March 2017 — Gp Lah!

Democracy is not the most effective form of government. Do you agree?

This is a student researched paper.

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”[1] These fine words by Winston Churchill came in parliament as he attempted to defend democracy while acknowledging its shortcomings. Democracy is the most popular form of government because it is representative, it protects people against oppression and it guarantees the basic rights that people must have. But democracy also has many inadequacies. It is inefficient by design, leading to wasteful practices. Despite the demerits, democracy is the form of government that most countries in the world have chosen to install, in many cases after hard struggles.

Democracy is effective because it is representative of people. Each constituency, depending on the size of its population, can elect a fixed number of representatives to the assembly. The UK, for example, has 650 constituencies.[2] Each constituency is represented fairly, regardless of wealth and status. However, an elected representative does not always represent every community within the constituency. By design, the representative is more likely to belong to a majority group. Moreover, large nations can only practice direct democracy at regional levels. Switzerland is the largest nation in terms of population that still practices pure democracy. With 8.3 million citizens as of 2016 estimates, Switzerland is ranked 99^th in terms of population by the UN. On the national level where the majority of legislative activity takes place, nations with larger populations practice a very indirect form of democracy that tends to resemble a republic.[3] USA, India, Finland and Mexico are some examples.(a) Sometimes a conventional government may not have majority support, such as in case of coalitions.[4] Italy, France, Germany and several other nations have had coalition governments in the past. Coalition and representative governments also represent people, which is the reason for their preference over non-democratic regimes.

Democracies succeed despite imperfections because they create the impression, true or false, of being protective of the people. This is not true of other forms of government such as monarchic, aristocratic or totalitarian regimes. Democracy protects human rights and encourages civil liberty. Democracy is participative and gives voice to each citizen. Democratic nations with universal adult suffrage offer more freedom of speech than other types of regimes. A notable historic example is India and all the other colonies of the British Empire. Post independence, these nations allow a range of civil liberties that the British Raj did not.(d) There is also more accountability for decisions, since a democratic government is liable to be replaced during elections if their policies are unpopular. One political party may not necessarily be better than another. However, the purpose of democracy is that people must have the power of choice. With the reasoning for government decisions made public by the media, democracies tend to be more transparent. Certain historic examples prove that all the positive effects of democracy can be achieved within a non-democratic system. Hong Kong under British administration is one good example.[5] Pre 1997 Hong Kong, Even though it was not a democratic setup, was lauded for low taxes, low corruption, full freedom of speech, rule of law and a free market economy.(b) However, instances of autocratic regimes that abuse human rights and restrict civil liberties also abound. Democracies are effective and desirable because they enjoy the support of people by protecting the rights of citizens and by being accountable.

Naysayers opine that democratic regimes suffer from much inherent inefficiency. Election campaigns are expensive and wasteful. In 2016 one of the US Presidential candidates spent billions of dollars on campaign advertising.[6] Influencing voters with paid advertisements should be considered opposed to the ideals of democracy, because it allows only the wealthy and influential to participate in politics.(c) Excessive campaign spending also goes to show that reelection depends more on good advertising than good deeds while in office. Some countries allow political candidates to campaign for months and even years.[7] Voters need to put-up with mass media saturated with political messages. To avoid media overuse and due to consideration for voters, Campaigns in countries such as Canada and Mexico last no more than 90 days.(a) Post election, new governments often have markedly different views on various issues, from the previous ones. This leads to changes in policy, creating an environment of instability. One example is the Affordable Care Act, better known as ‘Obamacare’.[8] 75 years in the making, the act was signed into law by president Obama in 2010 and already faces an uncertain future after the 2016 election. In democracy, accountability resets with every election cycle. Moreover, due to multiple levels of decision-making it takes longer to implement bigger projects, creating delays, more waste and inefficiency.(a) By comparison military juntas can be very efficient. Libya under Gaddafi, a military dictatorship, was the most prosperous African nation of the time. Citizens had access to free electricity, education and healthcare. Gaddafi’s Libya implemented the world’s largest irrigation project of the time.[9] Some forms of monarchies also work efficiently. The Saudi King exercises complete political authority. In addition to being among the top quartile of countries ranked by HDI, Saudi has implemented several engineering mega projects.(d) Due to the structure of democracy, inefficiency is one of the system’s innate attributes.

