English Blog 3

Success of foreign talent discourages local talent

“Theoretically, if Michael Phelps becomes a Singaporean next year, how proud of his medals will you be?”

The above quote, glimmering with intriguing wisdom, was thought-provoking much as it was funny, and drew me to the above article much as flies draw wanton boys. Upon insight I realized the same could be said about the article as a whole.

What exactly is the purpose and nature of sport? Is it for the mindless acquisition of medals, or for the competitive nurturing and furthering one’s potential? What is the duty of our government to its people? What fundamental principle underlies the import of foreign talent?

The above questions popped out at me within moments of having read the article, and at once I was surrounded by the profound depths and the breathtaking breadth of the issue contended with. Revolving around the complexities of importing foreign talent in the context of sport, this article questions what we as a nation are achieving through our policy of employing such talent, as opposed to what was the original rationale in the minds of the government, and then does a reality check on how far this intended effect has been achieved. The author’s rather interesting, even radical take, is that we have not only failed to reach the stipulated level of proficiency and competitiveness, but that we have also completely digressed from the correct course of action, and have thus been counter-productive; Instead of using foreign talent as stimuli for hitting our ultimate target of an enriched pool of local talent, our abuse of it has resulted in lesser opportunities and scope of development for our very own athletes.

Unfortunately, I realized I tended to agree with him. Having pondered through this, I sensed that the depth of this dilemma was far greater than its apparent gravity. It boils down to our societal mindset. There is a conflict in the way the government, and us Singaporeans alike, view the purpose of foreign talent. Do we see it as the immediate short term face saving needs of our nation in the arena of sports? Or rather as a long-term investment for arousing engagement and advancement in our local sports scene?

Personally, I believe we have been over-reliant on shielding our national image through fielding only the elite foreign players. The glory of “our” paddlers’ recent victory remains fresh in our memory. We remember it all, the sigh of relief of an entire nation that manifested itself as ripples of joy throughout the households, the extreme jubilation, at having finally obtained a medal. We considered this a sporting victory nevertheless, an Olympic medal obtained at long last. We had finally something to show for the record. An interesting thing to note though, is that in this vision of a sporting victory that we have so conveniently claimed ownership of, only the Chinese imports were featured. Not a consideration was spared for the several Singaporean paddlers (not Chinese nationals who were hailed in weeks or months before, but people who have shared the experiences of being Singaporean from young) who were watching once again from the shadows, subdued, their hopes and aspirations still hovering in the air. It is ironic, then, that these sportsmen, the sons of Singapore, the very target of the foreign talent importing program, suffer.

Why does this happen, then? The philosophy of our players being motivated to reach greater heights because of a competitive environment is all fair and well. But this isn’t the way it works. If our own players do not get a chance to represent even our own country, then when would they ever have access to a competitive platform in which to pitch their skills and improve? It appears then that this policy of prioritizing immediate success and thus foreign players, doom our dear Singaporean players to a low down, unchallenging platform? Thus it is indeed counterproductive.

In recent times, the nature of sport itself has been subverted over the ages. Sport is no longer all about nurturing and developing. It no longer follows the ancient Greek philosophy of pushing one’s limits and challenging oneself. One is hardly seen as his own opponent these days. On the contrary, there is an extreme emphasis on victory, and this need has engulfed our attitude towards sports. We would rather have an empty win than a hard fought loss. As a result of the above two, the sports scene in Singapore remains at its poor, stagnant state.

Since the debate about (whether or not we are) preserving the nature of sport through our foreign policy has been entangled in a deadlock of blissful principle vs base reality, let's introduce a key criteria to unlock it- Government's duty.

At the most elementary of levels, the government's obligation would be to protect the interests of its citizens. It exists to ensure that none of the fundamental rights of its individuals are violated, through any system within their scope of governance. While there is no such thing as "a Singaporean sportsman's right to represent his nation in competitive sports", there is at least an obligation to cater to his developmental needs and empower him to fulfill his potential through providing opportunities. We see this being upheld at the formative stages of our lives, when as babies, every object that is seen as a platform for our nurturing and blossoming into grace, is granted without second thought, when the government throws out baby bonus and bursary scheme after scheme relentlessly, simply to realize that wonderful prospect called potential. Our singaporean sporting talents may be fledgeling buds compared to the full blown foreign blossoms, but remember, they are our children, the sons of Singapore, and its up to us to grow them.

Ultimately, let’s bear in mind that our government has a duty to its own people.


http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=08&year=2008&date=21&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_NP_2008_9735787

Does Democracy Create Stability?

Does Democracy create stability in a society? With just a cursory glance at the current global state of affairs, the answer yes looms right in front of us- UN advocates Democracy as the ideal method of governance, and it has been adopted as the preferred system by most nations, notably by stable ones such as US, UK and France (just to name a few). However, looking beyond this image of bliss, three key questions are raised. Firstly can all this stability achieved be attributed to the system of Democracy itself? In other words, is it the credit of Democracy for conjuring stability out of thin air? Or does it merely provide the framework for it? Secondly, does Democracy guarantee unconditional stability? To put it simply, are all democracies stable?

