Jerome's Commentaries

“Democracy can create stability in a society.” Discuss.

The fundamentals of a democracy encompass many properties; some of which include freedom and equality. I feel compelled to agree with the motion. But firstly, we have to define the subjective term of stability. I believe a stable country equates to a developing country.

However, the fact that Asian nations like Singapore were stabilised by authoritarian industrialists like Lee Kuan Yew, who tightly guided the local economy and political scene indicates that stability need not come only from democracy.

Democracy and development tend to complement each other. The political choices offered by democracy link to the social and economic choices offered by development. Choice, which is the freedom to determine one's destiny, is the characteristic of both democracy and development. This leads to the point that democracy creates stability in a society.

Democracy empowers the public to decide its leadership and trajectory of progress, thus protecting their basic rights. Take for example; Kuomintang Chief Ma Ying-jeou was recently elected as president in response to the corruptions under former president Chen Shui-bian. The ability in democratic systems to have smooth power transitions enhances renewal and public participation, thus promoting accountability and transparency. This, I feel, is one underlying factor why democracy creates stability in a society.

There doesn’t seem to have an obvious link between dictatorship and economic progress, or between democracy and poverty reduction. However, democracy is about the means used to achieve goals. Democratic values and processes imply peace, reconciliation, dialogue, consensus and, above all, intellectual and political choice. Looking at the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union, we can logically assume that collapsed States have often tended to be authoritarian. While these states were formerly regarded as models of development, their intolerant rulers had failed to build consensus for political and economic liberalization, which lead to their disintegration.

Democracy implies concern about the means through which development takes place, without the great death tolls brought about and justified by dictators in the name of modernization. Poverty is only just about lack of resources. It obstructs free expression of political preferences, demands for a transparent government and better living standards. However, that does not mean that a rich nation is necessarily democratic or a poor country, undemocratic, but poverty eradication could contribute to the achievement of democracy.

However, a democratic country does not necessarily mean long-term stability. The stability of democracies does not depend on force, but on the consensus of the governed. This leads to the fact that consensus can only be forged through democracy. Tell me, what other forms of ruling allow for public participation? Looking back at the 1950s to 1990s, riots and demonstrations in many countries but caused greater destabilization in dictatorships.

A democracy that respects people’s rights is the most stable form of government, as its policies and decisions are always neutralised among all people. When there is a satisfied population, there is lesser dispute. Therefore I conclude that some forms of democracy, can indeed create stability.

500 Words

Why youths prefer Singlish in day-to-day speech

Section:	Gen Y
By:	NUR AMIRA ABDUL KARIM
Publication:	The Straits Times 30/07/2006
Page:	35
No. of words:	814

SIXTEEN-YEAR-OLD Ang Wei Kiat tops his class in maths and science but flounders in English. Although the Secondary 4 student's Mandarin conversation at home is sprinkled with English, he has difficulty ex pressing himself fully in English.

Wei Kiat admits that his grasp of English grammar is poor and his vocabulary, weak.

He does not speak 'high-class English' to his friends and family.

Says Wei Kiat: 'Wait people think I very action.'

He also makes a distinction between the English he speaks and the 'school type' of English.

'The speaking no need to be so good mah.'

His best friend, Ong Chee Keong, 17, agrees.

The polytechnic student is fluent in Mandarin but speaks mostly Singlish to his multiracial mix of friends. An aspiring chemical engineer, Chee Keong does not think speaking Singlish hinders communication. In fact, he believes he is understood better by his friends.

'We people are heartlanders mah...we not going to be English teacher or MP or what, so what for? Singlish can already.'

Students like Chee Keong and Wei Kiat are among the many individuals whom the Speak Good English Movement is targeting. The movement, which is in its sixth year, aims to encourage all Singaporeans to make a conscious effort to use standard English by following basic grammatical rules, syntax and pronunciation of standard English so as to be universally understood.

Mrs Joy Lee, a master teacher in the South Cluster and a volunteer ambassador for the Speak Good English Movement, believes that youths' perception about speaking good English has to change.

She says: 'Speaking good English is not about speaking high-class English'. It is about speaking in a manner that is acceptable to the speaker and the context you are in. Speaking good English is about clarity.'

Nonetheless, the movement has received a lukewarm response from the youths GEN Y spoke to. Some youths, like Chee Keong and Wei Kiat, believe that Singlish is sufficient as a medium of communication among Singaporeans, whom they interact with daily.

