SUCCESS! Singapore's olympics silver

Finally, after so long, our country was able to win itself a silver medal. All Singaporeans should be happy and proud that we have finally won an outstanding silver medal after waiting for so long. I had wanted to watch the women's table-tennis semi-final match agaisnt Korea but sadly, it clashed with training. However, I was able to remain updated about the match as I was coincidentally having training at the gym while the match was in progress. I took the opportunity to ask the PE teachers regarding the Singapore's progress.

I only knew that Singapore was in the final when I was listening to the radio on the way home. When I heard the news, I felt very relieved and my heart was beating fast with excitement because we were already assured of a silver medal. It was all the more sweeter because it had also effectively ended our olympic medal drought and bring about fresh optimism regarding Singapore's future in the sporting field, during big sporting events.

I was full of praise for the table-tennis team for the character they showed during the semi-final and final match against Korea and China respectively. However, there was a comment from one of my friends that made me think about the way we won the silver medal.
"China Team A wins gold and China Team B wins silver". That was exactly what came from the mouth of one of my friends. Although, I was initially disappointed that he was not showing any appreciation for the athlete's efforts, there was a part of me which agreed to the statement.

You see, the Singapore table-tennis team comprised of athletes who's roots actually lie in China itself. If I were to argue from a critic's point of view, I would say that Singapore's medal does not count. If you see, many years back when Tan Howe Liang won the silver medal, every Singapore had every single reason to cheer about his success. The reason being because he was born in Singapore himself! He is a true born and bred Singaporean, unlike the current table-tennis team. They can't speak English, let alone Singlish! The women from the table-tennis team of Singapore were all born in China - every single one of them. Li Jiawei, Wang Yuegu, Feng Tianwei and Sun Beibei were all born in China and people can argue that winning the medal actually does not make Singapore look any good in sports, but it is actually showing how powerful a force China is, having so much talent that it could afford to 'lend' out athletes to other countries worldwide. Just take a look at the athletes of the different countries in badminton and table-tennis. Many of them have had Chinese origin. Does this mean that a country is so bent on getting sporting recognition that it resorts to import of talents to achieve such goals?

Well, I am not saying that there is anything wrong but I am saying that we should keep in mind the actual truth that the table-tennis team were foreign talents. I am not attacking the team and saying that Singapore does not deserve the silver medal. We should still applaud the efforts and achievements of the table-tennis team. These athletes chose to be Singaporean and they are now Singaporeans no matter what background they are from. This is reflected in the Singapore pledge where we 'pledge ourselves to be one united people, regardless of race, language or religion'. We are all the same and ultimately equal. We are Singaporeans. Therefore, who are we to decide a person's identity and who a person is. Not only is a critic implying that people like them have no place in society, he is also displaying himself to be a narrow-minded naive fool who does not believe in meritocracy and equality.

Ultimately, it is up to us to decide where we choose to stand. As for me, I am behind the team who won the silver medal. They put in hours to do our nation proud and they certainly have. They have shown great spirit and determination and we should reciprocate by acknowleding their effort (and achievements). National day has recently passed and I am sure they were celebrating then and singing the songs of/from Singapore and more importantly our national anthem. They are one of us, we are one of them. Thus we should congratulate them on achieving a feat never done for so long. Well done Team Singapore.

Democracy in general terms, means a form of government in which the people freely elect representatives to govern them. They would vote for the candidate whom they feel is the best man for the job, and their issues will be raised via the elected candidate. However, democracy isn’t exactly the utilitarian society one would portray in his mind. Many are cases of pseudo-democratic states. Hence, I do not agree that democracy creates total stability.

