At a dark and rainy morning
When the wind blows cold
And the sky covered by a veil
Even a god
Can fail
As the sun rises in the east
His rays held back by the clouds
The earth cold, and dark
A gentle hum in my ear
A loud horn in the distance
A continuous crow
A ring of smoke
Invisible words
A lone silhouette
Endless movement
In a darkness like no other
I feel a need
A need for blood
Let there be blood
Blood on the dance floor
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Mundane blogs
Remembered that I read somewhere
Somebody said that
Singaporeans blog about the most mundane things
What they did for the day
What they had for dinner
yada yada yada.....
blah blah blah....
And so
I've decided
My blog will be intellectual
I will post my essays from my studies in the uni
Not that they are any good
Only average stuff
Judging from my grades.......
Haha
Enjoy =)
Somebody said that
Singaporeans blog about the most mundane things
What they did for the day
What they had for dinner
yada yada yada.....
blah blah blah....
And so
I've decided
My blog will be intellectual
I will post my essays from my studies in the uni
Not that they are any good
Only average stuff
Judging from my grades.......
Haha
Enjoy =)
Singapore Society: Foreign Talents
Introduction and Methodology
Singapore is a cosmopolitan city that consists of more than 4 million people. Among this population of 4 million people, there are a significant number of foreigners, ranging from construction worker, maids to expatriates. This number of foreigners has been constantly increasing mainly due to the government policy of overtly importing foreign talents into Singapore. Among these foreigners, there is this group of sportsmen who are given Singapore citizenships in order for them to represent Singapore in international sports competitions. In our essay, we are going to examine how Singaporeans feel about these foreign sports talents playing for Singapore and why they feel this way. Do they treat these foreign sportsmen as fellow Singaporeans or do they just see them as tools that Singapore uses to achieve recognition in the international sports arena, vice versa. In order to gather the opinions of Singaporeans, we have drawn up a survey consisting of 16 questions that will help us in understanding the views of Singaporeans regarding our focus of research. And at the end of the essay, we will attempt feebly to state the significance of social change in Singapore society and predict what might happen in the future.
The method we used to conduct the survey was in person. The survey was done face to face with the 15 participants so that there would not be any misunderstandings and we would be there to explain those questions that our interviewees do not understand or are unclear about. A targeted group of young, well-educated Chinese Singaporeans were chosen to found out how this specific group reacts to the influx of foreign sports talent. Such a group was chosen as the requirements of the paper do not allow us to include the general view of all Singaporeans. To prevent the misconception that those interviewed represents the general view of Singaporeans, they were be referred to as the interviewees.
The foreign talent scheme
Before we start the analysis of how Singaporeans feel towards foreign sports talents, we feel a need to first give a brief introduction of the Foreign Talent Scheme (FTS). The Singapore government has in recent years attempt to improve Singapore’s standings in the international sporting arena. They are however keenly aware of the glaring problem that Singapore is facing; a lack of a huge enough population to produce enough local sports talent, or more importantly, a lack of sports talents. The foreign talent scheme is the government’s aggressive policy of courting foreign talents in order to support or boost our local ones. In the sports arena, it would refer to giving them citizenships for them to represent Singapore as “Singaporeans”. Under this foreign talent scheme, we see a continuation of the British policies of “bringing specific people from specific places to do specific jobs”; to harness the expertise of the various group of people. In the same way, the Singapore government brought in players from China to play table-tennis, players from Indonesia, a badminton power house, to play in our badminton team. An interesting observation of Singapore’s FTS is how the players imported were all from countries with a lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. The GDP per capita for China is $3600 while Indonesia is $2830 and Nigeria is $960. Singapore alone has a $26300 per annum GDP. From this, we can assume that monetary rewards form the basis for attracting these talents to Singapore.
Analysis
Nationhood versus Statehood
From our survey, we realized that all except one of our interviewees are aware of the presence of foreign legions in the Singapore national team. Most of them, 9 out of 15, however, do not agree to the government’s policy of giving away citizenship to these players just so that they can play in the Singapore jersey. But by granting them citizenship, is it possible that the government is letting the foreign talents represent Singapore as a member of the state, whereas in the eyes of the interviewees, the foreign talents are representing Singapore as a member of the nation, because they don the national emblems on their jerseys. In a way, these interviewees view citizenship as a representation of nationality. This tells us that they have a misconception, that they are confused about the idea of state- and nationhood.
Viewing them as our own
In that note, 11 out of 15 of the interviewees do not view the foreign talents as Singaporeans and 10 out of 15 are unable to fully identify themselves with the achievements of these foreign talents. One of the reasons cited were that even though they represent Singapore, these foreign talents were essentially not born in Singapore. This in turn tells us that the country of birth, in the eyes of the interviewees, is an important factor in determining the nationality of a people.
Others that did not cited place of birth as a primary reason believed that it is because these foreigners came as talents that their achievements were not ours. How so? The foreigners were chosen because they had displayed a certain level of skills. Even though after their arrival they were given substantial trainings, they were first and foremost trained in their original countries. So they were plying a trade that was not Singaporean in nature.
Symbol of allegiance
Many of the interviewees exhibit a prejudice that the foreign talents came because they were not doing well in their own country. And as mentioned above, the basis of attraction to Singapore seems to be monetary in nature. This is also evident in the promises of huge prize money by the government for achieving specific targets like high finishes or medals won. These forms of remunerations have led most of the interviewees to believe that the foreigners are merely mercenaries, pledging allegiance only to the dollar, instead of Singapore.
Some believed that the foreigners were looking for a better life and higher standard of living. If so, then there is no guarantee that they will stay and not jump onto the plane the very minute another country with a better offer comes knocking. Others are afraid that the foreigners are sojourners, that even as they are given permanent residency or citizenship, they are like the forefathers of Singapore, yearning to one day return to their homeland after earning enough. The interviewees’ sentiments are echoed by others:
“Just like most of the MNC that have left Singapore for more competitive countries, foreign talents could also one day leave Singapore for other more attractive destinations. Singapore, therefore, needs to count on its own people much more. While Singapore can offer carrots for foreign talents to come here, either for sports or work, these foreign talents are basically a materialistic lot as they ventured overseas for greener pastures. What is to stop them from moving out of Singapore once their grazing is done? Singapore lacks other natural resources, its people is the only resource it can tap and develop. Reliance on foreign talents can only go so far. Let us not forget that.” (http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=148)
Why else are they here?
These are however not all that was felt. According to the survey, there are some that felt that these foreigners came because of Singapore inherent attractiveness. We have a strong government that expresses openness and practices a welcoming policy; our economy and society is stable; our education system can provide their children with an all rounded development; our streets are safe with one of the lowest crime rates in the world:
“Singapore is blessed with a highly developed and successful free-market economy, a remarkably open and corruption-free business environment, stable prices, and the fifth highest per capita GDP in the world. Exports, particularly in electronics and chemicals, and services are the main drivers of the economy. The government promotes high levels of savings and investment through a mandatory savings scheme and spends heavily in education and technology. It also owns government-linked companies (GLCs) - particularly in manufacturing - that operate as commercial entities and account for 60% of GDP.”
These reasons, some feel, will make sure the foreign talents will come and stay. We are able to make them realize that there is not a place like Singapore and will therefore be willing to permanently settle down and be a through and through Singaporean. This view is enforced by one of the most locally-renowned foreign talent, paddler for the national team;
“I've been in Singapore for more than 12 years, I married a local and I'm the mother of a four-year-old Singapore boy, I've been proud and happy all these years but, every now and then, there will be some who will bring up these questions of loyalty and citizenship. Really, what can I say? Is there any way of proving myself? Is there a test I can take?” - Jing Jun Hong (http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/031214a1.htm)
Better or worse
Despite their disdain of the foreigners, 9 of the interviewees felt that we are indeed doing better in the international sports scene because of the foreign talents with 6 having expressed no particular inclination and none felt that we are doing worse. This is evident from the various achievements of Team Singapore in competitions such as the Southeast Asian games, All-England Badminton Tournament, and World Table-Tennis Grand Prix.
“For they have done well, whether it was Ronald Susilo making the quarter finals at the Athens Olympics or Jiang Yanmei and Li Yujia earning a Top 10 world ranking in the women's doubles. Then there were the encouraging performances of young players like Kendrick Lee and Xing Aiying. Our mixed doubles combination of Li and Hendri Kurniawan Saputra have also made their mark.
