Blog 3
http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=08&year=2008&date=19&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2008_9704171
The people complain, the government explain, the public get used to it, they reach a consensus, and all is well. Then, prices get raised. Rinse and Repeat.
The issue that I am about to speak of, is the notorious, nefarious, nasty yet innocent sounding “ERP”. For those who do not know what I am talking about, ERP stands for Electronic Road Pricing, which is basically an electronic toll collection scheme designed to deduct a charge from Cashcards; stored value cards which has an initial value stored inside. As such, motorists have to top up the Cashcard whenever it is empty.
In my personal opinion, the ERP is something that belongs solely to Singapore, and as such should be included in our Uniquely Singaporean package. After all, where can we find such a unique system like this?
This post, however, is not about debating the ERP’s usefulness in promoting Singapore to tourists and immigrants. It is about debating the usefulness of the ERP in Singapore’s everyday society concerning everyday Singaporean citizens.
I believe that the main reason for the government putting up ERPs is as an alternative to road tax. ERP prices are going up, for example, in certain areas, the $0.50 charge has been increased to $2.00. Meanwhile, the government is reducing official road tax charges.
I personally believe that the government is trying to lower official road tax charging, in order to attract more foreign talent and immigrants. This would definitely increase the quality of life here in Singapore, so that more would be interested in living in Singapore, because of the lower road tax. Also, it serves as an attractive factor to local Singaporeans, who would be less tempted to move to other countries, therefore minimizing brain drain.
However, I disagree with the method that the government is taking. While the government is slowly lowering road tax, they are increasing ERPs. While as stated in the article, the average motorist, does indeed save a small amount of money every year due to the scheme, I feel that the path that the government has chosen to take concerning the ERP is a mistake.
The two more important factors concerning the implementation of the ERP would be the public reaction and the welfare of the citizens.
To be fair. The ERP has generated an enormous amount of public disapproval, yet it has efficiently completed its purpose; to aid the government in the gradual reduction of road tax by supplementing the government with an alternative way of taxing. I believe that this is because of the public face that the government has chosen to put up in order to reason with the people for the ERP.
They repeatedly emphasize that of utmost concern is to ease traffic conditions. As such, in areas where traffic speed dips below a certain speed, take 45km/h for example, the government will construct an ERP in that area to “reduce traffic congestion”. The response from the people was largely negative, something I think they did not anticipate; as the government was supposedly helping Singaporeans lead a less traffic-congested life.
While statistics do indeed show a decrease in traffic conditions, I feel that Singaporeans are simply taking alternative routes.
Take my family for example. After the ERP gantry was activated on the ECP on Saturdays, my father actually takes a different route to reach my grandma’s house.
Of course this is just an example of one family, but it is actually rather plausible to infer that several other families do that. This would definitely result in the decrease of traffic flow in areas with ERPs. While the ERP does indeed in a way decrease traffic flow in that area, drivers may actually end up jamming the alternative route, which would end up in an ERP on that route. The vicious cycle just continues.
While I am unsure of what exactly is the best course of action for the government to take, I feel that they should have at least completely stuck to their reasoning that the ERP package; which includes road tax and the annual ERP cost, is superior in savings compared to previous years. This would definitely help them in facing the public and the press rather than insisting on the two separate reasons, namely savings and road congestion.
The underlying basis for me suggesting that is because road congestion is not a good enough reason to construct ERPs. When an ERP is constructed, the traffic flow would significantly be reduced, because most drivers are desperately finding a different ERP-less route. As Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Inderjit Singh commented in the article, “More Singaporeans are accepting this.”
But the recent uproar is about the ERPs charging money on Saturday, because it conflicts with the promoting of spending time with your family, as families tend to go to places like Orchard Road which have ERPs on weekends. With the activation of ERP gantries even on Saturday, it effectively contradicts the government’s actions and words.
I suggest that the government place a lesser emphasis on ERP systems, and more on collecting public feedback. The first step they should do is to significantly reduce the working hours of ERPs and instead focus more on the actual raising of road tax.
Singaporeans tend to feel the pinch more when they have to deal with charges and taxes on the spot, and for a lack of a better term, in real-time. In fact, citizens would be actually happier if the sum was presented to them at the end of the year in the form of road tax, as in a way, ignorance is bliss. I am not calling for the citizens to completely ignore their road tax, or for the government to add ludicrous sums to the citizens’ road tax.