Democratic regimes are effective because people are willing to support them. Democratic governments protect civil rights and provide the various freedoms that people need. At the same time democracy is rife with inadequacies and inefficiencies. Compared to autocratic systems, democracies take longer to make and implement decisions. Election campaigns can be unreasonably long and wasteful. The interests of democratically elected representatives do not align with long term national interests as well as those of autocrats or dictators, who are destined to rule for life. In an 1881 letter, Lord Action stated, “The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.”^[10] It implies that governance is a job beyond any person’s capacity. Democracy remains more acceptable than any other form of government by virtue of being the lesser evil.

[1] Richard M. Langworth. (2016). “Democracy is the worst form of Government…” – Richard M. Langworth. [online] Available at: https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[2] UK Parliament. (2016). Parliamentary constituencies.

Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/constituencies/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[3] Volokh, E. (2016). Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?. [online] Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[4] Mason, R. (2016). Coalition governments: what are they and how are they formed?. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/coalition-governments-what-are-they-and-how-are-they-formed [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[5] http://www.washingtontimes.com, T. (2016). Liberty vs. democracy. [online] The Washington Times. Available at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/feb/4/20060204-103048-1254r/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[6] NPR.org. (2016). 2016 Campaigns Will Spend $4.4 Billion On TV Ads, But Why?. [online] Available at: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/19/432759311/2016-campaign-tv-ad-spending [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[7] NPR.org. (2016). Canada Reminds Us That American Elections Are Much Longer. [online] Available at: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/21/450238156/canadas-11-week-campaign-reminds-us-that-american-elections-are-much-longer [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[8] Affordablehealthca.com. (2016). A short history of the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare drama. [online] Available at: http://affordablehealthca.com/history-affordable-care-act/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[9] http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-ten-things-about-gaddafi-they-dont-want-you-to-know/5414289

[10] Acton, L., 1877. The history of freedom in antiquity. Selected Writings of Lord Acton, 1, pp.5-28.

How effectively is diversity managed in your society?

In my society of Singapore, it would seem that diversity is embraced. The idea is enshrined in our national pledge, to be “one united people, regardless of race, language or religion”. This was vital to a nation of immigrants from all over the world, looking for a place to call their own and to develop a sense of national and cultural unity amongst the myriad of varying ethnicities. Indeed, Singapore has reached a commendable level of respecting and embracing diversity. However, this essay argues that there is still much to be desired as the nation strives towards maintaining and improving its level of social cohesion and avoiding conflict and dissatisfaction.

Singapore adopts a meritocratic approach to its society. As one of the five key principles of the nation, it would seem to suggest that diversity arising from race, gender, sexuality or age would not matter to one’s worth in society. The ideal of equal opportunity has been touted by many a politician, claiming that there is no discrimination, particularly in terms of race. Indeed, this often true in practice, as the nation strives towards creating job opportunities for all and ensuring that anti-discriminatory measures are in place. Diversity in the workforce is being promoted by the government through the encouragement of including elderly and disabled workers. Though economically motivated, these initiatives make a large impact on these workers’ lives, showing that the fiercely competitive and fast-paced workforce appreciates and includes them as well.

However, Singapore does not totally succeed in creating equal opportunities. Known for its demanding education system and highly competitive workforce, Singapore struggles to ensure that a sense of “classicism” does not form. Meritocracy allowed our forefathers to embrace good work ethics that propelled them into well-paying jobs regardless of their station in life. However, generations later, this same system has allowed an inherent disadvantage to the less well-off. While those working in well-paying sectors such as medicine and law are able to provide the best tutors, studying environment and even nutrition through financial support, those in less well-paying jobs may not be able to provide as much for the next generation. In a meritocratic system, this has created an unfairness that provides the children of the wealthy with an advantage. In a system that ranks students based on academic ability, wealthier students may have to struggle less to achieve the same stellar results any other student may have to slog for. This tends to result in enclaves, where wealthy students acquaint themselves with each other in ‘elite schools’ and form communities that seem impenetrable to those in neighbourhood schools. This inherent weakness in the meritocratic system Singapore employs thus creates a class divide that affects academics and future job opportunities. As a result, diversity in class may be poorly handled, as those with wealthy families more easily follow their parents to the upper echelons of society.

