Evaluating the Success of Beijing Olympics from China's perspective

Evaluating the success of Beijing Olympics from China’s perspective

So, the dust has finally set on the Beijing Olympics. It was touted as a sporting extravaganza which would showcase the progress the Chinese have made over past few centuries. From a sporting perspective, it was supposed to be the games China, in front of a partisan but pressurizing home crowd would displace the Americans as sporting kingpins. It was supposed to be the Games where China would project itself as a country which was embracing human rights, environmentalism and pivotally a non-communist stand. So, how have the games panned out?
This essay would examine and evaluate the success of Beijing Olympics from China’s perspective using three criterion to judge. They are from the sporting, political, economic perspective. While term sporting angle is self-explanatory, by political I mean the image China has given to the world through the games. The significance of the Games cannot be undermined politically because, China recognizes that more has to be done from its side to gain trust from skeptical global bodies (UN, WTO etc.) By economic, I would be analyzing the revenues China have gained and lost through these games.
Sporting Angle- All that glitters is not gold
A commentator quipped during the opening ceremony at the sight of China’s colossal 639-strong contingent, “You do not know where to start when talking about medal contenders” After amassing a staggering number of medals, the Chinese must be a pleased lot or that is what we think. However, upon closer introspection, we get some insights into their medal tally. China have dominated sports such as rowing, shooting, table tennis and diving. Their clean sweeps in these sports ensure that their medal tally remains unbelievably high. However, in fields such as athletics and swimming they have come a cropper literally with a solitary gold in swimming to write home about. This does not take away anything from the Chinese because all sports are equal in nature and what they have done is just speacialization. They have identified their niche area and worked on it to maximize their potential.
However, here comes the authorities’ worry and mine as well. Athletics offers a whopping 47 gold medals while swimming’s many events also place it high up in the list. Phelps’ eight golds single-handedly swallowed the entire medal tally the Chinese paddlers garnered. This shows how Athletics and Swimming can be profitable sports which the Chinese should focus on. This was seen when Liu Xiang pulled out of the 110 metres race citing injury reasons. It was a blow to China because that was their sole medal hope in athletics, their sole chance to hear the national anthem in the Bird’s Nest Stadium, their sole chance to witness a Chinese athlete taking on the West. While Zhang Yining is a world champion (table-tennis) and the Chinese shooters racked up the medals, Liu Xiang was China’s hope.
He was their only athlete with Nike sponsorship. He was the household name not because of his consistent success (Liu Xiang’s only gold medal came in Athens 2004. Zhang Yining is a much more successful athlete) but because of his sport. Their desperation to win in the pool was also seen when they paid exorbitant amounts to hire the services of an Australian coach who mentored Jessica Schipper (200m butterfly swimmer) He managed to sell his training routine to eventual 200m butterfly champion who was from China. These evidences prove that while on the surface level the Chinese have done exceedingly well, they still have some way to go before they call themselves sporting powerhouses. That can be said only when they fill up the coffers with golds from the track and pool. Otherwise they would always be known as champs in the sports they inaugurated (table tennis-ping pong) but chumps in blue-riband events which the world wants to see.
From a more sporting-political perspective, one may have to analyze to what extent China’s communist regime has had a part to play in its success. This year China is celebrating its 30th anniversary of the launch of the “reform and opening” policies that have swept away state controls. Following up on that, there was a regime known as juguo or whole nation. From young, as young as five, talent is identified, nurtured and they are put into special schools. Central planning in schools has meant that from the Sydney 2000 Olympics, China adopted a new policy to which was dubbed as “project 119” The idea was to improve the medal haul in sports such as track-and-field, rowing and water sports by pouring more state financing. The results for this though have not been striking. The niche sports are still the suppliers for the medals.
However, at the same time, one has to question, with such limited results the efficiency of the programme and whether it has wasted the taxpayers’ money and resulted in profligate spending. According to state-run news agency, Xin Hua the spending on these sports could be better spent on public services. This is also deemed as “extremely unfair” for the people who trust in the government.
Supporters of juguo however argue that without this programme China would have become another India which does not support “athletic elitism” India with a population of one billion like China’s won its first individual gold in air-rifle shooting this Olympics. So who would people, the general mass public prefer? An Indian contingent which survives on its own (Gold winner funded himself by building shooting range in his farmhouse) or the Chinese contingent. Quoting a heretic “I’m afraid India is already ahead of us in this respect”