Road tax is dependent on the size of the vehicle’s engine. I feel that it is safe to assume that less wealthy citizens would own vehicles with a smaller engine, and so, road tax would actually be a lesser blow on them compared to the painful sting of the ERP. While the average motorist may suffer less because of the ERP system, I feel that we should definitely not neglect the lower income bracket.
Also, I feel that the general public would also react warmly to this. They would only have to deal with seeing dreaded taxes less, and the horror of the beeping every time they pass an ERP would be significantly reduced.
As such, this is the path that I feel the government should take. The ERP has a limited amount of usefulness in Singapore, and while it may suffice for the time being, I do not think that it is a suitable thing to be implemented in the long term.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Higher ERP fees: Car owners not losing out
Section: Prime - National Day Rally
By: YEO GHIM LAY
Publication: The Straits Times 19/08/2008
Page: A9
No. of words: 729
Recent cut in road taxes outweighs the extra they have to pay
CAR owners are not losing out despite paying higher Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) charges, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said.
Motorists have in fact been saving because a recent cut in vehicle road taxes outweighs the extra that they fork out in increased ERP charges.
In an example he shared with the audience on Sunday night, he said an owner of a 1.6 litre Toyota Corolla, for instance, would have paid $874 in road tax and $122 in ERP annually.
This was prior to changes in the ERP rates six weeks ago, and a 15 per cent cut in road tax which took effect last month.
As a result, the motorist will pay $744 in road tax and $198 in ERP charges.
While he pays more in ERP charges, the motorist will still have an overall savings of $54 every year, said Mr Lee.
Over the years, revenue from vehicle-related taxes has also gone down. In 2000, the Government collected $6.1 billion in such taxes. This was halved to $3.4 billion this year.
So even though the Government is collecting $160 million now from ERP charges – compared to $80 million eight years ago – it is still collecting a lot less in tax revenue than previously.
The reduction was a result of a Government policy shift to enable more Singaporeans to buy cars. Since 2000, ownership charges and taxes have been reduced progressively and more Certificates of Entitlement have been handed out.
This was a change from previously, when high car ownership taxes were a significant burden on owners, said Mr Lee.
For the individual, a new 1.6 litre Toyota Corolla now costs $64,000 including ownership charges, down from $110,000 in 2000. This is even though the open market value is now $16,000, about the same as eight years ago – $19,000.
As a result of the tax reductions, more households now own cars: 430,000 now, compared to 320,000 eight years ago.
This is also evident from the fact that roads and carparks have become more crowded. Hence the need to increase ERP charges to cut down on congestion.
"I know many people are upset by these ERP charges. But we have to see the bigger picture because, in fact, ERP charges are enabling us to benefit Singaporeans so as to reduce the burden on you and to enable more Singaporeans to own cars.
"When we had to make the adjustment this year, we considered it very carefully: how should we do this without increasing the burden on Singaporeans? We worked out an ERP package – not just raising the ERP or putting more gantries – but reducing road tax at the same time so as to offset it overall, to bring down the cost."
Some Singaporeans might not realise this, Mr Lee said.
Citing an example of an unhappy woman driver whom he spoke to, he said that when he asked her how much road tax she paid, the driver did not know. She said she had to check with her husband.
"When the husband pays the bill, there's no 'beep, beep'," Mr Lee said to laughter as he mimicked the sound of the deduction from the cashcard when vehicles go under ERP gantries.
"But when the wife drives the car, each gantry, one beep. So that is a problem and I think that's part of the reason why people are not happy.
"So we have to draw the connections and get people to understand that actually the middle-income Singaporeans have benefited from Government policies."
Apart from a reduction in road taxes, changes have also been made to the public transport system to benefit Singaporeans. More rail lines are being built, 800 extra weekly train trips have been added and bus services are also being improved.
"So we are doing many things. We can't in the end have every household in Singapore own a car, like in America... But what we can do is to have the roads free-flowing and a first-class public transport system for everybody," he said.
Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Inderjit Singh believed Singaporeans accepted that ERP was needed to keep congestion down.
But the issue is one of the timing of the increase given that many are also feeling the impact of inflation, he said when asked to comment.
ghimlay@sph.com.sg
"I would acknowledge that at one time, the car-related taxes were a significant burden on car owners, and many of them are middle-income."