Best Performer
First a few words about Susilo. He was clearly the year's best performer among our players. Apart from winning the Japan Open, he also became the first Singaporean in 37 years to reach the semi-finals of the All-England championships. Then in Athens, he created a big upset by beating world No 1 Lin Dan of China in the opening round before losing to Thailand's Boonsak Ponsana in the quarter-finals.
Respectable Showings
Jiang and Li have clearly made god progress this year. Formed in the middle of last year, this doubles pair has proven to be a force, wining five small satellite victories and putting up respectable performances in the bigger Grand Prix events. For example, they reached the last eight of the five-star Denmark and Malaysia Opens and made the semi-finals at the two-star German and Taiwan Opens.”(http://www.teamsingapore.com.sg/main/detail.jsp?cat=1&a_id=5918&type=1&print=1)
Thus indeed the feelings of the interviewees are well founded. We have indeed done better because we are now in a better position in terms of sporting achievements many of which are achievements of foreign talents.
Locals versus foreign
Our survey has also revealed concerns of the interviewees that the foreign talents are doing better at the expense of local talents. Some believed that in importing foreign talents, the government is stifling local development due to negative competition. With the influx of foreign talents, resources are necessarily used as upkeep and also necessarily diverted to fund their trainings, instead of training local talents. Secondly, as more and more attention is placed on foreign talents, it is inevitable that local talents will be, to a certain degree, neglected. 11 out of the 15 interviewed felt that more emphasis should be placed on developing local talents. Local talents, they felt, should be the ones that form the backbone of Team Singapore’s achievements, instead of the foreign talents, as it is the case thus far.
This concern is however, not totally true. With the setting of the Sports School, the government has increased its effort in nurturing local talents to play a more significant part. They are trying to redirect local youth’s attention from good grades, better employment to include sporting achievements. That is not to say that good grades are not important, rather it is to give equal weightage to both academic and non-academic achievements. As 1 interviewee puts it, “with the Singapore Sports School, hopefully there will be more local talents that shine in the sporting arena.”
Mixed views
The most prominent conclusion from this survey is that while many of the interviewees exhibit a somewhat xenophobic attitude; they were unable to identify with the foreigners; they were not proud of their achievements; they were unsure of the foreign talents’ loyalty; they hold the prejudice that most of the foreign talents were not doing well in there own country; they felt that too much emphasis are on foreign talents and insufficient on local talents and so on.
They were unable to deny that the foreign talents contributed to the Singapore sports scene; both as players that basked in the lime lights, as well as “behind the stage” as coaches and other support roles. The foreign talents were also undeniably the ones that were raking in the medals and the awards.
Other than the mixed views amongst the low-level interviewees there are also mixed views between the interviewees and the government. From this survey and from research done on the issue of foreign talents, we can conclude a disparity and classic case of difference between top-down and bottom-up approach. The interviewees, on one hand, are less than supportive of the foreign talent scheme, the government, on the other hand, are the main proponents. In fact, without the government, there will be no foreign talent scheme. One of the most outward manifestations of this difference can be found in former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s National Rally in 2002, Remaking Singapore – Changing Mindsets,
“Last year, I spoke on the importance of attracting international talent to Singapore. This is crucial for our growth and development. I was therefore disturbed by the negative comments over our medal haul in the Commonwealth Games. Some Singaporeans claimed that they felt no pride in those achievements, because they were by foreign imports. These Singaporeans need to change their negative mindset. If we gripe, instead of honouring our foreign-born Singaporeans for their success, we are giving the wrong signal to other talent who want to make Singapore their home. Our table-tennis and badminton stars may have been born outside Singapore. But they have now all become Singapore citizens. Some have their families here, and have sunk roots here. They trained hard and played their hearts out for Singapore. They did us proud - first medals in the Commonwealth Games after 16 years; first gold medals after 40 years. How can anyone now be so ungracious, small-minded, and mean, to deride their success?”(http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/ndp2002/text_rally5.htm)
National identity
In the words of Former Prime Minister Goh, we are only a state, not yet a nation (Singapore Straits Times, 6 May 1999). This statement is put to the test when the interviewees seem to be putting up a united front against the foreign talents. Their reactions to the foreign talent scheme, are giving us a perception that seems to contrary to Mr. Goh’s beliefs. For if we are not a nation; we are not, on least on the psychological level, acting as one, then the interviewees would not have such an adverse view on foreign talents. Also, looking at the way they were worried about the stifling of young local talents, we can see the presence of a protective behavior. And this protective behaviour is to protect what we see as our own. It is precisely with the existence of a national identity that we can deem what is ‘in’ and what is ‘out’. In this case, the foreign talents are seen as ‘out”. Therefore, it can be deduced that a national identity might in fact exist.
Conclusion
From our studies, there are several points that we observed. The government’s policy of importing foreign talents is in fact a matter of concern for Singaporeans. There are several reasons for their concerns that we have raised in our essay. But most importantly, we can see that there is confusion between statehood and nationhood as well as the possible presence of a national identity. From the results of the survey, it may seem that Singaporeans are xenophobic, but what is important is the reason behind this perceived xenophobia. Is it a national identity, fear of competition or is it something else? What can be observed from this issue is that it is more of a struggle between the top-down and the bottom-up forces. The people might generally be against the importing of foreign talents, while the government is for. In our assignment’s feeble attempt to predict the future, we would say that there would not be too much of a change in terms of our policy of importing foreign talent as the top-down pressure is apparently stronger, given the government’s stronghold in Singapore’s politics.
Singapore is a cosmopolitan city that consists of more than 4 million people. Among this population of 4 million people, there are a significant number of foreigners, ranging from construction worker, maids to expatriates. This number of foreigners has been constantly increasing mainly due to the government policy of overtly importing foreign talents into Singapore. Among these foreigners, there is this group of sportsmen who are given Singapore citizenships in order for them to represent Singapore in international sports competitions. In our essay, we are going to examine how Singaporeans feel about these foreign sports talents playing for Singapore and why they feel this way. Do they treat these foreign sportsmen as fellow Singaporeans or do they just see them as tools that Singapore uses to achieve recognition in the international sports arena, vice versa. In order to gather the opinions of Singaporeans, we have drawn up a survey consisting of 16 questions that will help us in understanding the views of Singaporeans regarding our focus of research. And at the end of the essay, we will attempt feebly to state the significance of social change in Singapore society and predict what might happen in the future.
The method we used to conduct the survey was in person. The survey was done face to face with the 15 participants so that there would not be any misunderstandings and we would be there to explain those questions that our interviewees do not understand or are unclear about. A targeted group of young, well-educated Chinese Singaporeans were chosen to found out how this specific group reacts to the influx of foreign sports talent. Such a group was chosen as the requirements of the paper do not allow us to include the general view of all Singaporeans. To prevent the misconception that those interviewed represents the general view of Singaporeans, they were be referred to as the interviewees.
The foreign talent scheme
Before we start the analysis of how Singaporeans feel towards foreign sports talents, we feel a need to first give a brief introduction of the Foreign Talent Scheme (FTS). The Singapore government has in recent years attempt to improve Singapore’s standings in the international sporting arena. They are however keenly aware of the glaring problem that Singapore is facing; a lack of a huge enough population to produce enough local sports talent, or more importantly, a lack of sports talents. The foreign talent scheme is the government’s aggressive policy of courting foreign talents in order to support or boost our local ones. In the sports arena, it would refer to giving them citizenships for them to represent Singapore as “Singaporeans”. Under this foreign talent scheme, we see a continuation of the British policies of “bringing specific people from specific places to do specific jobs”; to harness the expertise of the various group of people. In the same way, the Singapore government brought in players from China to play table-tennis, players from Indonesia, a badminton power house, to play in our badminton team. An interesting observation of Singapore’s FTS is how the players imported were all from countries with a lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. The GDP per capita for China is $3600 while Indonesia is $2830 and Nigeria is $960. Singapore alone has a $26300 per annum GDP. From this, we can assume that monetary rewards form the basis for attracting these talents to Singapore.