Still, it is respectable how Singapore has handled diversity through multiculturalism. This formation of a “mosaic” of different faces and religions amongst Singaporeans is touted by some in a patriotic passion. Indeed, Singapore’s policy of multiculturalism has allowed to remain largely conflict-free since independence. Following the violence and chaos of the Maria Hertogh riots in its early years, the nation has since learnt that race and religion have been and will continue to be of great sensitivity. On a practical level, the government achieves its brand of multiculturalism through the full integration in public school and housing. They claim that this creates opportunities for interaction that promotes the respect and embracing of other cultures. Indeed, this should be lauded, especially in contrast to the types of conflict that arise in the region. Our close neighbour, Malaysia, has struggled with dissatisfaction from the Chinese and Indian community surrounding the preferential treatment of Malays by the state. Meanwhile, ethnic Malays also resent that they seem to be excluded from the well-paying sectors the Chinese and Indian seem to dominate. Countries like Thailand also struggle with minorities that live far away from the centre of the nation’s activities in the cities, and grow up hardly interacting with it. Instead, Singapore’s equal treatment of all races and celebration of ethnic differences allows the most serious racial offense in years to be a couple of social media posts ignorantly complaining and attributing their personal hassles to the practices of the other races. These sentiments are also swiftly denounced by the nation.

However, one bears in mind the Singapore Recollections, “let us not take for granted that we have will always be”. While the nation has enjoyed relative peace, destabilizing entities such as ISIS have great impact on our majority Chinese nation in a community of Muslim-dominated states. Growing tensions surrounding religious extremism has cause for Singapore to reevaluate its effectiveness in handling diversity. Although multiculturalism purports cohabitation amongst different ethnicities, one questions if it truly upholds the embracing of differences as much as it does mere tolerance. A society where races can coexist but are not required to intermingle can be a brewing storm. The lack of the need to examine our differences and to face tough issues surrounding them may have made Singapore complacent towards its peace in diversity, A culture of casual racism has been largely swept under the rug, with a mindset of “going along to get along”, particularly in our youth, may be sources of friction with growing Islamophobia globally. To ensure further effectiveness in managing diversity, Singapore must be prepared to identify and address contention and suspicion between different ethnicities in order to prevent societal fissures in an era of uncertainty instead of merely alluding to it or ignoring it.

Finally, one of the biggest critiques against Singapore’s management of diversity remains its handling of alternative voices. Due to its particularly paternalistic ruling style, the government tends to censor much of the views it deems immoral or inappropriate. Though this has been argued as a means to cater to a largely conservative society, many liberal voices have taken issue with it. Most prominently, the criminalisation of gay relationships is perceived as oppressive and against a culture of diversity to the growing Pink Dot movement. There has also been growing discontent over a lack of positive portrayals of physical and mental disabilities outside of charity shows, which, even then, tend to portray these communities as weak or pitiful. In contrast to racism, sexism, Islamophobia or classism, this type of discrimination tends to hold more ground for the existing stigma , as they are largely perceived as “abnormalities” or “unnatural” by governments or the media. Thus, Singapore’s relatively poor representation towards LGBTQA and disabled persons is a source of much discontent as their diversity is not given its opportunity to be positively represented and instead this promoted an attitude of ignorance towards them on the part of the government and state-owned media.

Thus, although this essay regards Singapore’s management of diversity as largely effective, it is not blind to many flaws that tend to be inherent to its style of government or principles. In an age of growing concerns over individual rights and diversity, Singapore may face challenges in maintaining its control over diversity and the peace we currently enjoy. A sense of identity in the community is vital to ensure Singaporeans enjoy the level of peace and prosperity it strives to achieve.

‘The media today has no interest in telling the truth.’ Do you agree?

