A dose of english breakfast

2008-09-05T09:50:00.001-07:00

Governmental Resignations
“A president’s hardest task is not to do what’s right, but to know what’s right.” – Lyndon Baines Johnson once said.
With the recent spate of events, such as the president of Pakistan and prime minister of Japan resigning, I felt a drive to write a commentary on this pressing issue.
The government is a representative body for the people of a nation. Every single person in the government plays an important role, more so especially in the positions of greatest authority. This means that each and every decision made by the government or an individual within it must be carefully deliberated over as there may be severe repercussions. As the government, first and foremost, serves the people, democracy (or at least one identifying itself as such) is used as a system of election in most countries. The onus is on the people to elect a government that can best represent and lead them.
Naturally, if the government is doing a bad job, the people should have the right to decide if the situation merits severe action like the impeachment of a leader. However, I would like to question he people's proficiency and clarity of judgment regarding such governmental step-downs. They might fail to see, in the larger picture, the true benefits and drawbacks of such a drastic move.
Now, what I shall comment on is the justifiability of such resignations, as well as the importance of public opinion in such matters.
Using social impact as the main criterion (as the government is a representative body of the people, and whatever they do will affect the people on a large scale), I shall evaluate the aforementioned examples as well as point out how resignations within the government can affect society. I will only evaluate the short term effects, as I believe the long term effects can only be seen after a new leader has been chosen.
President Musharraf's resignation came as no large surprise, as there had been several hints of his diminishing political control and disarray in his government. However, it threw the entire nation, as well as its many allies, such as the US, into pandemonium. As Musharraf was an inconstant and weak leader who could not stop the Taliban activities, the nation had great cause to be dissatisfied with his inefficient governance. However, his resignation brought even more problems. Firstly, because the government of Pakistan is a coalition government, there would be great contest over who would take the presidential seat. Secondly, this rift in the ruling party would cause several world leaders to suffer many nights of insomnia and worry, due to its much-flaunted ownership of nuclear weapons. Ultimately, the population would perhaps be the most direly affected victims, as the Taliban would then be able to exploit the lack of a strong government to further its terrorist activities in Pakistan.
To cite just another high-profile case, Japan’s Yasuo Fukuda resigned just – days ago and his resignation was described by the International Herald Tribune as “sudden” and “surprising”. However, there had been news of deep dissension within the party and the upper government, stemming from Fukuda’s inability to work with his admittedly belligerent associates. Furthermore, his hasty office-taking after Shinzo Abe’s resignation was plagued by a series of missteps and scandals within the Cabinet. To quote Fukuda, “From the beginning, longstanding problems appeared one after the other, and I had to face them. Dealing with them worked me to death." Fukuda’s sudden resignation exacerbated several recalcitrant problems and plunged the world’s second largest economy into further turmoil.

Now, from the above examples, we can see that such resignations can devastate a country, be it socially, economically or politically. On the flip side of the issue, however, do the good points of such drastic measures outweigh these?

After thoroughly considering both cases, I realize that one resignation was effective while the other was not. In the case of Mr. Fukuda, resignation might not have been the best option, as national elections were only a few months away. His resignation not only put greater economic stress on floundering Japan, but also caused political belief, already at a low after Shinzo Abe’s similar resignation, to nosedive.

Conversely, in the case of President Musharraf, in contrast to the dire possibilities I outlined above, instead of the nation declining into a state of chaos, Pakistani stocks went up by 4% that day and the rupee (the currency of Pakistan), which had declined in value by 25% earlier this year, began to strengthen. Celebrations even broke out across the country after the announcement, as the majority of the people had already, quite understandably, lost their trust in him.

Now, how does this relate to me?

Personally, I feel that in Singapore, despite already being relatively politically stable, we still have some problems within our country, namely corruption cases such as that of the NKF. In the case of the NKF, attention was near-completely focused on the embezzling of the money, but never considered the societal insights that were gained through this experience. I do not support the NKF, but I believe that the people should have considered the both the negative aspects of such cases (now and in the future), as well as the valuable lessons learned through the handling of these mishaps.

All in all, I feel that governmental leaders should consider extremely drastic actions such as resignation carefully, as the minor benefit derived from it may be far outweighed by the immense problems wrought. As the saying goes, “Look before you leap.” Likewise, I think that people should consider both sides of the issue before letting their intuition (perhaps unfairly) decide for them. In matters of perspective, the head should rule the heart.