Analysis
Nationhood versus Statehood
From our survey, we realized that all except one of our interviewees are aware of the presence of foreign legions in the Singapore national team. Most of them, 9 out of 15, however, do not agree to the government’s policy of giving away citizenship to these players just so that they can play in the Singapore jersey. But by granting them citizenship, is it possible that the government is letting the foreign talents represent Singapore as a member of the state, whereas in the eyes of the interviewees, the foreign talents are representing Singapore as a member of the nation, because they don the national emblems on their jerseys. In a way, these interviewees view citizenship as a representation of nationality. This tells us that they have a misconception, that they are confused about the idea of state- and nationhood.
Viewing them as our own
In that note, 11 out of 15 of the interviewees do not view the foreign talents as Singaporeans and 10 out of 15 are unable to fully identify themselves with the achievements of these foreign talents. One of the reasons cited were that even though they represent Singapore, these foreign talents were essentially not born in Singapore. This in turn tells us that the country of birth, in the eyes of the interviewees, is an important factor in determining the nationality of a people.
Others that did not cited place of birth as a primary reason believed that it is because these foreigners came as talents that their achievements were not ours. How so? The foreigners were chosen because they had displayed a certain level of skills. Even though after their arrival they were given substantial trainings, they were first and foremost trained in their original countries. So they were plying a trade that was not Singaporean in nature.
Symbol of allegiance
Many of the interviewees exhibit a prejudice that the foreign talents came because they were not doing well in their own country. And as mentioned above, the basis of attraction to Singapore seems to be monetary in nature. This is also evident in the promises of huge prize money by the government for achieving specific targets like high finishes or medals won. These forms of remunerations have led most of the interviewees to believe that the foreigners are merely mercenaries, pledging allegiance only to the dollar, instead of Singapore.
Some believed that the foreigners were looking for a better life and higher standard of living. If so, then there is no guarantee that they will stay and not jump onto the plane the very minute another country with a better offer comes knocking. Others are afraid that the foreigners are sojourners, that even as they are given permanent residency or citizenship, they are like the forefathers of Singapore, yearning to one day return to their homeland after earning enough. The interviewees’ sentiments are echoed by others:
“Just like most of the MNC that have left Singapore for more competitive countries, foreign talents could also one day leave Singapore for other more attractive destinations. Singapore, therefore, needs to count on its own people much more. While Singapore can offer carrots for foreign talents to come here, either for sports or work, these foreign talents are basically a materialistic lot as they ventured overseas for greener pastures. What is to stop them from moving out of Singapore once their grazing is done? Singapore lacks other natural resources, its people is the only resource it can tap and develop. Reliance on foreign talents can only go so far. Let us not forget that.” (http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=148)
Why else are they here?
These are however not all that was felt. According to the survey, there are some that felt that these foreigners came because of Singapore inherent attractiveness. We have a strong government that expresses openness and practices a welcoming policy; our economy and society is stable; our education system can provide their children with an all rounded development; our streets are safe with one of the lowest crime rates in the world:
“Singapore is blessed with a highly developed and successful free-market economy, a remarkably open and corruption-free business environment, stable prices, and the fifth highest per capita GDP in the world. Exports, particularly in electronics and chemicals, and services are the main drivers of the economy. The government promotes high levels of savings and investment through a mandatory savings scheme and spends heavily in education and technology. It also owns government-linked companies (GLCs) - particularly in manufacturing - that operate as commercial entities and account for 60% of GDP.”
These reasons, some feel, will make sure the foreign talents will come and stay. We are able to make them realize that there is not a place like Singapore and will therefore be willing to permanently settle down and be a through and through Singaporean. This view is enforced by one of the most locally-renowned foreign talent, paddler for the national team;
“I've been in Singapore for more than 12 years, I married a local and I'm the mother of a four-year-old Singapore boy, I've been proud and happy all these years but, every now and then, there will be some who will bring up these questions of loyalty and citizenship. Really, what can I say? Is there any way of proving myself? Is there a test I can take?” - Jing Jun Hong (http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/031214a1.htm)
Better or worse
Despite their disdain of the foreigners, 9 of the interviewees felt that we are indeed doing better in the international sports scene because of the foreign talents with 6 having expressed no particular inclination and none felt that we are doing worse. This is evident from the various achievements of Team Singapore in competitions such as the Southeast Asian games, All-England Badminton Tournament, and World Table-Tennis Grand Prix.
“For they have done well, whether it was Ronald Susilo making the quarter finals at the Athens Olympics or Jiang Yanmei and Li Yujia earning a Top 10 world ranking in the women's doubles. Then there were the encouraging performances of young players like Kendrick Lee and Xing Aiying. Our mixed doubles combination of Li and Hendri Kurniawan Saputra have also made their mark.
Best Performer
First a few words about Susilo. He was clearly the year's best performer among our players. Apart from winning the Japan Open, he also became the first Singaporean in 37 years to reach the semi-finals of the All-England championships. Then in Athens, he created a big upset by beating world No 1 Lin Dan of China in the opening round before losing to Thailand's Boonsak Ponsana in the quarter-finals.
Respectable Showings
Jiang and Li have clearly made god progress this year. Formed in the middle of last year, this doubles pair has proven to be a force, wining five small satellite victories and putting up respectable performances in the bigger Grand Prix events. For example, they reached the last eight of the five-star Denmark and Malaysia Opens and made the semi-finals at the two-star German and Taiwan Opens.”(http://www.teamsingapore.com.sg/main/detail.jsp?cat=1&a_id=5918&type=1&print=1)
Thus indeed the feelings of the interviewees are well founded. We have indeed done better because we are now in a better position in terms of sporting achievements many of which are achievements of foreign talents.
Locals versus foreign
Our survey has also revealed concerns of the interviewees that the foreign talents are doing better at the expense of local talents. Some believed that in importing foreign talents, the government is stifling local development due to negative competition. With the influx of foreign talents, resources are necessarily used as upkeep and also necessarily diverted to fund their trainings, instead of training local talents. Secondly, as more and more attention is placed on foreign talents, it is inevitable that local talents will be, to a certain degree, neglected. 11 out of the 15 interviewed felt that more emphasis should be placed on developing local talents. Local talents, they felt, should be the ones that form the backbone of Team Singapore’s achievements, instead of the foreign talents, as it is the case thus far.
This concern is however, not totally true. With the setting of the Sports School, the government has increased its effort in nurturing local talents to play a more significant part. They are trying to redirect local youth’s attention from good grades, better employment to include sporting achievements. That is not to say that good grades are not important, rather it is to give equal weightage to both academic and non-academic achievements. As 1 interviewee puts it, “with the Singapore Sports School, hopefully there will be more local talents that shine in the sporting arena.”
Mixed views
The most prominent conclusion from this survey is that while many of the interviewees exhibit a somewhat xenophobic attitude; they were unable to identify with the foreigners; they were not proud of their achievements; they were unsure of the foreign talents’ loyalty; they hold the prejudice that most of the foreign talents were not doing well in there own country; they felt that too much emphasis are on foreign talents and insufficient on local talents and so on.
They were unable to deny that the foreign talents contributed to the Singapore sports scene; both as players that basked in the lime lights, as well as “behind the stage” as coaches and other support roles. The foreign talents were also undeniably the ones that were raking in the medals and the awards.
Other than the mixed views amongst the low-level interviewees there are also mixed views between the interviewees and the government. From this survey and from research done on the issue of foreign talents, we can conclude a disparity and classic case of difference between top-down and bottom-up approach. The interviewees, on one hand, are less than supportive of the foreign talent scheme, the government, on the other hand, are the main proponents. In fact, without the government, there will be no foreign talent scheme. One of the most outward manifestations of this difference can be found in former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s National Rally in 2002, Remaking Singapore – Changing Mindsets,
“Last year, I spoke on the importance of attracting international talent to Singapore. This is crucial for our growth and development. I was therefore disturbed by the negative comments over our medal haul in the Commonwealth Games. Some Singaporeans claimed that they felt no pride in those achievements, because they were by foreign imports. These Singaporeans need to change their negative mindset. If we gripe, instead of honouring our foreign-born Singaporeans for their success, we are giving the wrong signal to other talent who want to make Singapore their home. Our table-tennis and badminton stars may have been born outside Singapore. But they have now all become Singapore citizens. Some have their families here, and have sunk roots here. They trained hard and played their hearts out for Singapore. They did us proud - first medals in the Commonwealth Games after 16 years; first gold medals after 40 years. How can anyone now be so ungracious, small-minded, and mean, to deride their success?”(http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/ndp2002/text_rally5.htm)
National identity
In the words of Former Prime Minister Goh, we are only a state, not yet a nation (Singapore Straits Times, 6 May 1999). This statement is put to the test when the interviewees seem to be putting up a united front against the foreign talents. Their reactions to the foreign talent scheme, are giving us a perception that seems to contrary to Mr. Goh’s beliefs. For if we are not a nation; we are not, on least on the psychological level, acting as one, then the interviewees would not have such an adverse view on foreign talents. Also, looking at the way they were worried about the stifling of young local talents, we can see the presence of a protective behavior. And this protective behaviour is to protect what we see as our own. It is precisely with the existence of a national identity that we can deem what is ‘in’ and what is ‘out’. In this case, the foreign talents are seen as ‘out”. Therefore, it can be deduced that a national identity might in fact exist.
