audrey’s Weblog

Democracy in Singapore is said to be unique. The Singapore government has been described by the West as being authoritarian and undemocratic, yet has achieved economic success of democratic capitalist states.[1] Singapore has a democratically elected government, but has been ruled by a single party – the People’s Action Party (PAP) for the past 49 years. The PAP has implemented a form of ‘Asian Democracy’ which combines a particular set of traditional values it claims is unique to Asia. [2]

This set of traditional values came in the form of Confucianism, which the government used to establish an ideological/morality system. This can be seen in the political behaviour of Singaporeans. For example, the absence of democracy is interpreted as a consequence of the Confucianism, and the government’s ‘mandate from heaven’ can only be legitimately overthrown when it transgresses beyond the limits of tolerance and forfeits the mandate to govern. [3] Also as part of Confucianism, the government aims to seek order, but also feels the responsibility of a parent to dutifully guide and protect its citizens. [4] With this emphasis, Confucian Ethics was introduced as a course in moral education in 1982. However, it was phased out in 1990, along with religious knowledge, in fear that it might contribute to inter-religious conflicts.

The government also practices ‘soft authoritarianism’, with its influence on Confucian values that champion a strong but moral state, regarding the needs of society as a whole as significant. This can be seen in the mass media for example, where biased reports against national interests are disallowed. Outright criticism of the government can lead to criminalization. There are also heavy fines for littering, graffiti and strict housing laws. In fact, there are many who attribute Singapore’s economic success to this authoritarianism. Democracy practiced in Singapore is hence different from liberal democracy, as it does not emphasize individual rights to as great an extent. There have been attempts to greater hear the voices of the individual; with the relaxing of rules of the speakers corner for example. However, its effects have yet to be seen.

Despite the controls of the Singapore government, most Singaporeans are satisfied. Political freedom is not important enough to make up for the advantages of the Singaporean system. Living in Singapore, in fact, is equated with having an excellent housing programme, good economic and employment opportunities and an almost crime-free environment. [5] Having been spoon-fed and guided by the government, Singaporeans are content with the status quo. In a recent news interview, a man was asked how he was affected by the milk products contaminated with melamine. He replied that as long as he bought groceries from the larger supermarkets, there should not be a problem as the government would take care of everything. This is just one typical example of how Singaporeans are dependent on their government.

To conclude, Singapore is a democratically elected government with a different form of democracy, practicing soft authoritarianism with Confucian influences. Democracy is a system of governance based on popular vote and participation. In the beginning, economic progress was used to legitimize politics. Singapore has reached a certain stage in development, and I believe public discussion can be made a feature of Singapore’s society.  The will of the public is also required for the society to become more democratic.

Throughout history, many wars have been fought. For purpose of this essay, however, I only chose to focus on the cold war and the reasons for its end in the Soviet Union.

In December 1991, the unthinkable happened. The world’s first communist state – the Soviet Union collapsed into 15 constituent republics. [1] The Cold War was a period of East West competition, tension and conflict. [2] It was essentially a conflict between the world’s two major powers – The United States of America (US) and the Soviet Union. They were championing two different ideologies, democracy and communism respectively. The Cold War lasted from 1945 to 1991[3], ending with the collapse of the Soviet Union.  How did this happen?

When Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union, the Soviet economy was already in a bad shape, approximately half the size of the US economy. He came up with 2 main policies, Glastnost and Perestroika. Glastnost was the policy of openness, which promoted the principle of freedom to criticize and reduction of censorship. Perestroika involved the restructuring and reform of the economy. However, these policies were not very successful, and were major contributing factors for the fall of the Soviet Union.                            

As a result of Glastnost, Gorbachev began to lose control of public opinion. Soviet citizens interpreted this openness to include criticisms of Soviet history and its leaders. This eventually led to a hardliner coup as there was a complete loss of mandate and control, thrusting liberals to the forefront of Soviet politics. Another of Gorbachev’s policies involved radical Perestroika, which involved restructuring of the electoral system with radical election laws. This involved the executive presidency where he allowed himself to stand unopposed. He was a leader who preached democracy, but claimed the right to stand above it himself. Hence, this threatened the structure of the Soviet Union.

In the economic sphere, the Soviet economy failed as its pace was too quick and it had competency problems. Gorbachev implemented radical reforms with some degree of flexibility. However, there was no shift to market economy or private enterprise and no retreat from planned economy. His reforms hence had the effect of destroying the rationale of the old system, without putting viable new mechanisms in its place. Communism proved to be a failed system, and Perestroika in its last hope could not save it. These policies by Gorbachev caused the stagnating Soviet system to worsen further.

As a result of Perestroika and Glastnost, and the removal of controls on information and control and the democratization of Soviet life, reform was also spreading to Eastern Europe at a rapid speed. Revolutions started in East Germany with the eventual collapse of the Berlin Wall, in Czechoslovakia which swept the communist party from power, as well as Romania where a bloody revolution was involved. It was Gorbachev’s policies and the power of the people that led to the end of the Cold War in Eastern Europe.

We also cannot discount the fact that Gorbachev implemented new policies such as Perestroika and Glastnost in response to US actions . The US added stress on the Soviet, forcing them to keep up. US President Reagan, built up US military power to attain clear superiority over the Soviet Union, and weakened it further by denying it access to western technology and economic support. This caused the Soviet Union to rethink its commitment and foreign policy. Hence Gorbachev’s policies could be a direct response to the West which forced Soviet to confront its internal weakness and narrowed options open to them.

Therefore, we can say that it was the West who pushed the Soviet to a corner, but it was the policies of Gorbachev that allowed the spread of reform within the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe that brought the Cold War to an end.