Starting on the brighter side, it does help in creating stability in a society. Besides being socially successful (to an extent), countries prosper too in other fields economically. Looking at statistical figures, democratic countries rank high in the Human Development Index. Japan is ranked 11^thth. which is ahead of authoritarian China, ranked 85

Northern Ireland once faced an internal conflict because there were no voting rights for the Catholics. Although one can argue that that isn’t the only factor, the factor of voting rights does indeed influence the eventual outcome. Since, the Catholics were not allowed to vote, this meant that they had no medium or way to air their grievances (they were facing hardship imposed on them by the Protestants). Thus, this will lead to laws passed down to be less likely benefiting them as there will be no leader to argue for their rights in parliament. Thereafter, the Catholics decided to protest as they had nothing to lose. This led to instability. If only the Catholics were allowed to vote for the leaders to represent them, the conflicts will most like not occur and we wouldn’t even hear of a conflict in Northern Ireland. Aristotle’s underlying principle in democracy is freedom. Northern Ireland faced a conflict. This implies that it is not democratic as it didn’t give freedom to the Catholics. And since it isn’t democratic, it isn’t a surprise that they faced instability.

Because democracy allows for people to vote for who they feel will best represent them, it is not likely that they will undergo instability as actions taken by their elected candidate should be favour the citizens or benefit them.

However, I certainly feel that democracy has its loopholes too. Voting democratically is a case of majority wins. If you think that since many people think that something is right, it will be right (morally). This is in fact false. It is unnecessarily true actually. E.B White quotes, “Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time”. Philosophically, you are committing a fallacy of bandwagon if you think that way. In old America, Blacks were treated badly and not a thing was done to protect them. This is because the largely racist White community then felt that there was nothing wrong doing so. If you were a White then, you would think that it is true. But what if you were Black? The Whites who were the majority dominated the political arena and allowed for mistreatments of Black. Since the Blacks were the minority and the Whites, the majority, Whites would obviously have the upper hand. But if you were to look at the whole scenario in the context of a modern person, with a clear neutral perspective, you would say that Blacks were indeed mistreated.

Thus I feel that democracy does not create stability. Although, it doesn’t create much instability, it certainly doesn’t create total stability too. Democratic rule that we live under isn’t the perfect democracy we see either. I shall end my argument with a quote by Agnes Repplier. “Democracy forever teases us with the contrast between its ideals and its realities, between its heroic possibilities and its sorry achievements”.

Democracy creates stability in a society

To get the ball rolling on the motion, Democracy creates stability, i personally feel that this statement is true.

I shall prove my point on the economic point of view.
Based on the links that are given, it is shown that democratic states are ranked high in the 2005 Human Development Index.
Singapore and Korea, recognised as among the world's richest countries, are under democratic rule.
Democracy too influences development and vice-versa. This is because a transparent and fair government allows for fair chances for all and this provides for development in a country.

The Evolution Of Goodness

My personal response

In the article, it says that human beings are willing to do good to others because they are related to one another. This is why they are willing to do good for the other person, this could be seen as an act of love for the other person. However, this statement could be seen as a generalization. If goodness is only done because a person is related to the other, would the same person still be good to other people, who are not related to him/her, simply because of the fact that they are not related? Omitting close friends (whom one would relate to as family), this would mean that people who are complete strangers, one you would randomly meet across the street, are not deserving of your goodness.

Thus, this would lead to one questioning why are there such things as SOS, the police station and even helplines at all. The people who help you willingly with open arms barely know you. In fact, they might have just met you. From this example, I believe that is more than just interrelationship that leads to a kind act of goodness in being carried out.

Drawing an example from a personal experience, I was playing around with a wheelchair and was challenging myself to lift myself onto the pavement from the road, while still in the wheelchair. It took a lot of my effort and although it was just for fun, my thought was provoked by a woman who offered help to me. I was playing around with the wheelchair but there she was, a total complete stranger to me, who willingly offered help towards me as if I was indeed having difficulty. Certainly, this wasn't an act of reciprocal goodness or reciprocal altruism, but a pure and kind act of goodness, without any form of motive(s) in helping me.