Conclusion
From our studies, there are several points that we observed. The government’s policy of importing foreign talents is in fact a matter of concern for Singaporeans. There are several reasons for their concerns that we have raised in our essay. But most importantly, we can see that there is confusion between statehood and nationhood as well as the possible presence of a national identity. From the results of the survey, it may seem that Singaporeans are xenophobic, but what is important is the reason behind this perceived xenophobia. Is it a national identity, fear of competition or is it something else? What can be observed from this issue is that it is more of a struggle between the top-down and the bottom-up forces. The people might generally be against the importing of foreign talents, while the government is for. In our assignment’s feeble attempt to predict the future, we would say that there would not be too much of a change in terms of our policy of importing foreign talent as the top-down pressure is apparently stronger, given the government’s stronghold in Singapore’s politics.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Why do the Danes, Swedes and British stay out of the EMU?
Introduction
The European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) is an integral part of the European Union (EU). As of now, following the latest enlargement in 2004, there are 25 members in the EU, with 12 of them in the EMU. The 10 new members have yet to join the EMU but have “are all committed to joining the euro once they meet the entry requirements” ; Britain and Denmark chose to stay out of the EMU with the “opt-out” option that they negotiated for at the Treaty of European Union of the Maastricht revision; Sweden, though “not been formally granted the right to remain outside EMU” , has chose not to participate in the EMU via a national referendum. 1 important point to note is that non-participation in the EMU do not always refer to total non-participation, for example, in the case of Britain which is in the 1st 2 phases of the EMU, but not yet in the last and final phase. But for the purpose of discussion, the EMU mentioned in this essay will come to mean both the EMU as a whole and also the final phase. We will, through this essay, try to investigate why these 3 countries chose to stay out of the EMU, which includes political, economic and social reasons.
The Economic and Monetary Union
A simple definition of an economic and monetary union is the highest level of economic cooperation between countries. It consist of a free trade area with common external tariffs, internal standards and movement of goods, services, finances, people as well as, most significantly, a single currency.
The idea of a European EMU was materialized in the Madrid European Council in 1989, as proposed by then European Commission President, Jacques Delors. It was a necessary step as there was increasing interdependence in the European trade with the development of a European single market. “The Delors report set out a plan to introduce the EMU in three stages and it included the creation of institutions like the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), which would become responsible for formulating and implementing monetary policy. The three stages for the implementation of the EMU were the following:
Stage One: 1st July 1990 to 31st December 1993
The Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 establishes EMU as a formal objective and sets a number of economic convergence criteria, concerning the inflation rate, public finances, interest rates and exchange rate stability. The treaty enters into force on the 1st November 1993.
Stage Two: 1st January 1994 to 31st December 1998
The European Monetary Institute is established as the forerunner of the European Central Bank, with the task of strengthening monetary cooperation between the member states and their national banks, as well as supervising ECU banknotes. In 16th December 1995, details such as the name of the new currency (the Euro) as well as the duration of the transition periods are decided. In 16-17 June 1997, the European Council decides at Amsterdam to adopt the Stability and Growth Pact, designed to ensure budgetary discipline after creation of the Euro, and a new exchange rate mechanism (ERM II) is set up to provide stability between the Euro and the national currencies of countries that won't yet have entered the Eurozone. In 1st June 1998, the European Central Bank (ECB) is created, and in 31 December 1998, the conversion rates between the 11 participating national currencies and the Euro are established.
Stage Three: 1st January 1999 and continuing
From the start of 1999, the Euro is now a real currency, and a single monetary policy is introduced under the authority of the ECB. A three year transition period begins before the introduction of actual Euro notes and coins, but legally the national currencies have already ceased to exist. The Euro notes and coins are finally introduced at January 2002.”
Why is Britain not in the EMU?
Britain is 1 of the 2 countries, beside Denmark, to have the choice of opting out of the EMU. This choice was negotiated by the Conservative Party which was in power during the signing of the Maastricht treaty. This decision to negotiate an “opt-out” option was motivated by political as well as economic concerns.
Politically speaking, Britain was always not in favour of integrating with Europe. This view was upheld since the time of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who in his speech at the Zurich University in 1946 called for a “United States of Europe” that “excluded Britain…and thus reflecting an ambiguity toward Europe that remains strong in Britain today” .
Secondly, as shown by a poll in a public opinion poll done by The Economist in 1999, the people of Britain do not identify with Europe as much as they do with the flag of the Union Jack. This has led to reservations by the government as to whether they should hold a national referendum to join the EMU, which greatly signifies a deeper integration with the rest of Europe.
Thirdly, Britain had join the European Union as a mean of checking Franco-German influence in Europe and using Europe as a tool to serve British interest. Further integration, especially with the presence of European instituitions such as the European Commission and the European Central Bank, there is, at present, a question over the loss of national sovereignty.
Economic-speaking, joining the EMU will mean entering into a union of common currency, fixed exchange rates and interest rates. Rates adjustments have always been a tool for fixing domestic economic problems. Exchange rates adjustment can be used for corrections of external imbalances while interest rates adjustments can be deployed to stimulate consumer spending. But with the surrender of control over rates controls, economists have pointed out that “western Europe is not yet an optimum currency area where the gains from a common currency can outweigh the losses resulting from the abandonment of the exchange rate as a policy instrument for the correction of external balances”
But Britain has expressed its desire to join the EMU. Stating economics concerns as the reasons of its reservations, it came up with a test of 5 criteria which it must pass before it will hold a referendum that will once again decide whether it will go ahead with the single currency. The 5 criteria:
1) Convergence with Eurozone
2) Enough flexibility to adapt
3) Impact on jobs
4) Impact on financial services
5) Impact on foreign investments
according to the Labour government, has not been met.
“The chancellor announced in June that the UK had yet to meet his five economic tests for joining the single currency.” -- Gordon Brown
Why is Denmark not in the EMU?
Denmark’s politics has a tradition of being highly influenced by public opinions. Over the divided issue of both joining the EU and the EMU, public opinions had held the final say.
“At the 1986 referendum about the European Single Act - which in reality became a new membership referendum - 56.2% voted in favour. The membership issue thus disappeared from the political agenda and the debate instead turned to the substance and implications of membership, primarily in the light of the so called ‘union process’. This problem was dramatically expressed in June 1992, when a tenuous majority of 50.7% rejected the Maastricht Treaty about the European Union.” Therefore, one of the key reasons that resulted in Denmark staying out of the EMU is the lack of public support. Danish opposition were in some sense similar to British opposition. Both countries were afraid of the loss of national sovereignty. The Danish currency, the Krone was “regarded as a symbol of national independence”. Joining the common currency, in that case, is seem as a more than serious blow to the danish sovereignty.
Other than sovereignty, the Danes also have another concern; the erosion of the Danish welfare system. Denmark is one of the first countries to establish a comprehensive public welfare system. “The Danish welfare model is subsidised by the state, as a result Denmark has one of the highest taxation levels in the world.” If they were to allow external influences on their economic policies, they are afraid of a possible collapse of the welfare system.
Why is Sweden not in the EMU?
Sweden, though not granted formal opt-out rights like Denmark and Britain, had stayed out of the EMU. Like Denmark, Sweden too had a national referendum that opposed to joining the EMU. “The vote against EMU in the north Sweden was extraordinarily strong. Even in Umeå, a relatively prosperous university town that voted for joining the EU in 1994, two-thirds of voters was against the euro.”