PM Lee, explaining the shift in transport policy towards charging more for usage than for ownership
Section: Prime - National Day Rally
By: YEO GHIM LAY
Publication: The Straits Times 19/08/2008
Page: A9
No. of words: 729
Recent cut in road taxes outweighs the extra they have to pay
CAR owners are not losing out despite paying higher Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) charges, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said.
Motorists have in fact been saving because a recent cut in vehicle road taxes outweighs the extra that they fork out in increased ERP charges.
In an example he shared with the audience on Sunday night, he said an owner of a 1.6 litre Toyota Corolla, for instance, would have paid $874 in road tax and $122 in ERP annually.
This was prior to changes in the ERP rates six weeks ago, and a 15 per cent cut in road tax which took effect last month.
As a result, the motorist will pay $744 in road tax and $198 in ERP charges.
While he pays more in ERP charges, the motorist will still have an overall savings of $54 every year, said Mr Lee.
Over the years, revenue from vehicle-related taxes has also gone down. In 2000, the Government collected $6.1 billion in such taxes. This was halved to $3.4 billion this year.
So even though the Government is collecting $160 million now from ERP charges – compared to $80 million eight years ago – it is still collecting a lot less in tax revenue than previously.
The reduction was a result of a Government policy shift to enable more Singaporeans to buy cars. Since 2000, ownership charges and taxes have been reduced progressively and more Certificates of Entitlement have been handed out.
This was a change from previously, when high car ownership taxes were a significant burden on owners, said Mr Lee.
For the individual, a new 1.6 litre Toyota Corolla now costs $64,000 including ownership charges, down from $110,000 in 2000. This is even though the open market value is now $16,000, about the same as eight years ago – $19,000.
As a result of the tax reductions, more households now own cars: 430,000 now, compared to 320,000 eight years ago.
This is also evident from the fact that roads and carparks have become more crowded. Hence the need to increase ERP charges to cut down on congestion.
"I know many people are upset by these ERP charges. But we have to see the bigger picture because, in fact, ERP charges are enabling us to benefit Singaporeans so as to reduce the burden on you and to enable more Singaporeans to own cars.
"When we had to make the adjustment this year, we considered it very carefully: how should we do this without increasing the burden on Singaporeans? We worked out an ERP package – not just raising the ERP or putting more gantries – but reducing road tax at the same time so as to offset it overall, to bring down the cost."
Some Singaporeans might not realise this, Mr Lee said.
Citing an example of an unhappy woman driver whom he spoke to, he said that when he asked her how much road tax she paid, the driver did not know. She said she had to check with her husband.
"When the husband pays the bill, there's no 'beep, beep'," Mr Lee said to laughter as he mimicked the sound of the deduction from the cashcard when vehicles go under ERP gantries.
"But when the wife drives the car, each gantry, one beep. So that is a problem and I think that's part of the reason why people are not happy.
"So we have to draw the connections and get people to understand that actually the middle-income Singaporeans have benefited from Government policies."
Apart from a reduction in road taxes, changes have also been made to the public transport system to benefit Singaporeans. More rail lines are being built, 800 extra weekly train trips have been added and bus services are also being improved.
"So we are doing many things. We can't in the end have every household in Singapore own a car, like in America... But what we can do is to have the roads free-flowing and a first-class public transport system for everybody," he said.
Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Inderjit Singh believed Singaporeans accepted that ERP was needed to keep congestion down.
But the issue is one of the timing of the increase given that many are also feeling the impact of inflation, he said when asked to comment.
ghimlay@sph.com.sg
"I would acknowledge that at one time, the car-related taxes were a significant burden on car owners, and many of them are middle-income."
PM Lee, explaining the shift in transport policy towards charging more for usage than for ownership
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Essay topic
Essay topic "Democracy creates stability in a society"
In my opinion, Democracy creates stability in a society. Politically, all parties in the representative democracy can have a fair and equal chance to campaign for the votes of the population. Individuals can vote for the government that will implement the policies, or challenge the government. Democracy allows this kind of freedom in the area of politics, giving people a chance to express themselves results in less complaints about the government, and in turn creates stability as less are unhappy. In Singapore, new parties can be founded or supported to challenge the government.
Socially, as democracy means that the majority wins, the country becomes more stable with the majority backing, as the leader would be met with less resistance when he proposes something; he was after all elected by the majority. There would be less uproar, as the majority has probably been satisfied through voting. As such, there would be stability due to less unhappiness, resulting in fewer riots that cause instability due to deaths of innocents.
