English Blog Entries!

Foreign Workers in Singapore

2008-09-17T18:06:00.000-07:00

I refer to the article “Give them decent dorms” on September 17^th 2008 in the Straits Times.

The article reports that residents have been expressing their dorm fears to their MPs regarding the building of the foreign workers’ dorms in Serangoon Gardens. They have expressed fears regarding the safety of their children, and the security of their neighbourhood. In addition, they also add that it perfectly alright to build dorms for the foreign workers to improve their deplorable living conditions, just that the dorms should not be in Serangoon Gardens.

I for one, am honestly disgusted by this mentality of the residents there.

Firstly, why is there an innate prejudice against these foreign workers? They may have a different skin colour, but they are just as morally upright as you and me. They make a loss of up to S$5000 when they move to Singapore to work, and that amount of money in Indonesia means a car, a house, and support for their family! With this kind of sacrifice, don’t you think they stand to lose alot more if they break the law than you do? In addition, discriminating against someone based on their origin is simply hypocritical. The foreign workers have as much to fear as you have when they enter a completely foreign country to work. Singapore is also grounded in racial and religious tolerance and harmony. It would not do our nation’s history and legacy proud if we discriminate against foreign workers just because they are from another country.

In addition, there is this sense of ingratitude amongst the Singaporean residents in Serangoon Gardens. These foreign workers are responsible for greatly lower the price of constructing the residents’ landed property as they are willing to work for meagre pay which would translate into more money in their homeland. Without these workers, Serangoon Gardens would not be the place it is today. The residents also seem to forget who has been sweeping their walkways of leaves in the wee hours of the morning, and who has been cleaning up your dog droppings for you after you leave. These foreign workers take all this without even a whisper of a complaint and now the residents turn their backs on them just like that. This attitude is simply deplorable.

Thirdly, the Singaporean mentality is prevalent in this article. In the past, people have raged for a strong opposition in parliament, just one that is not in their constituency. In the past, people have called for someone to speak up against a controversial bill, but even with the freer speaker corner only one man signs up. Now, Singaporeans say that they understand the contributions of the foreign workers, and that they are fine with dorms, just that the dorms should not be in their estate. To be honest, I find this sort of mentality selfish and self-centred. It is truly amazing to see people trying to have their cake and eat it. They push whatever they do not want to others, and take the benefits. This is something that we really have to avoid.

Foreign workers have been doing their job for Singapore since the first foreign immigrant in 1819. Can we do our part for these foreign workers?

Democracy promotes stability (English Argumentative Essay)

2008-05-30T01:56:00.000-07:00

Democracy is a system of governance that aims to represent and execute the will of the people. Typically, democracies have several identifying institutions such as a constitution, legislative council, elections, free media and independent judiciary which are in charge of executing the constitution.

By stability, we will use the criterion of equally representing people's viewpoints, as only when there is a near equal representation of all the people's views can there truly be stability.

Democracy in its essence means “people power”, coming from the Greek words “demos” and “kratos”, “demos” meaning "people," and “kratos” meaning "rule". In Athens, the founding place of democracy, all discussion took place in the open on a hillside. The citizens heard every word spoken during these discussions and then, they debated among themselves what action to take. Each citizen, from the poorest beggars to the richest merchants of the time, heard and contributed to every argument with the same importance as the most experienced political leader. Everyone knew that the issues involved the security of the city and its empire, a question of war and peace; if the result should be war, the citizens themselves would do the fighting. That is truly democracy, that is truly representing and executing the will of the people, which are the main aims of democracy.

However, that was democracy. What we have called democracy in this country never came anywhere near what Athens had. Let’s look at what democracy is in today’s world. Today, in the world’s supposedly most democratic nation, the US, we have a certain political leader, launching regiment after regiment of soldiers to the slaughter house in Iraq, while parents beg him to stop the mindless massacre of American people. Ironically though, the number of people that have been killed in the Iraq war have exceeded the Americans killed in the World Trade Center terrorist attack.

The principle tenets of democracy are that everyone must be represented, that everyone must get a say, no matter how small, in how the government is run and the decisions made. Today’s democracies appears to achieve these aims, by giving everyone a vote, and a say, but I will show you how the process of voting, which is the principle method with which democracy strives to fulfill its aims, instead deprives people of representations, and runs against the ideals of Democracy itself. This, by the above criterion, would lead to social instability.

When democracy aims to execute the “will of the people” through voting, it actually is executing the will of the majority of the people. As we do not live in a utopian world, people have different views and hence not everyone can agree on the same thing. Everything would be fine, so long as everyone gets a say and representation, but by carrying out the will of the majority, democracy effectively deprives the minority of their representation, undermining its own core principle of equal representation for everybody. Why is this so? Humans are naturally ego-centric in their thinking, hence the populace can most probably will be biased against certain groups of people (for example the African-Americans in America in pre-1965.