Other than a national referendum, the Swedes conducted a government report that was which focused on the political and economic aspects of EMU. The report findings are, in short, as such:
1) Economic gains of joining the EMU are small though certain
2) Economic arguments did not currently favour Swedish participation while the political arguments did.
Common grounds for the 3 countries
Though a different aspect was highlighted for each of the countries, it is important to note that all these aspects are non exclusive. The same reasons, more often than not can be applied across the board. Like Sweden, Britain and Denmark too have economic considerations regarding participation in the EMU; especially Britain, where the pound remains to this day, one of the strongest currencies in the world.
Likewise, all 3 countries are concerned with the issue of national sovereignty. This is even more so in Europe, where the idea of nationalism was conceived and where the various powers had for years enjoyed the status of imperial masters.
Conclusion
As more and more countries are included into the European Community, the adverse political repercussions as the outsiders will take its toll on the 3 countries. Increased participation in Europe will soon depend on whether a “United States of Europe” will materialise or not. If Europe were to fail eventually, then, by staying out of the EMU, Britain, Denmark and Sweden will be saved from the consequent economic crisis, or at least be less affected. However, if “Europe” were to succeed, then the delay in joining the EMU will only place them in a disadvantageous position within the European community.
The European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) is an integral part of the European Union (EU). As of now, following the latest enlargement in 2004, there are 25 members in the EU, with 12 of them in the EMU. The 10 new members have yet to join the EMU but have “are all committed to joining the euro once they meet the entry requirements” ; Britain and Denmark chose to stay out of the EMU with the “opt-out” option that they negotiated for at the Treaty of European Union of the Maastricht revision; Sweden, though “not been formally granted the right to remain outside EMU” , has chose not to participate in the EMU via a national referendum. 1 important point to note is that non-participation in the EMU do not always refer to total non-participation, for example, in the case of Britain which is in the 1st 2 phases of the EMU, but not yet in the last and final phase. But for the purpose of discussion, the EMU mentioned in this essay will come to mean both the EMU as a whole and also the final phase. We will, through this essay, try to investigate why these 3 countries chose to stay out of the EMU, which includes political, economic and social reasons.
The Economic and Monetary Union
A simple definition of an economic and monetary union is the highest level of economic cooperation between countries. It consist of a free trade area with common external tariffs, internal standards and movement of goods, services, finances, people as well as, most significantly, a single currency.
The idea of a European EMU was materialized in the Madrid European Council in 1989, as proposed by then European Commission President, Jacques Delors. It was a necessary step as there was increasing interdependence in the European trade with the development of a European single market. “The Delors report set out a plan to introduce the EMU in three stages and it included the creation of institutions like the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), which would become responsible for formulating and implementing monetary policy. The three stages for the implementation of the EMU were the following:
Stage One: 1st July 1990 to 31st December 1993
The Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 establishes EMU as a formal objective and sets a number of economic convergence criteria, concerning the inflation rate, public finances, interest rates and exchange rate stability. The treaty enters into force on the 1st November 1993.
Stage Two: 1st January 1994 to 31st December 1998
The European Monetary Institute is established as the forerunner of the European Central Bank, with the task of strengthening monetary cooperation between the member states and their national banks, as well as supervising ECU banknotes. In 16th December 1995, details such as the name of the new currency (the Euro) as well as the duration of the transition periods are decided. In 16-17 June 1997, the European Council decides at Amsterdam to adopt the Stability and Growth Pact, designed to ensure budgetary discipline after creation of the Euro, and a new exchange rate mechanism (ERM II) is set up to provide stability between the Euro and the national currencies of countries that won't yet have entered the Eurozone. In 1st June 1998, the European Central Bank (ECB) is created, and in 31 December 1998, the conversion rates between the 11 participating national currencies and the Euro are established.
Stage Three: 1st January 1999 and continuing
From the start of 1999, the Euro is now a real currency, and a single monetary policy is introduced under the authority of the ECB. A three year transition period begins before the introduction of actual Euro notes and coins, but legally the national currencies have already ceased to exist. The Euro notes and coins are finally introduced at January 2002.”
Why is Britain not in the EMU?
Britain is 1 of the 2 countries, beside Denmark, to have the choice of opting out of the EMU. This choice was negotiated by the Conservative Party which was in power during the signing of the Maastricht treaty. This decision to negotiate an “opt-out” option was motivated by political as well as economic concerns.
Politically speaking, Britain was always not in favour of integrating with Europe. This view was upheld since the time of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who in his speech at the Zurich University in 1946 called for a “United States of Europe” that “excluded Britain…and thus reflecting an ambiguity toward Europe that remains strong in Britain today” .
Secondly, as shown by a poll in a public opinion poll done by The Economist in 1999, the people of Britain do not identify with Europe as much as they do with the flag of the Union Jack. This has led to reservations by the government as to whether they should hold a national referendum to join the EMU, which greatly signifies a deeper integration with the rest of Europe.
Thirdly, Britain had join the European Union as a mean of checking Franco-German influence in Europe and using Europe as a tool to serve British interest. Further integration, especially with the presence of European instituitions such as the European Commission and the European Central Bank, there is, at present, a question over the loss of national sovereignty.
Economic-speaking, joining the EMU will mean entering into a union of common currency, fixed exchange rates and interest rates. Rates adjustments have always been a tool for fixing domestic economic problems. Exchange rates adjustment can be used for corrections of external imbalances while interest rates adjustments can be deployed to stimulate consumer spending. But with the surrender of control over rates controls, economists have pointed out that “western Europe is not yet an optimum currency area where the gains from a common currency can outweigh the losses resulting from the abandonment of the exchange rate as a policy instrument for the correction of external balances”
But Britain has expressed its desire to join the EMU. Stating economics concerns as the reasons of its reservations, it came up with a test of 5 criteria which it must pass before it will hold a referendum that will once again decide whether it will go ahead with the single currency. The 5 criteria:
1) Convergence with Eurozone
2) Enough flexibility to adapt
3) Impact on jobs
4) Impact on financial services
5) Impact on foreign investments
according to the Labour government, has not been met.
“The chancellor announced in June that the UK had yet to meet his five economic tests for joining the single currency.” -- Gordon Brown
Why is Denmark not in the EMU?
Denmark’s politics has a tradition of being highly influenced by public opinions. Over the divided issue of both joining the EU and the EMU, public opinions had held the final say.
“At the 1986 referendum about the European Single Act - which in reality became a new membership referendum - 56.2% voted in favour. The membership issue thus disappeared from the political agenda and the debate instead turned to the substance and implications of membership, primarily in the light of the so called ‘union process’. This problem was dramatically expressed in June 1992, when a tenuous majority of 50.7% rejected the Maastricht Treaty about the European Union.” Therefore, one of the key reasons that resulted in Denmark staying out of the EMU is the lack of public support. Danish opposition were in some sense similar to British opposition. Both countries were afraid of the loss of national sovereignty. The Danish currency, the Krone was “regarded as a symbol of national independence”. Joining the common currency, in that case, is seem as a more than serious blow to the danish sovereignty.
Other than sovereignty, the Danes also have another concern; the erosion of the Danish welfare system. Denmark is one of the first countries to establish a comprehensive public welfare system. “The Danish welfare model is subsidised by the state, as a result Denmark has one of the highest taxation levels in the world.” If they were to allow external influences on their economic policies, they are afraid of a possible collapse of the welfare system.
Why is Sweden not in the EMU?
Sweden, though not granted formal opt-out rights like Denmark and Britain, had stayed out of the EMU. Like Denmark, Sweden too had a national referendum that opposed to joining the EMU. “The vote against EMU in the north Sweden was extraordinarily strong. Even in Umeå, a relatively prosperous university town that voted for joining the EU in 1994, two-thirds of voters was against the euro.”
Other than a national referendum, the Swedes conducted a government report that was which focused on the political and economic aspects of EMU. The report findings are, in short, as such:
1) Economic gains of joining the EMU are small though certain
2) Economic arguments did not currently favour Swedish participation while the political arguments did.
Common grounds for the 3 countries
Though a different aspect was highlighted for each of the countries, it is important to note that all these aspects are non exclusive. The same reasons, more often than not can be applied across the board. Like Sweden, Britain and Denmark too have economic considerations regarding participation in the EMU; especially Britain, where the pound remains to this day, one of the strongest currencies in the world.