Before plunging into this vast ocean of intrigue as to whether or not Democracy creates stability, it is essential to obtain a clearer understanding of the nature of stability. For the purposes of this essay, we shall look only into Social stability. It can be distinguished into this two levels. The first one is tangible, concrete stability. It is a state of basic financial well-being, with presence of necessities and living conditions. Although this overlaps with economic stability, it has a shared sphere of influence with society, and cannot be seen as a distinct entity.

Where poverty and pestilence are rife, there would be social strife.

The second level of stability would be homogeneity in ideals and peaceful co-existence among groups of people. Thus, according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, the first level of stability falls under the primary category of essential physiological requirements, whereas the second level of stability is found at the higher, more abstract realm of psychological needs.

Therefore, if Democracy is to create stability, it has to ensure the presence of both these levels of stability, and not one at the expense of the other. We shall use this to evaluate the success of Democracy in creating stability.

How does Democracy create stability? Let’s examine the principle foundations of the system. Also known as the people government, it aims to provide average citizens with a say in the political scene, and empowers them with the choice to elect their favoured party which represents their best interests. Hence they are allowed to indicate and vindicate their own rights. This also promotes equality among all human beings, regardless of social or economic standing. By the highly prescribed moral theory of Utilitarianism, it creates greatest good for greatest number. It attempts to forge a national path that everyone can relate to. In so doing, it caters to the higher ego needs of the people and guarantees the second level of social stability (refer above).

Furthermore, it enables flexibility in which there is room for healthy, objective debate and criticism, with the betterment of society in mind. Consequently, citizens are able to choose for themselves what they feel is the most efficient party, and even if it fails to reach the mark in terms of concrete outcomes, they would soon have the option of electing a new party. This takes care of the tangible stability. Thus, by principle, a democracy effectively guarantees both levels of stability by satisfying the vital needs of its people. This strongly corroborates with Dr. Adrian White’s study on ‘The Happiest Place on Earth’, which revealed Denmark, Switzerland and USA, undeniably democratic nations, to be emerging at the pinnacle in terms of Education, Economic prosperity and Healthcare.

Yet, there is abundant evidence of democratic instability as well. Some of these are due to principle flaws in the Democracy, while others are due to failures in upholding the democracy rather than in the democracy itself.

The very fundamentals of Democracy clash with those of complete societal stability. The philosophy of equality and objective choice is all fair and well, but how far does this idealistic light penetrate? This rosy picture often applies only to the voting process of democracy. Many parties can take the stage and try their hands at wooing the people, but eventually only one party can rule. Similarly, every citizen can be entitled to voting slips and his free will in filling them, but in due course only a group of citizens can have their wishes granted. Thus at the end of the day, it is ultimately just one stream of thought from the vast ocean of ideals that is going to be implemented. Even if it may be the most preferred, there are likely to be conflicting principles and notions held by others, which cannot be fulfilled. Thus, homogeneity in ideals is often greatly compromised in a Democracy, and this causes instability.

This is aptly reflected in recent history by India, a veteran democracy. In the early 1990s, the Indian National Congress was voted in to rule India. However, groups of people grew increasingly annoyed of its inefficient economic policies and methods of governance. There were demonstrations and protests by private industrialists, and government buildings had to be shut down. This itself was instability. As if this wasn’t enough, another party was voted in, and then was voted out for the INC again for conflicting ideals. This choice of changing the party whenever convenient was meant to lend flexibility to the governing of the nation. Ironically, though, it leaves the nation in a state of tatters, as the different parties leave behind differing legacies and policies, which have to be reformed at every term. Thus, this lack of homogeneity in ideals, both between the people and the parties, which is an essential part of Democracy, results in instability.

Furthermore, will a party elected by free votes necessarily act moral and upright? The truth is, the need to be elected by the majority often forces corruption in the ruling party. This can be observed in the form of Populist Policies and tendencies. In other words, in a democracy, the government may be swayed towards being biased towards the masses and discriminating against the elites, and committing immoral and unfair actions. Not only is this negative on its own, these actions would result in further conflict as the oppressed people are likely to fight back, thus resulting in instability. Social instability also results when the democracy gets skewed. There is a catch in the idealistic impression of democracy, that its people are capable of making informed choices. A democracy only comes to life when its average people are politically conscious and make sound, responsible decisions. In poor 3rd or 2nd world nations, citizens are vastly illiterate and lack any political awareness, and vote for parties based on outward shows and catchy short term offers, rather than with their long-term interests in mind. For example, in South America, political parties offer free bags of rice and television sets in return for votes, and the people pay more attention to these than the policies. As a result, they find that the government does not cater to their needs, and there is unrest and instability. Such a failure to keep with the tenets of true democracy renders nations unstable, and proves the delicate balance of stability that democracy hangs on.

Interestingly, European democracies tend to be better off than their Asian and South American counterparts. The political ideology is the same, but the outcome is vastly different. Why? Based on recent surveys, citizens of European nations are more cohesive and transcend racial boundaries for Economic development, as compared to the residents of multi-cultural Asian societies, who tend to compete among one another for cultural identity. They share a similar modern global outlook. Perhaps, that enables them to share homogeneity in ideals and better milk the democratic cow for its benefits of overall productivity and stability.