Web References:

Gorbachev and the end of the Cold War, Apr 5 2006, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1531/gorbachev_and_the_end_of_the_cold_war.html?breadcrumb=%2F

Cold War – Special Reports from CNN.com, 1998, http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/

A crime is seen as an offence, serious wrongdoing or sin. [1] This can be largely attributed to modernization and the materialization of socio-cultural life. Technological production creates alienation and everyone is forced to be part of this mass consumption society where people are forced to make money for survival. This results in crimes such as street crime and youth violence. Other reasons for crime are aplenty, and the types of crimes that can be committed, numerous. Punishments are put in place in an attempt to curb such crimes, to enforce proper behavior as defined by society. Thus, the issue I would like to address today is whether showing compassion for a criminal is right.  

Compassion for a criminal is a sense of mercy and leniency. I believe not all criminals deserve harsh punishment, and we need to show compassion.

Street crime, for example, is usually a result of poverty and inequality. These people feel threatened by unfriendly conditions of the city and are envious of the wealth they see around them. Hence, crime is seen as the only opportunity. Punishing such criminals would not solve the problem of vivid inequality; neither would it serve as a practical deterrence. In this case, compassion should be shown! Similarly, youth violence is also largely a result of huge social and cultural dislocation. Social marginalization and alienation has resulted in youths feeling envious, which can easily lead to violence. They see crime as a way of getting back at society, and to show their existence. It can be said that punishment for these youths is a form of deterrence. However, this does not serve to solve the problem, neither is it seen as deterrence by many of these rebellious youth. I believe compassion could be shown, in the form of lighter punishments, such as counseling or community service, instead of jail terms. This would be beneficial for these easily influenced youth who have the opportunity of setting their paths right again.

Moving on to the handling of more serious crimes, the issue of capital punishment comes to mind. Singapore is known for its stand on capital punishment. It imposes the death penalty for what it considers very serious crimes, those of drug trafficking and murder. I believe some form of compassion can be shown in this issue of capital punishment. Killing a person brings about many ethical issues – is a life for a life justified? Taking a religious stand, who are we to decide who lives and who dies? In some countries, fairness is questioned. People in the death row could be poor, and unable to afford the best defense for their trial. Hence, showing compassion and not imposing the death penalty could prevent the loss of innocent lives.  Life imprisonment as an alternative to capital punishment might allow criminals to change their ways with help. They could contribute to society by doing some form of work within the prison walls, with the small probability of them returning to society again.  

However, I have to agree that misplaced compassion can bring about tyranny. Capital and other forms of harsh punishment do serve as a form of deterrence for some criminals. Having them in place could serve to reduce crime rates. Compassion also should not be shown to mass murderers or premeditated murderers. It is difficult to change people who cheapen the value of life and believe in what they do. A hard-line stance is required.

In conclusion, compassion is required for society to lose its reservations and embrace criminals who want a second chance. Showing no mercy would only serve to perpetuate the cycle of revenge and anger. I must emphasize, however, that this cannot be said for all criminals. Hardcore criminals and mass murderers deserve punishment. Compassion should not be at the expense of putting our lives in danger.

Picture taken from: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Crime.svg

In the previous lecture, we watched a documentary on how the economy and globalization has affected the family and roles of women in the United States (US). My thoughts then shifted to how the rapidly growing economy in Singapore has affected its families and the roles of women.

The situations in the two nations are similar. In both, an increasing number of women are pursuing higher education and then using that education in professional jobs. Many of these women also have children at home to look after, and struggle to handle work both at home and in the office. This is where the term ‘supermom’ comes in. In many families, both parents work, creating little time for their children. There is hence a general lack of time for the family.

As a result, many companies have stepped in to provide help, which could also be seen from the documentary. Companies have started providing child care services for children of their employees. With this benefit for staff, a smaller number of women would quit their jobs to look after their children and employees would be better able to focus. This in fact boosts the morale of employees, which in turn improves their performance. This is very much the same in Singapore. Nanyang Technological University (NTU), for example, has a child care centre for faculty and staff members’ children who are between 3 and 6 years old. The centre is currently operated by Learning Vision Pte Ltd and provides full day care at a reasonable price. [1]

Moving on to Singapore in specifics, the changes in population policies instituted by the government do show the changing roles of women and priorities in the family. In 1965, when Singapore was still a new state, the government embarked on the ‘Two is Enough’ policy. The policy consisted of granting a set of material incentives and disincentives in housing allocation, educational opportunities for children, tax and healthcare benefits, accompanied by aggressive publicity campaigns. [2] However, as Singapore became more developed and educational levels rose, family priorities changed as well. Many people, women included, placed more emphasis on careers, choosing to start a family later and have fewer children. There was no longer a widespread preference for larger families. Birth rates took a drastic dip.

With the projection that Singapore might not be able to replace its population, the government abandoned the ‘Two is Enough’ policy and changed it to the current ‘three or more if you can afford it’ policy in 1987. However since then, there have only been very marginal increases in birth rates. The government introduced Baby Bonus Scheme in 2001 in the hope of encouraging families to have more children, by helping to lighten the financial cost of having children. [3] However, unless the values of society change, it is unlikely that there will be a significant increase in birth rates because of the baby bonus scheme.

As we can see, roles and the way Singaporean women think have changed. Not too long ago, less emphasis was given to education for women. There was a kind of division of labour, whereby women were in charge of maintaining the home and nurturing the children, while the men go out to work. With the rapid development of Singapore these last 43 years, young Singaporean women have the opportunity to attain higher education, and many place greater importance on their careers as opposed to starting a family. 

Hence, Singapore now faces the same situation as many of the more developed countries in the world – highly burdened women and a troubling population growth rate.