Likewise, all 3 countries are concerned with the issue of national sovereignty. This is even more so in Europe, where the idea of nationalism was conceived and where the various powers had for years enjoyed the status of imperial masters.
Conclusion
As more and more countries are included into the European Community, the adverse political repercussions as the outsiders will take its toll on the 3 countries. Increased participation in Europe will soon depend on whether a “United States of Europe” will materialise or not. If Europe were to fail eventually, then, by staying out of the EMU, Britain, Denmark and Sweden will be saved from the consequent economic crisis, or at least be less affected. However, if “Europe” were to succeed, then the delay in joining the EMU will only place them in a disadvantageous position within the European community.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Essay about the "Social Contract"
What is a ‘social contract’? What powers did the social contract theorists give to the state and how convincing is the theory in explaining the origins of the state?
In Political Science, the social contract theory has been used to explain the formation of the State. Though a social contract type argument was used by Greek philosopher Socrates as early as 5th century B.C, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory . Other than defining a ‘social contract’, this essay will attempt to analyse, and explore the possible inadequacies of the theory as interpreted by the 3 theorists.
“The social contract, as a political theory, explains the origin and purpose of the state, and of human rights.”
A social contract is a voluntary agreement made amongst individuals . It is formulated in an attempt to bring about law and order, and organisation to a previously ‘stateless’ society, believed by the theorists to be of chaos, violence and general unpleasantness. Under the social contract, the citizens of the newfound state submit themselves to the authority of a ruler or a group of rulers in exchange for stability and peace. Under different interpretations of the contract by various theorists, this power and authority can either be absolute or further subjected to the scrutiny of the people.
According to Thomas Hobbes, the state, headed by an absolute monarch, therefore has absolute powers. While the people under the contract surrender all their rights, including the right to revolt, the ruler in turn owe the people nothing save the need to govern. Governance in this sense equate to maintaining law and order and the resolution of conflicts. Hobbes’ theory of the origins of the state complements his allocation of power to the ruler.
In his theory, Hobbes described men as self-serving individuals who only came together for fear of losing their lives. For in the stateless society, without a higher power to protect them, men driven by greed will hurt, and be hurt by others. Therefore to protect themselves, they, being also rational men, came up with the social contract through which rights are given up in exchange for the safeguarding of their well-being. And only by giving in to absolutism, can the people have effective protection from the ruler, giving rise to the establishment of a state.
There are however, contest points in his version of the origins of the state. Firstly, given the possibility of a harsh life under a not-so-benevolent monarch, it is unlikely that men as Hobbes perceived to be be willing to give up all their rights. Secondly, Hobbes’ image of men seemed to be biased. According to him, men were solely influenced by their self-interest, in all circumstances. This notion ignored all possibility of a men’s care and concern for others, be it their kins or otherwise. Therefore, Hobbes social contract theory is though probable, does not seem to account for the origins of the state.
The second theorist to be examined is John Locke. Locke’s social contract theory was less unilateral than Hobbes’, in that he gives the people the right to depose a ruler that was not fulfilling his duties or had turned tyrannical. Hence, even though the ruler was allocated enormous power, he was still limited by his own level of competence and benevolence.
The pre-state era in Locke’s view, were similar to Hobbes’ in that people had free will and rights. The difference between them is that these people acted less out of fear than out of a sense of practicality in the formulation of a social contract. In his view, as the people subject themselves to the laws and decrees of the monarch, they in turn gain protection and freedom. Also, both the monarch and the people are obliged to serve each another’s interest. Its bilateralism allows for the people through uprising, to dethrone an unsatisfactory ruler.
Locke’s view appeared more convincing than Hobbes’ theory in explaining the origins of the state because he offers a less radical view. In his supposed state of nature, rationality other than desires play a big part in the characteristics of people. It is exactly this rationality brings about the congregation of people to form a state.
What both Hobbes and Locke fails to explain is how a monarch is chosen. Since the position of a monarch enjoys such power, as we have seen in history, and since men were self-serving individuals, then it would naturally result in people fighting to be the ruler so as to be in a position where they can most exploit others to their advantage.
Following this, Rousseau on the surface credits the state with little power, given that much of the decision making requires the coming together of the population. But further investigation would reveal otherwise. In a situtation of absolute democracy, the people are the state. Thus when power is decentralised in the hands of the people, it would follow that the state enjoy highly centralised power.
Rousseau’s beginning of the state is a more pleasant place where people live in freedom and a society without structure. These people, in contrast to Hobbes and Locke, were generous and of kind nature. He reasoned that ‘it was the so-called process of civilisation, itself, that created the phenomena of greed, lust and violence that so beset society both in his time and in our own.’ Society according to him had degenerated so much so that a new order is necessary to replace that which had rotten. This is where Rousseau’s theory stands out in that he did not specify a monarch that was to rule over the rest. Instead, Rousseau’s interpretation of the social contract as that of absolute democracy, in that the people were to come together and debate over an issue concerning all and that the opinions of the majority, termed the ‘General Will’, would be adapted as the law.
The counter-arguments to Rousseau’s theory are that, one, in order for it to be possible for all members of the state to participate in the passing of the ‘General Will’, the state cannot be too big. That is to say that each state can only have a limited population size. Also, Rousseau did not specify in his works, the origins of the process of civilisation.
To sum up, neither of the social contract theorist had managed to accurately give an account of the origins of the state. Each appeared to be more concern with finding a justification for the political scenario of their time. There are redeeming points however, in that, by a consummation of their arguments, we might be able to get a glimpse of the true beginning of the idea of the state. Also, it is an undeniable fact that their works laid the foundation for the establishment of many of the world’s constitutions and political science theories.
In Political Science, the social contract theory has been used to explain the formation of the State. Though a social contract type argument was used by Greek philosopher Socrates as early as 5th century B.C, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory . Other than defining a ‘social contract’, this essay will attempt to analyse, and explore the possible inadequacies of the theory as interpreted by the 3 theorists.
“The social contract, as a political theory, explains the origin and purpose of the state, and of human rights.”
A social contract is a voluntary agreement made amongst individuals . It is formulated in an attempt to bring about law and order, and organisation to a previously ‘stateless’ society, believed by the theorists to be of chaos, violence and general unpleasantness. Under the social contract, the citizens of the newfound state submit themselves to the authority of a ruler or a group of rulers in exchange for stability and peace. Under different interpretations of the contract by various theorists, this power and authority can either be absolute or further subjected to the scrutiny of the people.
According to Thomas Hobbes, the state, headed by an absolute monarch, therefore has absolute powers. While the people under the contract surrender all their rights, including the right to revolt, the ruler in turn owe the people nothing save the need to govern. Governance in this sense equate to maintaining law and order and the resolution of conflicts. Hobbes’ theory of the origins of the state complements his allocation of power to the ruler.
In his theory, Hobbes described men as self-serving individuals who only came together for fear of losing their lives. For in the stateless society, without a higher power to protect them, men driven by greed will hurt, and be hurt by others. Therefore to protect themselves, they, being also rational men, came up with the social contract through which rights are given up in exchange for the safeguarding of their well-being. And only by giving in to absolutism, can the people have effective protection from the ruler, giving rise to the establishment of a state.
There are however, contest points in his version of the origins of the state. Firstly, given the possibility of a harsh life under a not-so-benevolent monarch, it is unlikely that men as Hobbes perceived to be be willing to give up all their rights. Secondly, Hobbes’ image of men seemed to be biased. According to him, men were solely influenced by their self-interest, in all circumstances. This notion ignored all possibility of a men’s care and concern for others, be it their kins or otherwise. Therefore, Hobbes social contract theory is though probable, does not seem to account for the origins of the state.
The second theorist to be examined is John Locke. Locke’s social contract theory was less unilateral than Hobbes’, in that he gives the people the right to depose a ruler that was not fulfilling his duties or had turned tyrannical. Hence, even though the ruler was allocated enormous power, he was still limited by his own level of competence and benevolence.
The pre-state era in Locke’s view, were similar to Hobbes’ in that people had free will and rights. The difference between them is that these people acted less out of fear than out of a sense of practicality in the formulation of a social contract. In his view, as the people subject themselves to the laws and decrees of the monarch, they in turn gain protection and freedom. Also, both the monarch and the people are obliged to serve each another’s interest. Its bilateralism allows for the people through uprising, to dethrone an unsatisfactory ruler.
