sees his parent smoke, he will follow suit and also smoke. Depression may also be a cause for teenagers to want to smoke. If a teenager has complicated feelings which he doesn’t dare to express, he may vent it out on smoking.
The writer highlighted that offenders will be fined and he also showed a rise in the number of retailers caught committing the offence and in the number of under-18s caught for smoking. This serves as a warning to others not to commit that offence.
In order to prevent the phenomenon of underage smoking, first of all tobacco stalls have to stop selling cigarettes to youths. Stall owners must be considerate and understand that they are harming the youths if they encourage them to smoke. In families, parents should set a good example for their children and not smoke in front of them. They should teach them from young the harmfulness of smoking. In front of peers, teenagers need to be stronger emotionally so that they can refuse enticement by their peers. They should bear in mind that once they start smoking, there is no going back. If teenagers feel depression, they should be counseled so that they will be self-confident and not easily fall into traps.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
comments on Russell Baker's essay - On Becoming a Writer
1. Baker’s piece begins without any introduction: he just starts right in. This opening is effective because it lets the reader know on the onset what to expect. Since Baker’s piece is entitled “On Becoming a Writer”, he starts with his own experience on how he wanted to be a writer. This helps build the reader’s expectation of more anecdotes he was going to share in later paragraphs.
2. Baker’s tone had been critical throughout the whole passage. He had found English grammar dull and baffling. He described the classics thrust on him to read as deadening as chloroform. He portrayed his teacher Mr. Fleagle as someone prim to a fault. The word “prim” was repeated many times to emphasize that Mr. Fleagle was too proper. Baker anticipated a listless, unfruitful year with Mr. Fleagle and for a long time was not disappointed. All these criticisms show how critical Baker’s tone was.
3. Baker thought Mr. Fleagle was going to fail his composition because he violated all the rules of formal composition. However, he was surprised to find that Mr. Fleagle read his essay out to the class because it was special. Moreover, the class was listening attentively with enjoyment and laughter. Mr. Fleagle praised Baker’s essay was the very essence of essays, instead of criticizing it, which Baker had expected. This reversal surprises me as it depicts the unexpected. Moreover, this new unexpected situation the writer was in pleases me, because the writer had changed from someone who hated English to someone who saw the possibility of becoming a writer. It has a happy ending.
4. The words “dawdled”, “sprawled”, “grim” and “scanned” emphasize how much the writer hated writing formal essays. The way he “dawdled, sprawled and scanned” shows that he found the task unimportant and useless, and he just was delaying doing it. In paragraph 2, Baker describes writing compositions as heavy labor, turning out leaden, lackluster paragraphs, and also the classics thrust on him to read as deadening as chloroform. Baker repeats the word prim many times in his illustration of Mr. Fleagle.
5. Baker is mentioning an important event which was his turning point. This event concludes his narration on how he became a writer.
6. In the last sentence Baker honours Mr. Fleagle as being among the finest teachers in school because of the inspiration he gave to Baker to be a writer, which is the main point of the essay.
7. Baker’s essay is endearing because he uses descriptions that are humorous. For example, he described how the students laughed at the way Mr. Fleagle read the Macbeth passage. This is a type of incident that will happen in the typical life of a student, so students can identify with it. The way he describes the time with his uncle and aunt and how they laughed over family arguments is also very endearing because in every family there bounds to be some form of argument. He uses a first person point of view, so it seems like he is speaking to the reader directly.
2. Baker’s tone had been critical throughout the whole passage. He had found English grammar dull and baffling. He described the classics thrust on him to read as deadening as chloroform. He portrayed his teacher Mr. Fleagle as someone prim to a fault. The word “prim” was repeated many times to emphasize that Mr. Fleagle was too proper. Baker anticipated a listless, unfruitful year with Mr. Fleagle and for a long time was not disappointed. All these criticisms show how critical Baker’s tone was.
3. Baker thought Mr. Fleagle was going to fail his composition because he violated all the rules of formal composition. However, he was surprised to find that Mr. Fleagle read his essay out to the class because it was special. Moreover, the class was listening attentively with enjoyment and laughter. Mr. Fleagle praised Baker’s essay was the very essence of essays, instead of criticizing it, which Baker had expected. This reversal surprises me as it depicts the unexpected. Moreover, this new unexpected situation the writer was in pleases me, because the writer had changed from someone who hated English to someone who saw the possibility of becoming a writer. It has a happy ending.
4. The words “dawdled”, “sprawled”, “grim” and “scanned” emphasize how much the writer hated writing formal essays. The way he “dawdled, sprawled and scanned” shows that he found the task unimportant and useless, and he just was delaying doing it. In paragraph 2, Baker describes writing compositions as heavy labor, turning out leaden, lackluster paragraphs, and also the classics thrust on him to read as deadening as chloroform. Baker repeats the word prim many times in his illustration of Mr. Fleagle.
5. Baker is mentioning an important event which was his turning point. This event concludes his narration on how he became a writer.
6. In the last sentence Baker honours Mr. Fleagle as being among the finest teachers in school because of the inspiration he gave to Baker to be a writer, which is the main point of the essay.
7. Baker’s essay is endearing because he uses descriptions that are humorous. For example, he described how the students laughed at the way Mr. Fleagle read the Macbeth passage. This is a type of incident that will happen in the typical life of a student, so students can identify with it. The way he describes the time with his uncle and aunt and how they laughed over family arguments is also very endearing because in every family there bounds to be some form of argument. He uses a first person point of view, so it seems like he is speaking to the reader directly.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)