Political Perspective
As much as China wants to shed its image as a communist nation it cannot. That is what one gets from at least the Opening Ceremony of the Games. One of the lasting images was how one girl in the middle of the stadium sang the theme song while fireworks decorated the sky. That emotional moment’s value cannot be taken away as the significance of the moment resonated throughout the world. However, one got to know later that it was firstly lip-synched and was sung by another girl whose face was not deemed to be attractive by the ruling Communist party and officials. This was the first problem. The Communist party controls almost everything and many netizens actually feel that each medal that China wins in the games is coated with a political stain. Basically, their point is that many of the things are rigged. For example, in the games schedeule Liu Xiang’s races were four days apart for the win to be savoured. However, that plan badly backfired as he limped out of the games.
Another point is that, during the Opening Ceremony, there were many soldiers who were circling the stadium while the proceedings were going on. One could actually infer that China has still not given up on its authoritarian regime which it has followed for many years. Their system also brings them success by grinding down the citizens and “maximizing their potential”
However, moving away from those miniscule issues, it has to be examined how China has actually countered with its environmental problems. It took knee-jerk action and closed down many factories for the duration of the games. This was a measure to avoid pollution during the games. Due to this, a lot of revenue was lost. We see a trend that Chinese government are following. From the time they have been granted the chance to host the Olympics, they have always been working towards that. It has almost been that the Olympics has been their final checkpoint. However, this is not true. Seemingly, from a superficial level, this games is a political-environmental success.
However, in truth, China has just put up a face-value stand which would please the Westerners. This will not work in the long run as China is not making any conscious, concerted effort to turn over their economic woes. Many of China’s cities including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhdou are ranked in the top 10 of the most polluted nations. From here, if we are to evaluate the success of the Beijing Olympics from a environmental-political view, it is a success in showing a good face in front of the world. However, their “sweeping under the carpet techniques” can be sensed by Gabrielassie marathon champion who said that the place was covered with so much smog in February. His regret can be felt. If only he had known about these last-minute, stop-gap solutions the government would employ…
Economic Perspective
From the economic perspective, this Olympic games has been a modest success. China is a country which embraces capitalism without much inhibitions. For example from 1978 to 2007, their economy has grown by forty fold, moving it up the ladder from a poverty-ridden nation to a global power today. Indeed, China seems to be the only place where capitalism is still thriving. A massive fireworks show and spectacular opening ceremony, directed by well-known filmmaker Zhang Yimou, seek to showcase not just China’s traditional culture, but the country’s growing economic prowess. As shown on South Korean television, which leaked a rehearsal, one of the scenes appeared to show many buildings springing up from the ground, demonstrating China’s rapid expansion (While it was done graphically as confessed later on)
The ultra-modern Olympic architecture, from the main “Bird’s Nest” stadium and the oval Grand State Theatre to the twisted CCTV headquarters in Beijing, all designed by leading international architects, aims to impress foreigners with China’s striving for modernity and progress. The expansion of Beijing international airport is colossal. Its Terminal 3 alone is larger than the five terminals of London Heathrow combined.
Twelve multinational corporations have paid up to $US200 million each to become Olympic global sponsors in order to advertise their products to the 4 billion people around the world who are expected to watch the events. All up, the sponsorship totals $866 million, one third more than the 2004 Athens Games. This does not include the estimated advertising revenue of $1.5 billion by the global sponsors or the costs for partnerships paid by dozens of other multinational and Chinese corporations. Adidas alone has reportedly paid $80 million for using the Olympic logo for its products selling in China.
“One World, One Dream” is the slogan of the Beijing Olympics. But the feelings in Washington, Tokyo and the European capitals toward the rise of China are rather more complex. On the one hand, major corporations around the world now depend on the super-exploitation of the Chinese working class, the largest in the world. This is because they are a source of cheap labour while quality control is still maintained.
Conclusion
So all in all through this essay, I have proven in what ways China’s Olympic games has been a moderate success in terms of the sporting, political and economic perspective. While one the surface value, the picture looks rosy, in this essay I have examined the further implications through their actions.