The scores of fake news circulating the internet on various social media websites and forums such as Facebook, Twitter and Reddit during the 2016 American presidential election are a sobering reminder to us that perhaps it is time to start questioning the veracity of the news that our venerated news outlets churn out each day. Headlines such as “Ted Cruz caught in yet another scandal” and “Sanders condemned of slander” were widely seen across the Internet; yet when one clicked on the link to view the “latest scoop”, the story turned out to be fabricated and sometimes utterly fictional. Before the advent of new media, the vast majority often believed that the press delivered the truth and nothing but the truth. And a few decades ago, most traditional news outlets were actually reputable and reliable. That is a far cry from what the media industry is today. The issue definitely begs the question of whether the media today is even the slightest it interested in delivering the truth anymore. Personally, I believe that amidst all the complaints of fake news and “alternative facts”, the media has no interest in telling the truth

To begin with, believe the media today is often deliberate in delivering the truth to the public because of the fear of being caught and condemned if it doe otherwise. The invention of the Internet in the 90s gave individuals who owned a technological device the opportunity to get their news from various sources, trawl through all the facts presented about an issue and gain access to a trove of information about current affairs. Since the early to mid-2000s, when the Internet was further developed and more information could be circulated on it, people began to perform fact checks on various traditional and new media news sources to ensure that whatever they reported was reliable and factual. Thus began the rise of the online vigilante, who lurks on the Internet and has the power to mobilise hundreds or even thousands of netizens to criticize a media platform for its poor and inaccurate reporting when need be. For instance, when the renowned news company the British Broadcasting Corporation(BBC) inaccurately reported on the Palestinian conflict, online vigilantes and other netizens were quick to notice the biased news headline and cause an uproar on social media websites such as Twitter and Reddit. The BBC swiftly took down the article and replaced it with one with a more neutral standpoint. This indubitable bruised the BBC’s reputation and credibility and shook the faith of many of the BBC’s loyal listeners. Many media corporations fear the same or a worse consequence the BBC suffered due to the inaccurate reporting, and thus it is this fear that makes them ever so deliberate in getting the truth out to the masses.

Some cynics will disagree with my stand and argue that the media today lacks any interest in telling the truth because the media has been known for delivering sensationalistic news instead of the cold hard facts. These critics will assert that the rise of the internet has resulted in new media outlets, namely social media platforms, profiting more than traditional media outlets due to greater accessibility and social media being a cheaper alternative. The decrease in revenue of traditional news sources over the years has caused many of them to resort to, as some call it, the most disgusting and low-grade news reporting: sensationalistic news reporting. Sensationalistic media outlets such as Vice and the Sun have the same ethos: “If it bleeds, it leads; if it roars, it scores”. These media outlets rarely deliver the truth, rather, they exploit real news by exaggerating stories, adding extra juicy information and most often highlighting only the violent, raunchy and eye-popping bits. For example, the Breitbart News, one of the most biased and sensationalistic media corporations, cooked up a story of thousands of Muslims burning a church and chanting “Allahu Akbar” on the streets on New Year’s day in Dortmund, Germany. They gravely exaggerate the news and delivered only what their viewers wanted to read, instead of delivering the truth of the matter. Hence, some cynics will argue that the media today has no interest in telling the truth.

Although I concede that many media outlets have adopted sensationalistic reporting to boost viewership, I believe that the vast majority of media outlets still believe in delivering the truth because ultimately, the truth is what will make them reputable and recognized globally. Everybody wants to know the truth behind an issue, some say the facts of a matter are a valuable commodity. And I believe that there is truth in this saying. A multitude of media corporations such as the BBC and The New York Times still engage in investigating journalism and shun sensationalistic reporting because everyone, even those who partake in sensationalistic news, still wants a place where they can find the facts of a matter and the truth of an event that has occurred. This desire to differentiate fact from fiction keeps many media corporations up and running. Furthermore, delivering the truth will propel media companies onto the global stage and garner them recognition and respect instead of infamy like sensationalistic media corporations.

In conclusion, I believe that the media today still holds an interest in telling the truth. Ultimately, we all have to be discerning and be cautious of what we read.

Do you agree that the problems of poverty can only get worse in the current climate?