A strong economy represents economic stability. Democracy allows for investments and economic opportunities in the country, as the government is less likely to hold a dominance over the economy, as this would upset the people. Greater freedom within the economy for people to set up their own businesses provides good opportunities for entrepreneurs and businessmen to invest. Investors are likely to support a country that has less social uproar, as it symbolizes instability. Therefore, political and social stability results in economic stability. Singapore encourages local business, and investors invest money, strengthening Singapore’s economy.
However, politically, voters who are uninterested in the process would not vote seriously, possibly resulting in an inefficient or corrupt party being elected. Also, the voters may be voting for their self-interest instead of what’s best for the country. The government may not be able to appease as many people as possible if everyone were to vote for their own interest or throw their vote away. In Malaysia, many malays would vote for UMNO to get special rights.
Socially, Democracy can result in instability. As the majority indirectly decide on the policies, it is possible for the tyranny of the majority to compromise on the rights of the minority. This would result in the minority being unhappy, even resulting in riots or even internal conflicts. An example is Sri Lanka, when the Tamils were “bullied” by the Singhalese, leading to a civil war.
The economy is dependent on social and political situations. If social and political factors suffer, the economy would suffer due to reasons already stated. Sri Lanka’s economy suffered after there were internal conflicts.
In conclusion, democracy creates stability, as the underlying basis for stability is for the country to be at peace. In today’s world, the UN will detect any problems with abuse of the minority, rarely will the situation growing to the extent of a civil war. When the people are at peace, then the political and economic aspects can flourish.
Word Count: 495
Chia Chen Wei
In my opinion, Democracy creates stability in a society. Politically, all parties in the representative democracy can have a fair and equal chance to campaign for the votes of the population. Individuals can vote for the government that will implement the policies, or challenge the government. Democracy allows this kind of freedom in the area of politics, giving people a chance to express themselves results in less complaints about the government, and in turn creates stability as less are unhappy. In Singapore, new parties can be founded or supported to challenge the government.
Socially, as democracy means that the majority wins, the country becomes more stable with the majority backing, as the leader would be met with less resistance when he proposes something; he was after all elected by the majority. There would be less uproar, as the majority has probably been satisfied through voting. As such, there would be stability due to less unhappiness, resulting in fewer riots that cause instability due to deaths of innocents.
A strong economy represents economic stability. Democracy allows for investments and economic opportunities in the country, as the government is less likely to hold a dominance over the economy, as this would upset the people. Greater freedom within the economy for people to set up their own businesses provides good opportunities for entrepreneurs and businessmen to invest. Investors are likely to support a country that has less social uproar, as it symbolizes instability. Therefore, political and social stability results in economic stability. Singapore encourages local business, and investors invest money, strengthening Singapore’s economy.
However, politically, voters who are uninterested in the process would not vote seriously, possibly resulting in an inefficient or corrupt party being elected. Also, the voters may be voting for their self-interest instead of what’s best for the country. The government may not be able to appease as many people as possible if everyone were to vote for their own interest or throw their vote away. In Malaysia, many malays would vote for UMNO to get special rights.
Socially, Democracy can result in instability. As the majority indirectly decide on the policies, it is possible for the tyranny of the majority to compromise on the rights of the minority. This would result in the minority being unhappy, even resulting in riots or even internal conflicts. An example is Sri Lanka, when the Tamils were “bullied” by the Singhalese, leading to a civil war.
The economy is dependent on social and political situations. If social and political factors suffer, the economy would suffer due to reasons already stated. Sri Lanka’s economy suffered after there were internal conflicts.
In conclusion, democracy creates stability, as the underlying basis for stability is for the country to be at peace. In today’s world, the UN will detect any problems with abuse of the minority, rarely will the situation growing to the extent of a civil war. When the people are at peace, then the political and economic aspects can flourish.
Word Count: 495
Chia Chen Wei
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
I agree with all the points that Jin Fu, Haozhi and Chester have raised. However, i would like to elaborate more on the last point that Jin Fu has raised. In my opinion, i would not worry about the minority being suppressed to the point that they would start a civil war. Although it has happened before in history, the world is much more globalized these days. If a government is mistreating the minority too much, the other countries would certainly step in to provide mediation. In any case, in my opinion, Sri Lanka is a isolated case, as the races were already having racial tension long before democracy was implemented, although it did cause certain problems.