Locke’s view appeared more convincing than Hobbes’ theory in explaining the origins of the state because he offers a less radical view. In his supposed state of nature, rationality other than desires play a big part in the characteristics of people. It is exactly this rationality brings about the congregation of people to form a state.
What both Hobbes and Locke fails to explain is how a monarch is chosen. Since the position of a monarch enjoys such power, as we have seen in history, and since men were self-serving individuals, then it would naturally result in people fighting to be the ruler so as to be in a position where they can most exploit others to their advantage.
Following this, Rousseau on the surface credits the state with little power, given that much of the decision making requires the coming together of the population. But further investigation would reveal otherwise. In a situtation of absolute democracy, the people are the state. Thus when power is decentralised in the hands of the people, it would follow that the state enjoy highly centralised power.
Rousseau’s beginning of the state is a more pleasant place where people live in freedom and a society without structure. These people, in contrast to Hobbes and Locke, were generous and of kind nature. He reasoned that ‘it was the so-called process of civilisation, itself, that created the phenomena of greed, lust and violence that so beset society both in his time and in our own.’ Society according to him had degenerated so much so that a new order is necessary to replace that which had rotten. This is where Rousseau’s theory stands out in that he did not specify a monarch that was to rule over the rest. Instead, Rousseau’s interpretation of the social contract as that of absolute democracy, in that the people were to come together and debate over an issue concerning all and that the opinions of the majority, termed the ‘General Will’, would be adapted as the law.
The counter-arguments to Rousseau’s theory are that, one, in order for it to be possible for all members of the state to participate in the passing of the ‘General Will’, the state cannot be too big. That is to say that each state can only have a limited population size. Also, Rousseau did not specify in his works, the origins of the process of civilisation.
To sum up, neither of the social contract theorist had managed to accurately give an account of the origins of the state. Each appeared to be more concern with finding a justification for the political scenario of their time. There are redeeming points however, in that, by a consummation of their arguments, we might be able to get a glimpse of the true beginning of the idea of the state. Also, it is an undeniable fact that their works laid the foundation for the establishment of many of the world’s constitutions and political science theories.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Top Gun
Here's some from my favourite: "Top Gun"
Damn there's so many i don't know which ones to choose!
Tagline: Up there with the best of the best.
I feel the need, the need for speed.
Iceman: You two really are cowboys.
Maverick: What's your problem, Kazanski?
Iceman: You're everyone's problem. That's because every time you go up in the air, you're unsafe. I don't like you because you're dangerous.
Maverick: That's right! Ice... man. I am dangerous.
[Charlie and Mav talking about a MiG28]
Charlie: Where did you see this?
Maverick: Uh, that's classified.
Charlie: It's what?
Maverick: It's classified. I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
[During practice]
Wolfman: Holy shit, it's Viper!
Goose: Viper's up here, great... oh shit...
Maverick: Great, he's probably saying, "Holy shit, it's Maverick and Goose."
Goose: Yeah, I'm sure he's saying that.
[On the best of the best]
Viper: In case some of you are wondering who the best is they are up here on this plaque.
[turns to Maverick]
Viper: Do you think your name will be on that plaque?
Maverick: Yes sir.
Viper: That's pretty arrogant considering the company here, don't you think?
Maverick: Yes sir.
Viper: I like that in a pilot.
Maverick: That son of a bitch cut me off!
Stinger: Maverick, you just did an incredibly brave thing. What you should have done was land your plane! you don't own that plane, the tax payers do! Son, your ego is writing checks your body can't cash. You've been busted, you lost your qualifications as section leader three times, put in hack twice by me, with a history of high speed passes over five air control towers, and one admiral's daughter!
Goose: Penny Benjamin?
[Maverick shrugs]
[watching a video of planes being shot down]
Hollywood: This gives me a hard on.
Wolfman: Don't tease me.
[Discussing Maverick]
Viper: Let me ask you something, if you had to go into battle, would you want him on your side?
Jester: I don't know, I just don't know
Carole: Hey Goose you big stud!
Goose: That's me, honey.
Carole: Take me to bed or lose me forever.
Goose: Show me the way home, honey.
Slider: Goose who's butt did you kiss to get in here anyway?
Goose: The list is long, but distinguished.
Slider: Yeah, well so is my Johnson.
Goose: The defense department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid.
Iceman: The plaque for the alternates is down in the ladies room.
Maverick: This is what I call a target rich environment.
Goose: You live your life between your legs Mav.
Maverick: Goose, even you could get laid in a place like this.
Goose: Hell, I'd be happy to just find a girl that would talk dirty to me.
Maverick: [spots Charlie for the first time] She's lost that loving feeling.
Goose: She's lo...
[catches up]
Goose: No she hasn't.
Maverick: Yes she has.
Goose: [objecting] She's not lost that lo...
Maverick: Goose, she's lost it man.
[walks off]
Goose: [to Mav] Come on!
[to himself]
Goose: Aw sh... I hate it when she does that.
Maverick: I feel the need...
Maverick, Goose: ...the need for speed!
Maverick: You don't have time to think up there. If you think, you're dead.
Iceman: You can be my wingman any time.
Maverick: Bullshit! You can be mine.
Stinger: They gave you your choice of duty son, anything, anywhere. Do you believe that shit? Where do you think you wanna go?
Maverick: I thought of being an instructor, sir.
Stinger: Top Gun?
Maverick: Yes, sir.
Stinger: God help us.
Goose: No. No, Mav, this is not a good idea.
Maverick: Sorry Goose, but it's time to buzz a tower.
Goose: Come on, Mav, do some of that pilot shit!
Merlin: What are you doing? You're slowing down, you're slowing down!
Maverick: I'm bringing him in closer, Merlin.
Merlin: You're gonna do WHAT?
[Flying above MiG upside down]
Goose: Is this your idea of fun, Mav?
[Charlie has just given Maverick her address while pretending to turn down his date offer]
Slider: Crashed and burned! Huh, Mav?
Maverick: Hey, Slider.
[sniffs]
Maverick: You stink!
Charlie: Listen, can I ask you a personal question?
Maverick: That depends.
Charlie: Are you a good pilot?
Maverick: I can hold my own.
Charlie: Great, then I won't have to worry about you making your living as a singer.
Maverick: I'm going to need a beer to put these flames out. Yo! Great Mav, real slick.
Carole: God, he loved flying with you Maverick. But he would've done it anyway... without you. He'd have hated it, but he would've done it.
Maverick: Communicating. Keeping up foreign relations. You know, giving him the bird!
Goose: [Charlie looks puzzled, so Goose clarifies] You know, the finger
[gestures appropriately]
Charlie: Yes, I know the finger, Goose.
Goose: I-I'm sorry, I hate it when it does that, I'm sorry. Excuse me.
Goose: It's the bottom of the 9th, the score is tied its time for the big one.
Iceman: You up for this one, Maverick?
Maverick: Just a walk in the park Kazansky.
Maverick: I can see it's dangerous for you, but if the government trusts me, maybe you could.
Charlie: It takes a lot more than just fancy flying.
[to Maverick after the last dogfight]
Stinger: How's it feel to be on the front page of every newspaper in the english-speaking world, even though the other side denies the incident? Congratulations.
[Iceman shoots down a MiG]
Slider: Splash that sucker, yeah!
Maverick: Damn, this guy's good!
Viper: Damn, this kid is good!
Damn there's so many i don't know which ones to choose!
Tagline: Up there with the best of the best.
I feel the need, the need for speed.
Iceman: You two really are cowboys.
Maverick: What's your problem, Kazanski?
Iceman: You're everyone's problem. That's because every time you go up in the air, you're unsafe. I don't like you because you're dangerous.
Maverick: That's right! Ice... man. I am dangerous.
[Charlie and Mav talking about a MiG28]
Charlie: Where did you see this?
Maverick: Uh, that's classified.
Charlie: It's what?
Maverick: It's classified. I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
[During practice]
Wolfman: Holy shit, it's Viper!
Goose: Viper's up here, great... oh shit...
Maverick: Great, he's probably saying, "Holy shit, it's Maverick and Goose."
Goose: Yeah, I'm sure he's saying that.
[On the best of the best]
Viper: In case some of you are wondering who the best is they are up here on this plaque.
[turns to Maverick]
Viper: Do you think your name will be on that plaque?