Many people have thought that globalization will bring about the end of poverty, as countries and people gets richer. While this is certainly true for many countries, such as Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, there are many countries that are still in poverty even though we are currently still in the age of globalization. In fact, I think that the problems faced by those in poverty will escalate further, as the poorer countries are manipulated by the richer countries, the current global financial crisis that affects everyone and the widening relative income gap between citizens in a country. In this essay, I would be focusing more on poverty in poor countries.

The problems of poverty can only get worse in the current climate because of the manipulation of the poorer countries by the richer countries. With globalization, many countries become wealthier due to the improvements brought about by technological advances and trading. The rich countries have outsourced their labour to overseas countries to reduce their cost of production and hence increase their profits. Some of these countries which the rich countries have outsourced for labour are China, India and also the continent of Africa. The people often worked long and hard, and they are paid meagre wages. Children exploitation occurs as a result of parents roping in their children to help to contribute to the family income. Child labour is hence common in India and Africa. Instead of being educated, these children are forced to work and they are denied the opportunities to improve their quality of lives as they do possess the academic qualifications to pursue a suitable career. This causes a never-ending cycle of poverty as they are unable to break out of their poverty. In addition, many rich countries have exported their goods to these poor countries. Many times, the goods are heavily subsidized by their government, and therefore the rich countries are able to export their goods at a low price to other countries. It would seem beneficial to those foreigners, as they are able to purchase cheap goods. However, the producers of the same goods in those poor countries would suffer as they are unable to compete with the cheap imports from the richer countries, and this would result in a huge amount of losses, and hence aggravate the condition of their poverty.

Besides being manipulated by richer countries, there may be some countries that are unwilling to embrace globalization and technology. These countries may feel that globalization and those technological advances are harmful to their society, and they would prefer to continue with their own way of life than to accept the changes brought about by globalization. In my opinion, countries that are unwilling to accept globalization could be because they fear that with globalization, it would become “Americanization” and their countries would lose their own identity. It is not surprising to see that countries envision globalization to be “Americanization” as America has been at the front line of technological advancements. Fearing of losing their own identity, these countries may end up worsening the problems of poverty in their countries because they would lose out to the other countries which have accepted and embraced globalization as part of their way of lives. With globalization, communication and transport have become faster, goods of higher quality are being produced at larger amounts and in shorter times, and hence trade volumes between countries increase tremendously. Without globalization, countries’ efficiency and output would be of low quality and takes a long time to produce. This will then worsen the problems of poverty in those countries as the people’s quality of lives did not improve at all.

This situation would only occur if countries are unwilling to adopt globalization into their lives. However, in this present time, it is rather unlikely that any country will fully reject globalization altogether. The only difference is that the extent of globalization varies from countries to countries. The world is much more interconnected now with each other; via the internet and the trades with each other, and countries affect each other in more than one way. If poor countries open up their economies more and specialize in what they have a comparative advantage in, these countries welfare will improve for the better. It might not happen in the short run, but in the long run, there will be some rewards for these countries, in terms of skills, labour or revenue gained. Therefore it is not entirely possible that the problems of poverty can only get worse in the current climate, as long as people are willing to see things from a different perspective and change their lifestyles. There are also many foreign aids from other countries to poor countries in present-day lately. These aids usually arrive with the aim of liberating children from labour and grant them education opportunities, providing the people with basic necessities and also for the adults’ chances to find jobs. Hence, there might be a chance that the problems of poverty can improve in the present climate.

Poverty can also be defined as relative poverty when individuals within a society are compared to each other, and relative poverty usually refers to citizens of the lower-end of that society’s income group. In this current climate, with the global financial crisis, the recession has hit many countries, including Japan and Singapore. Many individuals become unemployed and hence add to the problems of relative poverty in their society. In addition to the benefits, globalization has also brought about many problems as well. This is due to the fact that mostly those who are able to afford technological advances are those who truly benefit, while those who are unable to do so are crowded out. Hence, the income gap between the relatively richer and the relatively poorer widens. If this trend continues, there would be more people who will be relatively poorer and this increase the problems of poverty.