In singapore's context, the political power is already slowly shifting towards opposition. Although PAP is still holding a monopoly on the votes, many threats are already beginning to appear. Yeah, i agree that there should be a check on the maximum power the majority can hold. If left unchecked, it could potentially be a big problem in facing the minority.
In singapore's context, the political power is already slowly shifting towards opposition. Although PAP is still holding a monopoly on the votes, many threats are already beginning to appear. Yeah, i agree that there should be a check on the maximum power the majority can hold. If left unchecked, it could potentially be a big problem in facing the minority.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
SS Discussion-6
I think we have agreed to a macro view instead of going into micro details. Therefore i feel there is no need to go into further minor case studies all over the world since as mentioned before, different societies has different circumstances.
However before rounding up a discussion, i feel that since we are looking at the strengths of democracy along a general line (citizen's right to freedom of opinion etc.), we should also look at its weakness along the general fields. Since we cannot define society due to its vagueness of conditions, we can weigh the general strengths against the general weakness and therefore come to a conclusion on whether democracy creates stability in societies in general.
So far, to summarize its weaknesses:
1. Popular vote may not be the best vote for the country i.e. Majority is not always right
2. Voters might be biased against the country and more for themselves.
3. Voters may be inadequately informed and ignorant to the full picture, thus making uninformed decisions. ( Could be the dominant force calling the bluffs in act of deceit).
4. Immaturity of voters in democracy, therefore allocating more votes to the better decision makers could prove better, however it goes against equal power of individual vote in democracy. (i.e. the class room setting, whereby the teacher's vote should count more).
5. This is something new i wish to raise. Though democracy allows us to voice out our opinions, it is the majority that wins in the end and the power of the majority could be too overwhelming to an extent the rights of the minority is suppressed, resulting in violent rebellion. (Think Sri Lanka) The decision process is fair since it goes by majority, but there is need for a check-pace, and is opposition really successful in giving that check? (Dominating political party) -Think Singapore, appearing as democratic, but is it really that way?
I think, since we have agreed on the strengths, we should agree on the weakness before coming to a conclusion. Please discuss.
Disclaimer: My use of case studies is not to stabalize the point of view, but to just give a clearer picture of what i am saying.
However before rounding up a discussion, i feel that since we are looking at the strengths of democracy along a general line (citizen's right to freedom of opinion etc.), we should also look at its weakness along the general fields. Since we cannot define society due to its vagueness of conditions, we can weigh the general strengths against the general weakness and therefore come to a conclusion on whether democracy creates stability in societies in general.
So far, to summarize its weaknesses:
1. Popular vote may not be the best vote for the country i.e. Majority is not always right
2. Voters might be biased against the country and more for themselves.
3. Voters may be inadequately informed and ignorant to the full picture, thus making uninformed decisions. ( Could be the dominant force calling the bluffs in act of deceit).
4. Immaturity of voters in democracy, therefore allocating more votes to the better decision makers could prove better, however it goes against equal power of individual vote in democracy. (i.e. the class room setting, whereby the teacher's vote should count more).
5. This is something new i wish to raise. Though democracy allows us to voice out our opinions, it is the majority that wins in the end and the power of the majority could be too overwhelming to an extent the rights of the minority is suppressed, resulting in violent rebellion. (Think Sri Lanka) The decision process is fair since it goes by majority, but there is need for a check-pace, and is opposition really successful in giving that check? (Dominating political party) -Think Singapore, appearing as democratic, but is it really that way?
I think, since we have agreed on the strengths, we should agree on the weakness before coming to a conclusion. Please discuss.
Disclaimer: My use of case studies is not to stabalize the point of view, but to just give a clearer picture of what i am saying.
SS discussion
I guess we can do away with the possibility of citizens voting for a weak leader due to immaturity. This involves making a major assumption and it is impossible to get majority of the country to focus their votes on an incapable ruler. We should include more examples in our discussion and from the looks of it, our discussion is definitely geared towards supporting the statement: Democracy creates stability in a society.
Haozhi's point number one is indeed a strong backing up for our argument. The system and political ideals are greatly influenced by the citizens and as a result, stability ensues as everyone is appeased and satisfied at the treatment they are receiving and no discrimination is shown as the opinions of every ethnic group is taken into consideration.
Opposition parties act as another one of the important benchmarks. They constantly ensure that the policies are for the good of us citizens and continuously suggest improvement and this is largely beneficial as part of a democratic country thus, allowing the existence of these opposition parties. It would better push the development of our country and speed up its progress.