In conclusion, we have seen both stable and unstable democracies. So why is it that certain democracies are stable while others are not? The answer lies in the fact that there are several factors to stability other than the political ideology of democracy itself. In other words, my stand is that Democracy in itself does not create stability; it lays a strong foundation for building the skyscraper that is stability. The qualities of the populace, the socioeconomic context, the strength of the national fabric, are the cement and building blocks of this ‘skyscraper’. If they are substandard, the ‘skyscraper’ crumbles, and there goes the stability.

English/Social Studies Assignment- Democracy (Yay!)

Greetings Mrs Ong (and anyone else if you are brave enough), my discussion entries can be found under the comments section of Jia Rong's blog, at https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4268262668047311140&postID=3745045816068996682. Have fun reading!

Quest for an ideal society, where there are no 'Other' races

"The critical challenge of maintaining the nation's multicultural fabric: "Unless care is exercised, we could so easily be torn asunder"

On first sighting, I was bewildered by the rather clichéd metaphor of cloth for culture. However, I soon realized that the gist of the article itself wasn't much less intriguing.

As a Singaporean, I have grown used to the ordeal of listening to phrases such as 'Singapore is a peaceful multi-racial society', but it now appears that these aren't just politically correct, but also pretentious. This article hints that, in fact, the true view shared by most of us is “Wow! Singapore can manage the trouble of racial differences! No riots in recent history! Not bad!”. While we project an international image of being the role model in inter-cultural unity and understanding, there lies an undercurrent of racial tension, of which the media has done a poor job hiding.

The view presented by the article is that differences, mainly of race, in any group setting, are problems or disadvantages to be put up with, which is a trend of serious concern. The fact that several media authorities, which have great influence on people, are themselves promoting a wrong outlook is even more antagonizing. For a start, the title suggests that an ideal society is an homogenous one, which implies that cultural differences are things to be taken care of carefully, that they are potential threats if not handled carefully. However, I beg to differ, and suggest quite the contrary. Rather than wallowing in a false sense of pity, why not get real, and acknowledge the fact that such difference were causal factors, and not obstacles, to our prosperity? For a change, why not focus on how racial diversity helps Singapore as a nation do good things, instead of how problems from racial diversity can be prevented?

There are currently three types of approaches to the issue of differences, presented in the article and reflected by society.
The first is the approach of shunning differences and considering them disadvantages-
“I don’t want to join this group because it has Indians and Malays in it. It will be difficult to work together due to the differences. I think I rather join that group that has only Chinese boys because it will be easier for us to communicate and do work together.”
The second and most common one is to ignore the differences or try to put up with them, having the basic idea that it is a problem to be solved-
“I did my Research Project with the Chinese boy who was not my friend but managed to do well?”
The last and, sadly, least common approach, is one that effectively makes use of differences and looks forward to them as tools-
“How lucky Singapore is to be blessed with such a rich diversity of culture!”

When we talk about Racial Harmony or Respecting Differences in the stereotypical way it is similar to the second approach shown above. Rather, they should be looked forward to and made good use of. Racial differences add variety and much needed diversity to any community they are found in. A difference in background breeds difference in opinion or outlook, and ultimately, provides broader and enhanced views to a society, enabling it to confront problems with a variety of solutions. These solutions when put together will form another set of ideas with efficiency that squares itself. Singapore's multi-racial society means a diversity of race and people from mixed backgrounds living together. Due to each person having values and perspectives shaped by his own culture, tradition and history, when they react, they inevitably learn from each others' views, leading to a situation where each person has a wide range of values, ideas and strengths in the face of adversity.

If the idealistic 'Salad Bowl' approach is too abstract for our cynical citizens, then perhaps an insight into our own history, which we claim to be so very proud of, could help.
In the Colonial Age, when the tireless British Imperialists made our humble fishing village a colony, and introduced trade, immigrants from all over the region moved in, the foundation for our growth was set. It was when our forefathers of differing nationalities, each with their own areas of expertise, worked together, playing their part for the development of society, that we progressed. That element of multi-culturalism has remained, but our outlooks have wavered, which was probably what caused the occasional conflict.

A telephone is an excellent tool that facilitates communication, but can cause problems if we go beserk and use it as a weapon. The nature of our multi-cultural diversity is such. So perhaps, we could look to enhancing the mindsets of our people towards it, rather than to blame the issue itself, or worse, attempt to cover it up with pretentious propaganda.

Here is the insightful article for my equally insightful (i hope) commentary:

http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=07&year=2006&date=21&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2006_4472969

Why the name?

Hello everyone,
please do not get intimidated by the title, or by the language it is written in, for it might defeat the purpose. There are 3 things I had in mind when I named my blog in French: 1) to be reminiscent of the last thing I would ever have to do with that pretentious language 2) Commemorate my quitting of French 3) Articulate my discontent with the language by writing in wrong grammar and highlighting the mistake (it's supposed to be d'Adithegreat, not de Adithegreat). Amid this confusion, one thing is for certain anyway. I am Adithegreat!