Citations
- The Economist (Issue on Barack Obama and his acceptance speech)- Latest

Democracy Creates Stability

Blog 2- Democracy Creates Stability

“If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.” - Aristotle

This quote best epitomizes the sphere democracy works around. Its key pillars include equal rights for all, liberty, and sharing of power. In this essay, I would be taking a pro-democratic stand as I would explain how it helps to achieve stability in a society. I would be categorizing my essay into two main parts which would aid me show how democracy creates stability. These two sub-parts are a) confluence vs. clash of ideals leading to sharing of power b) Democracy in comparison to other political systems and how it fares better.

Before that let me define the terms for the discussion. By stability it is meant the country has reached a good economic status (by good we mean where the unemployment rate is not high, good economic returns per annum) It also means that there is social cohesion and it is a tightly-knit society. Basically, we are analyzing if a system where people vote the politicians into power simplistically can transform a society into a stable one. Here, we would have to exclude a few isolated examples or instances from this discussion for easier evaluation. For example, it is pivotal that we do not take a Pakistan (after state of emergency was called) as an example. At that point of time, due to the fraction in the society a dictatorship was needed to create stability. Here, we are seeing normal countries without any external influences (ie. War, state of emergency)

Confluence vs. clash of ideals leading to sharing of power

We see that one of the main qualms about democracy is that there is a clash of ideals. It is important that we compare China and India. When China was able to build their new Beijing airport, there was an awe mixed with disbelief. This disbelief is because their communist regime was able to displace so many peasants for building the airport. However, this cannot be done in India where it takes an average of a few years to pass a bill in court. This means that the progress of the nation as a whole is slow. While that is symptom the problem is because there is a clash of ideals.

For example, recently in Zimbabwe a presidential candidate was actually attacked. This case never came up when Mugabe was dictating. It is the nature of a dictatorship. There is no clash of ideals because the system revolves around one person. In India, there is often a clash of religion through politics (BJP-Hindu stand)

However, even with these problems, democracy breeds open discussion. It is a place for a debate and the system is designed in such a way as to help the common man. We see this because there is a retribution corner and the ballot box plays an important role in reflecting the society’s perceptions and beliefs. This can be seen in Malaysia’s recent elections when the UMNO was upstaged and it was a sign that their “bumiputra” policy was not going on too well with the masses. We see that when there is open discussion, when there is a merger of thoughts and alliances in the society it does not breed fraction. It breeds a society where there is a confluence of varying thoughts on how to improve the overall working condition of the people. So, when there is a confluence of thoughts, what does this lead to? This leads to a sharing of power and active citizenry. As said before, the ballot box plays an important role. In democracy, each citizen has an important role to play. He is the one who chooses his next leader and determines which way the country is going to move.

This means that there is a sharing of power. In what sense is there a sharing of power? Just like Newton’s third law where every action has an equal and opposite reaction, for every action which the government takes there may be a response from the society. What do political commentaries suggest? They suggest an open society which is critical of the government’s policies. While a pessimist may look at it as a failed democracy, it is important that freedom of speech and expression is not curtailed too much. What does too much mean? We say too much when third party harm is caused and the rights of another person are infringed upon. So, this key pillar of democracy open discussion which takes root from the confluence of thoughts has to be retained.