I think next, we should examine different forms of government or other examples of democracy taking place in countries. It would further bolster our argument greatly by providing examples and currently, our stand is quite strong through the various rebuttal of chen wei's points which are against democracy.
Representative democracy present in the parliament is inevitable to ensure tongues do not wag in the country. Ultimately, we still practise democracy and take into account the key factor of democracy's success which is freedom of expression. However, there is a limit as well and negative ideas should not be voiced out as they do not pose any benefits towards our country. We should not conclude the argument yet but examine more case studies and bolster the strength and cogency of our argument.
Chester Yan (5)
3B
Haozhi's point number one is indeed a strong backing up for our argument. The system and political ideals are greatly influenced by the citizens and as a result, stability ensues as everyone is appeased and satisfied at the treatment they are receiving and no discrimination is shown as the opinions of every ethnic group is taken into consideration.
Opposition parties act as another one of the important benchmarks. They constantly ensure that the policies are for the good of us citizens and continuously suggest improvement and this is largely beneficial as part of a democratic country thus, allowing the existence of these opposition parties. It would better push the development of our country and speed up its progress.
I think next, we should examine different forms of government or other examples of democracy taking place in countries. It would further bolster our argument greatly by providing examples and currently, our stand is quite strong through the various rebuttal of chen wei's points which are against democracy.
Representative democracy present in the parliament is inevitable to ensure tongues do not wag in the country. Ultimately, we still practise democracy and take into account the key factor of democracy's success which is freedom of expression. However, there is a limit as well and negative ideas should not be voiced out as they do not pose any benefits towards our country. We should not conclude the argument yet but examine more case studies and bolster the strength and cogency of our argument.
Chester Yan (5)
3B
Blog Discussion Concluding Ideas
hmm, after reading all the various points of view and stated reason, it is evidently clear that our group members are for the idea of that democracy do bring about stability in societies.
Below are some of the points we have raised.
1) Stability is brought forth as the ruling government has the backing and support of majority of the people
2) In a democratic nation, there would be opposition parties, which serve as a check and balance, and in turn spur for the development of the country
3) In a democratic nation, the freedom to voice out opinions are more emphasized which rules out/minimize the social hierachy or the discrimination of a race
4) as most democratic nation, there would be representatives permanently in the parliment to make sure that their ethnic/religious groups righs are not protected, that would be somewhat touching on the idea of representative democracy
However certain points of contention would be the fact that Democracy is unable to be implemented as 'transparently' and as 'freely' in certain societies, as chen wei has previously brought up.
Although this may be true, but we would be pin pointing specific examples and groups, but we would fail to see the big picture of what the question is asking, which is whether democracy creates stability in societies generally. As such, i would still agree that democracy does bring forth stability.
Another point of contention would be the fact that the audience and people would not have the maturity to vote for the right leader, but instead vote another weak leader as a result of perhaps any factor, his good looks as example. However, once again we would be microdiscussing the question and we should perhaps disregard this point of, or place little importance of this.
I am still quite sure that our group's movement of idealogy supports the fact that democracy creates stability in societies? perhaps someone could also conclude the entire argument?
Quek Hao Zhi (21)
3B
Below are some of the points we have raised.
1) Stability is brought forth as the ruling government has the backing and support of majority of the people
2) In a democratic nation, there would be opposition parties, which serve as a check and balance, and in turn spur for the development of the country
3) In a democratic nation, the freedom to voice out opinions are more emphasized which rules out/minimize the social hierachy or the discrimination of a race
4) as most democratic nation, there would be representatives permanently in the parliment to make sure that their ethnic/religious groups righs are not protected, that would be somewhat touching on the idea of representative democracy
However certain points of contention would be the fact that Democracy is unable to be implemented as 'transparently' and as 'freely' in certain societies, as chen wei has previously brought up.
Although this may be true, but we would be pin pointing specific examples and groups, but we would fail to see the big picture of what the question is asking, which is whether democracy creates stability in societies generally. As such, i would still agree that democracy does bring forth stability.
Another point of contention would be the fact that the audience and people would not have the maturity to vote for the right leader, but instead vote another weak leader as a result of perhaps any factor, his good looks as example. However, once again we would be microdiscussing the question and we should perhaps disregard this point of, or place little importance of this.
I am still quite sure that our group's movement of idealogy supports the fact that democracy creates stability in societies? perhaps someone could also conclude the entire argument?
Quek Hao Zhi (21)
3B
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)