Through majority rule, these people can thus call for racist and biased action against the people who they consider inferior to themselves within a country or organization, say ethnic minorities or members of a particular religion.

Just look at the “White Australia” policy, where the deportation of thousands of Melenesian people out of Australia took place under the guise of strengthening racial homogeneity, or the USA’s racial discrimination pre-1965 against the African-Americans, where just because of their skin colour, they were discriminated and prejudiced against by a democratic society. Is the will of this minority truly being represented in these cases?

Do we dare think for even one second, that the African-Americans actually wanted to be legally discriminated against by the Jim Crow Laws from 1876 to 1965? Due to these laws, public schools, public places and public transportation, like trains and buses, were required to have separate facilities for whites and African-Americans. Are they supposed to submit to this tyrannical majority all because they have the “supposed” misfortune to be born as a member of a racial minority? Last but not least, can we really say that democracy has brought about ample stability in these countries?

No to all the above.

Democracy promotes stability (Opposing)

2008-05-18T03:57:00.000-07:00

By Moses:

Now for my third and final point on how democracy promotes instability: Masses of people making decisions can and will be manipulated for the good of society by the governement, and this will cause widespread unhappiness and instability.

Proper and effective must come from above and not from below, or from the people. The people as a mass are capable of being manipulated, and are unlikely to possess skills or training in confronting problems a state might face. As such, expecting them to elect the ‘best tools for the job’ is unrealistic. I am not saying that they are incapable of making the right decision, but the propensity for mistakes happening is high.

The Government from above can see, by virtue of its position and advantages, what is better for the people than the people can. For example, the abolition of the death penalty was at first deeply unpopular with the British public when it was pushed through by the government, but is now broadly supported as correct and humane.

Hence, Democracy, which advocates leadership through the power of the people, will not promote stability.

Please feel free to comment. Critical feedback is most welcome (:

Democracy promotes stability (Opposing)

2008-05-18T03:53:00.000-07:00

By Moses,

Now for my second point: Democracy's checks and balances also do not serve their purposes effectively, and when they do, they violate on of Democracy's key tenets.

On the surface, democracies have many checks and balances to prevent this sort of thing from happening, but effectively, they only have one: The Constitution, where the basic tenets of the laws are set down. However, there are two problems with the Constitution. Firstly, any laws that are laid down preventing discrimination against ethnic minorities or other religions may not be effective, as much of this discrimination comes in more subtle forms, such as housing or land reforms not overtly aimed at, yet that adversely affect certain groups of people, like how the Indians in Brazil were affected by subsidies for cattle ranchers. Furthermore, laws voted in by the majority may only adversely affect a certain class of people, usually those living below the poverty line. It is hard to word the constitution to block such laws, but if a democracy does so, it brings us on to our second problem with the constitution.

Now, the only way to stop laws such as the ones I have highlighted above from being passed is to word the constitution very rigidly. But by doing so, you are REMOVING the majority’s representation. These are the people who WANT to oppress various minorities, but the wording of the constitution does not allow them to do so, and thus “democracy” removes their say, violating another one of it’s own core principles, which is to “execute the will of the people” regardless whether they are right or wrong. But if they allow the majority to be represented and oppress minorities, they are effectively subjugating the minority to the tyranny of the majority, violating their representation. This is not democracy, this is not a fair and equal representation of everybody, this is in fact, a vicious cycle of oppression.

As you can see, I have shown you today, how democracy in today’s world, though attempting to give everyone a fair representation, is actually depriving society of equal representation. The most basic tenets of democracy, namely the Constitution and legislative council, have shown throughout history how their presence has robbed both the minority and majority groups of fair representation. Because democracy is unable to provide society with equal representation, and that this in itself will promote instability, hence democracy cannot promote stability.

Please comment on this. Critical feedback is welcome (:

Democracy promotes stability (Opposing)

2008-05-17T22:25:00.000-07:00

Democracy promotes stability.

By Moses:

To start off the discussion, I will lay down some basic definitions of democracy and what we mean by stability.

By stability, we will use the criterion of equally representing people's viewpoints, as only when there is a near equal representation of all the people's views can there truly be stability.

I do not agree with this statement. For my first argument: Democracy is unsustainable, and oppresses the minority.

The principle tenets of democracy are that everyone must be represented, that everyone must get a say, no matter how small, in how the government is run and the decisions made. Today’s democracies appears to achieve these aims, by giving everyone a vote, and a say, but today, I will show you why the process of voting, which is the principle method with which democracy strives to fulfill its aims, instead deprives people of representations, and runs against the ideals of Democracy itself.