So, from here we see that due to there being responsibility on the people, there would a self-chose path of prosperity and stability. Also, when there is open discussion it finally leads to a point where there is equilibrium. This equilibrium would rather be relative and set by the people than absolute set by the government. This free society would have its pro and cons but would definitely not hinder the stability as there would be cheques and balances which ensure that no third party harm is being caused at any point of time. This cheques and balances also ensure that stability in the society is maintained all through.

Democracy in Comparison to other political systems

It is important to analyse how democracy fares in comparison to other political systems when it comes to creating stability. I would be mainly comparing it to communism and dictatorship.

Democracy vs. Communism/Dictatorship/
Only when democracy is compared against other political systems such as communism, dictatorship and capitalism one would know its true value. This comparison would aid in passing a value-judgment on democracy when it comes to creating stability.

Let us first compare democracy with communism. Basically, communism is a political system which dissolves class struggle. It makes each person believe that they are in no way inferior to the others and the people share the goods of the state equally and the concept of private property is eliminated. Based on Marxist-communism, one party controls all state-owned products and distributes to the people equally regardless of their contribution to the economy. However, how does communism create stability? Communism creates stability because it essentially welfare-oriented towards the people. Everyone is given equal rights and opportunities to succeed. This means that there would be no class struggle. When there is no class struggle, it is assumed that there would be social cohesion. Due to this free society which is stateless, it is assumed that there would be very few conflicts. Here, we need to analyze when conflicts would be formed. Conflicts would be formed mainly when there are differences. For example, let us take Cuba as an example. Recently, an article stated that Cuba had the most people living above the age of 100. The reasons cited were motivations of the people and political climate. Motivations of the people is an important factor as well. In a democratic state, where everything is based on meritocracy, the push to be better is very high. However, communism which breeds a stateless society also brings about laziness in people. However the question here is on stability.

Democracy when compared to communism may bring about more societal upheaval. However, at the same time, this is a positive change which would phase out over time. In a communist regime, where human rights are compensated (ie. China vs Tibet) the propensity of damage is high. When the damage does hit, it would be difficult to manage as well. Let us take China as an example. While the communist regime had its benefits, now they are seen in a bad light by the western world due to their actions concerning Tibet. Due to that, China is cracking now. Also, due to everyone being given equal benefits regardless of their input, the better ones may raise up an issue over this. This would mean that while communism does represent a classless society, there are indeed hidden cliques which the system is tapering over. This can be seen even in China where their political system is more capitalist-communist rather than pure communist.

So, from here we see that democracy which has its key pillars of strength in promoting meritocracy, opportunities based on performance and quality through action (ballot-box) is a safer bet for stability in the long run. This is proven by the number of countries who endorse democracy to endorsing communism.

Now, let me compare democracy with dictatorship. There has often been a debate whether a prosperous dictatorship is better than a weak democracy. The debate has two spectrums. One is the direct, literal comparison between prosperous and weak. The other comparison is between democracy and dictatorship. However, for this evaluation process, it is only fair if we take that both systems are at its best. Only then can a value-judgment be passed on which system is better. It has to be admitted that a dictatorship, a political system controlled by one person alone would be useful in a state of emergency. For example, Musharaff was a dictator, army-general. Hitler was another one.

These people who led alone were able to create a stable society once they took over. Musharaff took over Pakistan after a period of turmoil and established excellent foreign relations with the West. The main advantage of a dictatorship is the curtailing of opinions. Although surprising, a dictatorship means that people are aligned to one man’s wishes. There would be no conflict and everyone would be led in this path. A very stable society is formed. However, the problem arises when this person is suppressing and oppressing the people. The people now do not have a safety net. They cannot rely on another party to challenge them through elections or referendums. When this is the case, a dictatorship would fall apart.