2008-05-28T08:43:00.002-07:00

“Democracy creates stability in a society.”

If you were given a choice, would you choose to be able to vote for your leaders or not?

Ironically, even if you had chosen the latter, you would be supporting democracy. Having a choice, otherwise known as power to the people, is preserved and enhanced in the ideology of democracy.

Democracy is generally defined as a government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. There are many forms of democracy existing in today’s societies, each one practicing democracies of different magnitude. Because of these variant practices of democracy, there have been many different results all over the world. Now, how would one say that democracy creates stability in a society then?

You may think, the answer to this question is obvious – famous historical examples of other political practices such as communism and dictatorship have all ended in tragic failures, such as China’s historical background under Mao Tze Dong’s rule as well as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein’s regime. They have all ended up in shambles, before rising again with the help of democracy.

Or is it really obvious? What if it was not democracy, but other factors that supported or contributed to the fall of the political systems? I shall cover the pros and cons of democracy in this commentary.

I’d rate democracy in a qualitative instead of a quantitative measure. The quality of the democracy practiced within the society results in a stable / unstable society. And that is what I shall base my commentary arguments on today.

There are two kinds of democracy practiced in the world today, full democracy and hybrid democracy. Full democracy means basically in every decision made by the government, a referendum, voting or election will have to take place. In simplified terms, everything would be fair, but it would be a real hassle to vote for everything. Whereas hybrid democracy does not ensure that every decision made by the government is fair, but on the other hand saves a lot of time and only leaves the important decisions in the hands of the people.

In both cases, the minority are protected, which is also one of the essential rules of democracy, where the rights of the minority have to be protected. However, in full democracy this protection reaches out to a further extent as compared to hybrid democracy.

According to a recent article by the economist (a magazine), located at http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=890843, there are only 28 countries worldwide which actually practice full democracy, and only 13% of the world experiences this. Let’s take a look at some of the mentioned examples.

The top 3 mentioned for practicing full democracy were Sweden, Iceland and Netherlands. These countries have established themselves as peaceful and prosperous countries, in their humble but own successful ways. In these countries, they have all reformed their democratic systems at least once, and follow democracy strictly, adhering to the results from elections and referendums at all times. Although they have not produced excellent worldwide results like the United States with their democracy, we can see the stability of their country is almost perfect, with a few minor problems here and there.

So, does that truly mean that it is because of democracy stability is created?

Living in a state which practices hybrid democracy, I have experienced the conveniences as well as inconveniences this system brings about. From what I have gathered, the level of democracy is relatively less than those compared to countries such as Australia which also practices full democracy, but hey, just look at the society! It is relatively problem-free here; what’s more, Singapore is a multiracial country, which is a greater obstacle for stability to exist in society. Yet, we are achieving greater results as compared to Sweden or Iceland.

At the same time I shall raise the example of the US. Surely one could say that the stability of the US does not lose out to that of Sweden and the likes on average? The achievements are almost concrete proof that stability is existent, and studies show social stability is evidently present. With all countries showing stability despite different levels of democracies, the question is still not resolved.

Perhaps the key to this problem lies in what differentiates the stability in these countries, namely the quality of the stability and the quantity of it.

In my opinion, I believe that stability can be subdivided into two groups, foreign-politcal and socio-political stability. The examples I have raised previously can now be once again brought under scrutiny.

The countries that practice full democracies definitely have achieved socio-political stability – however, have they achieved stabilities in the foreign-politcal aspect? We can see that some of them, such as Japan and Switzerland have, but most of them have not. For instance, Sweden has experienced a steady decline of confidence from other countries since the 1960’s after its implementation of the full democratic system.

Singapore, with my first hand experience has achieved a socio-political stability comparable to that of the top countries. However, in foreign-political aspect Singapore is definitely more achieved, forming many alliances and agreements with neighboring and powerhouse countries. Similarly, the United States also has been successful in both socio-political stability as well as foreign-political stability.

Thus, we can see there is no direct or integral link from democracy to stability. It is only one of the contributing factors. Certainly it does outdo political systems like communism, but then again, we can’t say it overtakes it by far. So, although I have pointed out that democracy does create stability in a society, it’s not a strong case.

Now… would you like to vote?

