May 14, 2011
If it's broke, it may not be democracy's fault
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
I DISAGREE with Ms Chan Jia Huan's correlations concerning democracy ("Can Singapore cope with the Trojan horse of democracy?"; Wednesday)
Inefficient services in transport, security, and health care have no direct correlation with a democracy. They could be consequences of a nationalised (or simply ill-equipped) transport industry, a country without national service, or a welfare state health-care system - and these are not necessarily a given in any democracy.
A democracy can choose to say no to these arrangements, after studying the pros and cons.
The same disconnect applies to vandalism and crime rates. At best, they are telling of an indifferent police force and/or poor socio-economic conditions, but surely not of innocent democracy.
Also, if other countries keep changing governments because of their inefficiencies, the political parties and politicians are to blame - not the system. If parties can prove themselves worthy, what's to stop the people from voting them in again? At least bad politicians can get the boot, unlike in non-democratic regimes.
Although democracy may have originated in the West, it doesn't mean that Singapore has to follow that model exactly. An Asian democracy like Japan has shown that democracy and efficiency can co-exist, and I am sure that Singapore too can balance both in our society. Our society's obsession with efficiency helps maintain a certain standard.
And just because we now have six elected opposition Members of Parliament instead of two, we are not about to lose our efficiency or experience drastic socio-political changes.
We are still ruled dominantly by the People's Action Party, which has become more motivated to protect our welfare after the watershed elections.
And now we have an alternative voice to better represent voters, lest our grievances are forgotten.
Rafidah Abdul Razak (Miss)
If it's broke, it may not be democracy's fault
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
I DISAGREE with Ms Chan Jia Huan's correlations concerning democracy ("Can Singapore cope with the Trojan horse of democracy?"; Wednesday)
Inefficient services in transport, security, and health care have no direct correlation with a democracy. They could be consequences of a nationalised (or simply ill-equipped) transport industry, a country without national service, or a welfare state health-care system - and these are not necessarily a given in any democracy.
A democracy can choose to say no to these arrangements, after studying the pros and cons.
The same disconnect applies to vandalism and crime rates. At best, they are telling of an indifferent police force and/or poor socio-economic conditions, but surely not of innocent democracy.
Also, if other countries keep changing governments because of their inefficiencies, the political parties and politicians are to blame - not the system. If parties can prove themselves worthy, what's to stop the people from voting them in again? At least bad politicians can get the boot, unlike in non-democratic regimes.
Although democracy may have originated in the West, it doesn't mean that Singapore has to follow that model exactly. An Asian democracy like Japan has shown that democracy and efficiency can co-exist, and I am sure that Singapore too can balance both in our society. Our society's obsession with efficiency helps maintain a certain standard.
And just because we now have six elected opposition Members of Parliament instead of two, we are not about to lose our efficiency or experience drastic socio-political changes.
We are still ruled dominantly by the People's Action Party, which has become more motivated to protect our welfare after the watershed elections.
And now we have an alternative voice to better represent voters, lest our grievances are forgotten.
Rafidah Abdul Razak (Miss)