Says Chee Keong: 'Everyone talk Singlish everyday. I know what he say, he know what I say.'

Wei Kiat agrees, adding: 'Some words cannot translate to good English, right or not? If you try to translate, then lose meaning liao. These words are bonding.'

However, Wei Kiat does believe in the importance of knowing standard English. To him, the two versions of English belong to different realms - standard English is for school.

Many youths echo his sentiments.

Architecture student Jamilah Abdul Kassim, 21, believes that the Speak Good English Movement is useful for reminding the public of the proper way of speaking and writing English, but that Singlish will never be eclipsed by standard English.

She says: 'It's not practical to expect young people to speak proper English all the time. If we all start speaking like BBC commentators, it would be a bit strange and we'd lose our unique identity.'

Apart from encouraging youths to speak and write standard English, the Speak Good English Movement also seeks to reduce the use of slang and abbreviations made popular by youth culture and instant messaging.

Youths, however, do not think that using slang and abbreviations undermines their use of proper English.

Ahmad Ali Hatta, 18, a junior college student, believes that slang is merely used for fun and that youths would not confuse it with proper English that is acceptable for formal use.

He says: 'I say wassup?' or amacam?' which are equivalent to how are you?' to my friends. But I will certainly not write that down in an essay. I doubt any other student would.'

Yet, while detractors abound, some youths are conscientious about using standard English in daily conversations and in school.

Some, like Cathy Tong, 19, claim they do not even use Singlish, slang or abbreviations. The sociology student from the University of Sydney says she believes more should be done to encourage young people to give up low-register English.

Says Cathy: 'English should be spoken in its pure form, with correct grammar and pronunciation. Speaking it well will get your message across and people will respect you for it. If Singaporean youths continue speaking broken English, nothing will distinguish us from the other youths from less proficient countries.'

Others, like writer Danny Wong, 22, believe in the importance of 'code switching' between Singlish and standard English.

He says: 'It's about using the appropriate form of communication for different occasions. But in order to be able to switch, you have to have the option of switching in the first place.

'You have to be extremely competent in both Singlish and standard English as well, and not just in Singlish.'

amiraak@sph.com.sg

You know how the Singapore government has been trying to promote speaking good English among youths? And how they have been failing miserably for years? There is a novel reason for the failure. Maybe the government is on the wrong track.

Why Singlish, really. I do not speak the Queen’s English and I can’t help but to agree with the viewpoint of writer, Danny Wong. The main objective should not be to eradicate Singlish and introduce proper English. I feel that the main objective is to learn to be able to switch. Singaporean youths should know when the right time to use Singlish is, and when English is mandatory.

Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong have publicly declared that Singlish is substandard English that presents an obstacle to learning proper English. Actually, I do not see how Singlish would impede the learning of English. Many teachers themselves are comfortable with the variety of expressions that Singlish provides. For example, the term “lah” normally found at the back of a sentence tends to bring forth a feeling of mild frustration. No word from the Oxford dictionary can do that.

Also, hasn’t the government encouraged primary school teachers to teach the Chinese language with English? Using English does not impede the learning of Chinese. It is likewise for the case of Singlish.

I also agree that Singlish is part of Singapore’s culture. Singapore is a multicultural society, where four diverse races live together. It should be hardly surprising that the local English has become influenced by other languages.

Singaporean youths take up the use of Singlish not only because they want to be connected to the popular students in school, it indirectly serves to bond the people of different races together through a uniform language – one that makes use of all four national languages. It is also worth noting that Sylvia Toh, renown Singapore writer, also uses Singlish in her published books.

Reiterating my point, Singlish should not be eradicated, but Singaporean youths should know when to make the switch. If youths are conversing with one another, I think it is all right to make good advantage of Singlish. After all, which country doesn’t have their slangs? (I have heard of British and American Slangs. It is worthwhile noting that the country with the strongest economy, the USA, uses slangs too.) However, whenever we are in the presence of foreign audience or making public speeches, we have to make the switch to proper English.

However, the importance of speaking good English cannot be denied. English is the international and most widely used language. Therefore, with the rising rate of globalization, it is essential to have a strong linguistic foundation to communicate better with foreign partners and not lose out to our adversaries. However, we should not do this at the expense of losing the Singaporean culture.

English should be used, Singlish can also be used. Singlish can be used, but cannot be overused. I urge everyone to know how to appreciate Singlish and understand when to make the switch to proper English when needed.

Jerome Ong (21)
3B