2008-03-08T07:50:00.001-08:00

Article on social issue, Straits Times March 7 2008: “Knife-wielding suspect shot dead at MRT station” –Cover page

A brief description of what happened: A 43 year old man had stabbed his drinking buddy to death, and half an hour later, he was shot dead by a policeman at Outram MRT station. Reports have said that the man had been holding a knife and was waving it threateningly at the officers, advancing.

Personally, I think that this is a very sophisticated case. The question I am addressing will be: Is the policeman’s action a justified one? Technically speaking, the shooting case is most likely a case of intentional homicide. However, we also cannot rule out the fact that it was an accident.

Can you imagine how would you feel if you were standing there, facing a guy with a knife who is advancing towards you, while you are holding a gun? He’s closing in fast, just barely three meters away now, and with your heart palpitating furiously, knowing he could reach you in a second, and you have to make a split second decision. Now honestly, how many out there believes that they can instinctively move aside and avoid shooting him?

A normal person would probably be rooted to the spot, not knowing what to do, and might even accidentally pull the trigger. It is natural for someone to defend himself when he is put in grievous danger. Would you not raise your arm to shield yourself if somebody threw a ball at your face? I believe the policeman was justified to shoot him because the man wielding a knife might have attacked others as well. It was better to stop him there and then, rather than allowing him to move around.

But now, the controversy shifts to: Was it justified to KILL him? One may of course, say that it isn’t justified to kill someone. It is possible that he is still drunk, he isn’t thinking of what he is doing, he suffering from trauma. Legally, that would mean that the man is not guilty of threatening an officer, because he was not in full control of his actions at that time. And shooting him in the chest – was it truly necessary? Why not shoot him in the knees, where he will be immobile?

Well, sorry to disappoint you ladies and gentlemen, but shooting in the legs and knees are only existent in the movies. What are the chances of hitting the knees of another person when he is running? The police have been specially trained to aim for the chest. In the first place, limbs can move very quickly and therefore, are very hard to hit targets. And even if you hit someone’s knee, momentum could still carry the man forward and the officer might have gotten badly injured. Whereas hitting in the chest is relatively easy due to the big size, is able to stop the man from moving completely and also relatively safer than hitting the limb. If the bullet passes through the limb, there is a chance that it ricochets around the surroundings after exiting the body, endangering the lives of many commuters in the MRT station. When it hits the chest, it will most likely stop due to the many tissues and bones protecting the organs, and thus it is safer. Therefore, the police officer was right in aiming for the chest.

The policeman was not at fault even if the knife wielding man wasn’t conscious of his actions. As I stated earlier, it was for the sole purpose of self-defense, and not an intentional shot to kill. There had been warnings to the man, but the man did not back down, as reported, but grew even bolder and started threatening the police.

Another point of view: What if the policeman was really a “trigger-happy” kind of person? Would his case be justified then?

Of course, the possibility of this is highly unlikely, but if it is true, then there would be no appropriate reason to justify his actions. It is unlikely because one who shoots another will forever have a guilty heart. A person will think, “What if I killed the sole breadwinner of a large family? How will I face up to my family? How will I carry my reputation, as someone who killed?” It is not easy living in guilt for the rest of your life.

Perhaps the best solution for such cases, in the future, is that there should be laws on shooting. For instance, a person is only allowed to open fire when his or her life is threatened to a great extent. Currently, there is a community of inquiry judging these cases on a case-by-case basis, but there should be ground rules to narrow it down.

On the other hand, we could say that new laws such as possession of potential hazardous material should not be brought outside should be passed. Unless one has a valid purpose, he should not have possession of a potential weapon outside. There is no need for anyone to bring a knife outside, perhaps for camping or whatsoever but other than that there isn’t a reason. This would minimize the possibility of such cases happening again.

All in all, I believe that the policeman actions are highly justified, and should not be condemned. He is already suffering from guilt and his reputation is destroyed, and we should not make him feel worse, as he has done the right thing. The man’s death was not intentional, and he was only doing his job – to protect the people around from being hurt. We have to pick up from this incident, the morals and values we need to learn, and bring peace and prosperity to our young, growing nation.

2008-03-02T00:22:00.000-08:00

A word from the author: Please correct me if any part of my article is irresponsible or childish thinking. This blog's intent is to satisfy the needs of the english department on tracking our language as well as our psycho-social development. Do not probe of the author's name, just be satisfied with the various arguments I shall post in future.

Happy reading!