Maverick: Yes sir.
Viper: That's pretty arrogant considering the company here, don't you think?
Maverick: Yes sir.
Viper: I like that in a pilot.
Maverick: That son of a bitch cut me off!
Stinger: Maverick, you just did an incredibly brave thing. What you should have done was land your plane! you don't own that plane, the tax payers do! Son, your ego is writing checks your body can't cash. You've been busted, you lost your qualifications as section leader three times, put in hack twice by me, with a history of high speed passes over five air control towers, and one admiral's daughter!
Goose: Penny Benjamin?
[Maverick shrugs]
[watching a video of planes being shot down]
Hollywood: This gives me a hard on.
Wolfman: Don't tease me.
[Discussing Maverick]
Viper: Let me ask you something, if you had to go into battle, would you want him on your side?
Jester: I don't know, I just don't know
Carole: Hey Goose you big stud!
Goose: That's me, honey.
Carole: Take me to bed or lose me forever.
Goose: Show me the way home, honey.
Slider: Goose who's butt did you kiss to get in here anyway?
Goose: The list is long, but distinguished.
Slider: Yeah, well so is my Johnson.
Goose: The defense department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid.
Iceman: The plaque for the alternates is down in the ladies room.
Maverick: This is what I call a target rich environment.
Goose: You live your life between your legs Mav.
Maverick: Goose, even you could get laid in a place like this.
Goose: Hell, I'd be happy to just find a girl that would talk dirty to me.
Maverick: [spots Charlie for the first time] She's lost that loving feeling.
Goose: She's lo...
[catches up]
Goose: No she hasn't.
Maverick: Yes she has.
Goose: [objecting] She's not lost that lo...
Maverick: Goose, she's lost it man.
[walks off]
Goose: [to Mav] Come on!
[to himself]
Goose: Aw sh... I hate it when she does that.
Maverick: I feel the need...
Maverick, Goose: ...the need for speed!
Maverick: You don't have time to think up there. If you think, you're dead.
Iceman: You can be my wingman any time.
Maverick: Bullshit! You can be mine.
Stinger: They gave you your choice of duty son, anything, anywhere. Do you believe that shit? Where do you think you wanna go?
Maverick: I thought of being an instructor, sir.
Stinger: Top Gun?
Maverick: Yes, sir.
Stinger: God help us.
Goose: No. No, Mav, this is not a good idea.
Maverick: Sorry Goose, but it's time to buzz a tower.
Goose: Come on, Mav, do some of that pilot shit!
Merlin: What are you doing? You're slowing down, you're slowing down!
Maverick: I'm bringing him in closer, Merlin.
Merlin: You're gonna do WHAT?
[Flying above MiG upside down]
Goose: Is this your idea of fun, Mav?
[Charlie has just given Maverick her address while pretending to turn down his date offer]
Slider: Crashed and burned! Huh, Mav?
Maverick: Hey, Slider.
[sniffs]
Maverick: You stink!
Charlie: Listen, can I ask you a personal question?
Maverick: That depends.
Charlie: Are you a good pilot?
Maverick: I can hold my own.
Charlie: Great, then I won't have to worry about you making your living as a singer.
Maverick: I'm going to need a beer to put these flames out. Yo! Great Mav, real slick.
Carole: God, he loved flying with you Maverick. But he would've done it anyway... without you. He'd have hated it, but he would've done it.
Maverick: Communicating. Keeping up foreign relations. You know, giving him the bird!
Goose: [Charlie looks puzzled, so Goose clarifies] You know, the finger
[gestures appropriately]
Charlie: Yes, I know the finger, Goose.
Goose: I-I'm sorry, I hate it when it does that, I'm sorry. Excuse me.
Goose: It's the bottom of the 9th, the score is tied its time for the big one.
Iceman: You up for this one, Maverick?
Maverick: Just a walk in the park Kazansky.
Maverick: I can see it's dangerous for you, but if the government trusts me, maybe you could.
Charlie: It takes a lot more than just fancy flying.
[to Maverick after the last dogfight]
Stinger: How's it feel to be on the front page of every newspaper in the english-speaking world, even though the other side denies the incident? Congratulations.
[Iceman shoots down a MiG]
Slider: Splash that sucker, yeah!
Maverick: Damn, this guy's good!
Viper: Damn, this kid is good!
Excerpts
Ivy writes beautifully.
And the most beautiful thing.
here's something i really like.
From her favourite movie "Ever After"
Tagline: Desire. Defy. Escape.
Here are some memorable quotes from the movie that I love:
Leonardo Da Vinci to Prince Henry (on fate/destiny):
Leonardo da Vinci: You cannot leave everything to Fate, boy. She's got a lot to do. Sometimes you must give her a hand.
Prince Henry’s reaction after retrieving the painting of Mona Lisa from the gypsy:
Henry: You told me it was a matter of life or death.
Leonardo da Vinci: A woman always is.
Discussion of ‘The One’:
Henry: Do you really think there is only one perfect mate?
Leonardo da Vinci: As a matter of fact, I do.
Henry: Well then how can you be certain to find them? And if you do finally find them, are they really the one for you or do you only think they are? And what happens if the person you're supposed to be with never appears, or she does, but you're too distracted to notice?
Leonardo da Vinci: You learn to pay attention.
Danielle’s consternation at the incompatibility of social status:
Danielle: A bird may love a fish, signore, but where will they live?
Leonardo da Vinci: Then I shall have to make you wings.
A quote that inspires us to possess determination till the very end:
Baroness Rodmilla De Ghent: Darling, nothing is final 'til you're dead, and even then, I'm sure God negotiates.
Conversation between Danielle and the prince:
Danielle: It is not fair, sire. You have found my weakness, but I have yet to learn yours.
Henry: But I should think it was quite obvious.
Danielle quoting from Thomas More’s 'Utopia':
Danielle: If you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners corrupted from infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded, sire, but that you first make thieves and then punish them?
Prince Henry’s proposing to Danielle:
Henry: I kneel before you not as a prince, but as a man in love... I would feel like a king if you, Danielle De Barbarac, would be my wife.
Conversation between Danielle and Prince Henry:
Danielle: You were born to privilege, and with that comes specific obligations.
[pauses]
Danielle: Forgive me, sire, it seems my mouth has run away again.
Henry: It is your mouth that has me hypnotized.
And the most beautiful thing.
here's something i really like.
From her favourite movie "Ever After"
Tagline: Desire. Defy. Escape.
Here are some memorable quotes from the movie that I love:
Leonardo Da Vinci to Prince Henry (on fate/destiny):
Leonardo da Vinci: You cannot leave everything to Fate, boy. She's got a lot to do. Sometimes you must give her a hand.
Prince Henry’s reaction after retrieving the painting of Mona Lisa from the gypsy:
Henry: You told me it was a matter of life or death.
Leonardo da Vinci: A woman always is.
Discussion of ‘The One’:
Henry: Do you really think there is only one perfect mate?
Leonardo da Vinci: As a matter of fact, I do.
Henry: Well then how can you be certain to find them? And if you do finally find them, are they really the one for you or do you only think they are? And what happens if the person you're supposed to be with never appears, or she does, but you're too distracted to notice?
Leonardo da Vinci: You learn to pay attention.
Danielle’s consternation at the incompatibility of social status:
Danielle: A bird may love a fish, signore, but where will they live?
Leonardo da Vinci: Then I shall have to make you wings.
A quote that inspires us to possess determination till the very end:
Baroness Rodmilla De Ghent: Darling, nothing is final 'til you're dead, and even then, I'm sure God negotiates.
Conversation between Danielle and the prince:
Danielle: It is not fair, sire. You have found my weakness, but I have yet to learn yours.
Henry: But I should think it was quite obvious.
Danielle quoting from Thomas More’s 'Utopia':
Danielle: If you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners corrupted from infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded, sire, but that you first make thieves and then punish them?
Prince Henry’s proposing to Danielle:
Henry: I kneel before you not as a prince, but as a man in love... I would feel like a king if you, Danielle De Barbarac, would be my wife.
Conversation between Danielle and Prince Henry:
Danielle: You were born to privilege, and with that comes specific obligations.
[pauses]
Danielle: Forgive me, sire, it seems my mouth has run away again.
Henry: It is your mouth that has me hypnotized.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)