When democracy aims to execute the “will of the people” through voting, it actually is executing the will of the majority of the people. We of the proposition accept that, as we do not live in a utopian world, people have different views and hence not everyone can agree on the same thing, and to propose that would be altruistic. Everything would be fine, so long as everyone gets a say and representation, but by carrying out the will of the majority, democracy effectively deprives the minority of their representation, undermining its own core principle of equal representation for everybody. Why is this so? Humans are naturally ego-centric in their thinking, hence the populace can most probably will be biased against certain groups of people (for example the African-Americans in America in pre-1965. Through majority rule, these people can thus call for racist and biased action against the people who they consider inferior to themselves within a country or organization, say ethnic minorities or members of a particular religion. Just look at the “White Australia” policy, where the deportation of thousands of Melenesian people out of Australia took place under the guise of strengthening racial homogeneity, or the USA’s racial discrimination pre-1965 against the African-Americans, where just because of their skin colour, they were discriminated and prejudiced against by a democratic society. Is the will of the majority being represented here? Does anyone think for even one second, that the African-Americans actually wanted to be legally discriminated against by the Jim Crow Laws from 1876 to 1965? Due to these laws, public schools, public places and public transportation, like trains and buses, were required to have separate facilities for whites and African-Americans. Are they supposed to submit to this tyrannical majority all because they have the “supposed” misfortune to be born as a member of a racial minority?

As you can see, democracy is inherently unstable and unsustainable. If this stands, then it follows that the concept it stands for, stability through equal representation, should also fall. Hence, I feel that democracy does not promote stability.

Please voice your opinions on this issue. Critical response is welcome (:

A Singaporean Team or Team Singapore? - Youth Olympic Games 2010

2008-03-06T05:58:00.001-08:00

With the advent of the Youth Olympics in 2010, Singaporeans will see the arrival of thousands of young sportsmen around the world. Even though these sportsmen have a huge diversity of backgrounds, some coming from China, others from Indonesia, and even from poverty-stricken countries like Africa, they are all representing their homelands, and fighting to bring back glory for their nation.

However, a very different scenario can be found in the Singapore team. In fact, it seems to be a mix-mash of different nationalities. Hence, comparing the Singapore Team to the teams from other nations, should these players of foreign origin be allowed to represent Singapore in international sports meets?

Sportsmen live by the ideals that sports is guided by, namely “Higher, Faster, Stronger”. The ultimate aim of sportsmen is to achieve the aforementioned goals, and nothing else. However, when a sportsmen represents his country, his role changes slightly. He becomes an ambassador of his country, embodying the ideals of sport and his country alike.

Bearing this in mind, what benefits would foreign talent bring to Singapore?

Foreign talent is a source of expertise. It is undeniable that the addition of foreign talent into our midst will bring about an exponential increase in expertise. These are players of considerable standard, and that is why they were handpicked to join the Singapore Team in the first place. Take for example, Ronald Susilo who has repeatedly brought back the gold for Singapore. In training, the other players of native origin will definitely be able to gain much from his expertise.

It is important to realize that foreign talent is a necessity in Singapore. The nature of our country is such that we have a relatively small population. This makes the appearance of exceptional sporting talent pretty rare. Without foreign talent, Singapore would be unable to hold her own on the world stage. In fact, the same phenomenon can be observed in other industries such as commerce, where an increase in jobs being allocated to foreign talent has yet again sparked public outcry.

Moreover, introducing foreign talent into the Singapore team also fulfills the fundamental aim of sports. The exchange of ideas and expertise will lead to an overall increase in standard, as both parties stand to gain much knowledge from each other. For example, as quoted from the website for the Youth Olympic Games 2010, Singapore coaches are of the “highest standard”. Hence, the ideals of “Higher, Faster, Stronger”, which underlie the fundamental aims of sports, will be promoted.

However, the issue of national pride will come into question. Will the nation be receptive to a team which is purely Singaporean but fails to bring back the medals, or to a team that is a mix-mash of nationalities, but brings Singapore glory on the global stage?

The state of belonging to a country is not solely determined by birth origin. Social integration and an embrace of the country’s culture are also factors. In the example of Tao Li, you do not see Singaporeans labeling her as foreign talent. Rather, Singaporeans have embraced this sportswoman, and has been christened as truly part of Team Singapore.

People like Ronald Susilo are also being integrated into society, as seen from McDonald advertisements that repeatedly expose us to this outstanding sportsman.

So at the end of the day, do we want a true blue Singaporean Team, or will we move on and accept the conception of a vibrant and diverse Team Singapore?

You decide.