It Pays To Be In Government

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/4/14/focus/17423190&sec=focus This is the link to the article.

Personally I feel that this does not make any sense at all. Are they just capitalizing on the supposedly wealthy economy of Singapore? It is stated that this is to prevent corruption and attract people of the highest qualification. Otherwise they would head into the private sector and earn more money compared to working in the government and earning less. Does this really justify why the government’s pay should be so high beyond sight? I think not! To address the issue, firstly the part of attracting people of greatest qualifications. This way, does it appear that the government is working for the money and not their patriotism? Judging from the way the government attempts to protect their actions, shows that they are money-minded. This is to say that the main driving force for doing their job is not patriotism but money. If they are not fully into the job with love and passion for Singapore, can we trust them in committing to Singapore, serving for Singapore? I believe that we can’t entrust this heavy responsibility to them and hopefully you agree with me. I think that Singapore is served better with a party that is in it for their passion for politics and not money. The government led by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had launched a major campaign in the media and Parliament, where he controls 82 out of 84 seats, to convince the nation but needless to say, failed. It seems to me that only the one’s receiving the pay rise is supporting this nonsense. I believe that they should heed this famous quote : “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” This I believe is the perfect example they should follow. Are they asking what Singapore can do for them? Yes. And are they asking what they can do for Singapore? The answer is obvious. If we carry on from above, we can easily rebut this statement. With people who are sincerely passionate and willing to serve wholeheartedly for Singapore, will it be possible for corruption to still exist? On the contrary, if you have a group of people who are serving for the money, wouldn’t it be even easier to bribe them or cause corruption with money as well? If you don’t understand this, in simpler terms, a person serving not for money will not get influenced by it, but someone who regards money as the highest possible form of status would easily be overpowered by it. The person making the statement of this being used to prevent corruption is indirectly labeling government workers as money-faced. Is this not true? The statement also belittles the ability of the Singapore government accusing them of being easily seduced by the lure of money. I do not disagree with the fact that the government has indeed done a good job for Singapore, but if it is only because there is cash involved, then they are not doing good enough.

Democracy Creates Stability in a Country

In today’s world, many countries practice democracy. Democracy is a majority rule. It is the most common form of government of government in the world today. First of all let us define “Democracy” and “Stability” Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. After a few years, the people can choose to vote for the opposition parties if they are unhappy with the way previous leader ruled the country. Stability refers to a country with little conflicts, fights and riots. The country is very peaceful and the people are living in harmony. There will be no discrimination or racism. I feel that democracy is like a double-edged sword as it has its pros and cons in having the ability to give rise to stability or instability in a society.
In a country, there are social stability, economic stability and of course political stability. If any one of them has instability, the other two might very well be affected too. Democracy is not just a system of government but it is also used to achieve many goals in a society. It is now considered as the ideal system of government as it is based on principles such as equal rights and free speech. i feel that the most important aspect of democracy is voting. It is very important as the citizens can elect a leader who is willing to address their concerns and voice out any more that may come along. If not the citizens may be under the rule of a leader who does not care about what they think and feel. As a result, some citizens will resort to protesting, riots, and violence so that they can be heard by the government. This is how social stability can be affected.
However, in a democracy, the majority will always be more powerful compared to the minority. The majority may be satisfied with the new leader they elected but have you spared a thought for the minorities who feel that the opposition party will be better in helping them fulfill their needs?
Just a few months ago, our school had to vote for our school prefects. Before I even heard their speeches or take a look at their posters, I already had I mind who I wanted to vote for. I only voted for my friends I knew or liked. There were some candidates who were very good and had the capabilities of bringing the school to a next level but were not very popular. In the end they were not elected. From this you can see that biasness is present and usually the minority will always lose out.
From my last point, biasness does affect the stability in a democracy. Democracy can create stability but one important factor is that the people might not be able to make a wise vote and as a result, vote for a leader who is not fit to rule the country. If the correct leader is elected then the leader must also be able to make fair and correct decisions in order to create stability too. In conclusion, I feel that democracy can create stability in a society but there may be other factors that cause it to be unstable.

Social Studies Blog Discussion

"Democracy creates stability in a society."

(please view comments for our discussion)

Teenage and Social Issues

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/emotions/teenagers/rebellion.shtml This is the link o the article.


Synopsis: This article is about teenage rebellion and what are the reasons why teenagers rebel. They think that when they rebel they will look grown up or feel grown up and also to impress their peers. Teenagers may rebel as they have the "risk-taking" behaviour. This article also tell us that they defy adult restrictions deliberately as a way of asserting their independence. It is also said that teenage rebellion does not last as statistics show that teenage criminal behaviour tends to begin around the age of 13, peak at 17 and then disappear almost completely in early adulthood.



I agree to what this article is saying. It is very true that teenagers start getting out of hand at the age of 13 to 17. They do things like smoking, drinking or having under-age sex. Some may even do things like stealing or taking drugs

I feel that the main problem is that the teenagers want to feel grown up and independent and does not want their parents to control them. They always think that they are already grown up and know what they are doing but actually they don't. Another reason of teenage rebellion is usually because of mixing with the wrong people. The teenager may be jeered or mocked by his friends for not being like them and always listening to their parents. This will cause the teenager to rebel and not liten to their parents as they want to be as cool as their friends and end up smoking and start having criminal behaviours.

On the other hand, i feel that teenage rebellion is part of growing up. I mean who wants to be always controlled by their parents? Nobody. It is true that our parents have been in this world much longer than us and have more life experiences. But they were once teenagers and i am very sure they did not like being controlled in whatever thay do. If the teenager is controlled, he does not have any freedom. He or she also cannot make decisions on their own and is like a non-living thing. In the end he will not grow up, he will not be useful in society, he will not be independent. He will be just like a robot, doing what people ask him to do.

I feel that what a parent should do is to spend more time with their children and understand them and help them if they have any difficulties. If they want them to be independent they should set boundaries. They should try to give their child an authoritative and responsible role over them, and see how he copes. This will help put their mind at rest and make their child aware of the responsibility involved in looking after themselves. This will also make him realise that he has earned independence. The parents should always respect the child's privacy and support his or her choices as much as they can.

It is also said that teenage rebellion is normal as scientists discovered that the brain continues to develop and grow well into the teenage years. They may have well-developed emotions and feelings but may not have acquired the abilit to think through it.Therefore, i feel that with proper parental guidance and respect for their children, teenage rebellion will not be a problem at all.