Through this debate of goodness and also the philosophy of ethics and behaviour, there are many theories that were formulated just to encapsulate subject of goodness. Theories such as the Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule were formulated and famous philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Confucius both had had their take on this intricate yet complex subject. Although all their efforts indeed provide answers for the evolution of goodness, there is yet to be a theory which fully answers it.

As such, I practically feel that goodness, happens because of the heart that a human has, the heart that feels for others and sympathise with those who are disadvantaged. Why then, does our heart wrench when we see and hear of tales of the suffering in Africa, and of those who face the wrath of nature, such as the recent Burma cyclone?

The Issue of Elitism - My Stand

After the protected interaction time, where we discussed the issue of elitism, I decided to read up more on this issue that is affecting many people in Singapore.

STUDENT Tong Lap Him is in Raffles Junior College (RJC),
a premier school that recently attracted attention for all the wrong reasons.

His JC2 schoolmate, Wee Shu Min, caused a furore when she derided a 35-year-old
Singaporean for worrying about jobs, and told him to "get out of my elite,
uncaring face". Her comments were slammed by readers and many expressed concern about the breeding of elitism in top schools.

The incident led MP Sin Boon Ann to make this observation last month: "The perception exists that Singapore is a society that is bifurcated between elites and the commoners, the scholars and the Normal stream... and the rich and the poor.

"Last Sunday, the issue cropped up again. MP Josephine Teo warned of the "highly divisive" portrayal of the elite as self-interested people who do not understand ordinary folks' problems.

Although Mr Tong maintains that Miss Wee's attitude is not prevalent among most students in RJC, he admits there is an "element of truth" to the perception that some harbour an attitude of superiority.

One reason, he believes, is wealth. "At RJC, many students are affluent, so you can get drawn into a lifestyle that is very different from the bulk of Singaporeans." Of his 21
classmates, only four live in Housing Board homes.Compounding this sense of
exclusivity are figures which show that nearly one in five RJC students was
awarded a Government scholarship in the past three years.

But is meritocracy responsible for breeding elitism? Can there be an elite without elitism? Is the perception of arrogance valid, or is it just a case of sour grapes among those who lost out?

The Straits Times

09/12/2006

This article has made me think about the way people view the students in the elite schools. After reading up more on this issue, I learnt that many people see elitism as a behaviour where people in elite schools would look down on the students of other schools who have lower academia.

Many feel that this mindset where we are the elites to arise from the fact that many of the people in elite schools such as mine, Raffles Institution, come from a wealthy background. The other people who are from 'non-elite' schools would look at us in a different way the moment they find out that you were from an elite school. In their point of view, I often observe that they tie in being in an elite school with wealth, and wealth with a haughty elitist behaviour.

I recall playing with my neighbourhood friends a game of soccer every week-end. We would interact in a normal way where both of us were put on an equal pedestal. However, when they learnt about my institution of education, they began to react and interact differently with me. Though some of them who know me well still carried on talking in the usual manner, many of my genial conversations would change. My friends would either feel intimidated by the fact that they are talking to an elite student, or on another extreme, they would get upset for no apparent reason and accuse me of being a show-off just because I receive my education at Raffles Institution.

The Wee Shu Min controversy came at a bad time when the issue of elitism was being debated. It was like adding fuel to an already raging fire. I believe that many other people now, will be now looking at us Rafflesians as elitists, since Wee Shu Min was from RJC.

I feel though that some of the public (and not all), are unclear of the full situation that is happening. There is a textbook saying, 'never judge a book by its cover' and I feel that we are being incorrectly classified as elitists, based on a rather superficial and unqualified generalization that since we are Rafflesians, we are wealthy and look down upon the lower educated. A person should be judged based on his character, and his actions, not the environment he may come from.

Despite some instances of students exhibiting elitism, this does not justify the incorrect view of the people who look at us as elitists.

I am a student in Raffles Institution. My father earns a moderate income and I maintain healthy relationships with my friends of other non-elite schools. I am not an elitist.