Dictatorships do create stability but they are only knee-jerk reactions to state of emergencies. They would not be able to create a state of equilibrium where everyone’s opinions are reflected. This is because as a singular person is leading, there would be a bias and slant towards his own vested interests as well.

So from here, I have proven how democracy which endorses confluence is better than the dictatorship which works as a remediation and not as a permanent system. Therefore, through this essay, I have also proven in two ways how democracy does create stability in a society.

SS Democracy Discussion

Aditya: You know, the best democracy is one where there is good debate andrebuttal. The essence of democratic decisions lies in weighing ofconflicting ideas, for which reprimanding, rebuking and healthy debatein crucial.This allows us to weigh the pros and cons of any decision that can bemade, and take one which is the most beneficial for the people.Perhaps this is one of the major political aspects of a parliamentarydemocracy.Democrats are politically aware and intellectual people. People puttheir trust in them, and that is why they are givena platform (theparliament itself) to argue and solicit their point of views andadvocate the needs of people, better if different parts of the society.In a massive parliament all ideas of all groups can be adressed, andas a major feature of democracy is to take central decisions, what isdone is fair, just and generally for the better of the people.Consider this :2 farmer brothers have a dispute over how to divide their father'sland. If cut in two halves, one side has a well while the other hasmore fertile land.A democratic agreement would be that one brother (randomly chosen)will divide the land, and the other will chose his piece first. In theevnt that neither are satisfied, there can be epaceful negotiation.Perhaps the best decision may be that they share the land for mutualbenefit, but the liberty of this decision is solely upto them.In this way democracy not only through political and economic liberty,and political equality resolve what could have been a bloody ormacabre affair with justice, it also leaves them the option ofmutually helping others. Democracy ensures the human rights of both,and makes sure this conflcit neevr gets violent.If sharing is considered a communist or socialist ideal then be it.Democracy respects it and allows it to be undertaken amongst thebrothers with arms wide open. The ultimate goal is resolution, peaceand prosperity, which are all achieved through this liberty thatdemocracy gives.

Xin Yong: This is the essay question we are supposed to do..Firstly, we have to understand that that is zero-conflict countries,even if they do abide to democracy fiercely, this is because democracyis a system wher majority rules, and there would always be conflictsbetween the 2 grps, like the clashes of ideals, but conflict does notmean that violence is invovled. there may be peaceful conflictshappening too.Next up, if you would take a look at the question, it says thatdemocracy creates stability in society, but, i think that democracydoes not create stability, but instead, it is more of a foundation thatstability builds on.

Xin Yong: I agree with Aditya's point more. As clarified in the earlier posts,Democracy is about majority rules (yes, cuicheng i know youhighlighted this point), and that you claimed that the stability onlyexist between Government and Majority, and thats why there would beclashes between ideals, causing a rise in riots, tiffs..But, in a democratic country, it should mean that all citizens haveequal rights and treatments from the government, and that we have theright to the freedom of speech and movement, thus there should be noconflict as there would definitely be compromises between the 2groups- majority and minority. Firstly, i would say that Cuicheng iscorrect in saying that peace between government and the people ismaintained because the Government is providing the people with equaltreatments, but then cuicheng go on and stated that there would beclashes between the majority and minority. If a country is trulydemocratic, the ideals of the 2 groups will be simultaneouslyhappening and progressing because of the freedom of movement, anddefinitely, there should be political parties representing thecitizens of the minority, and this would be like in Singapore, andSingapore is peaceful with no riots happening, right?Finally, Cuicheng's last point that democracy would not help toprevent conflict between the 2 grps if their ratios are roughly thesame, i agree with his statement as even though the influential powersof the Majority might not be much greater than the minority's ones,and that if everyone is given 1 vote, naturally the majority would winout, but by a very slight margin, and the minority would not be verypleased because the majority won only through sheer numbers, thus thisMAY result in a conflict.In conclusion,i would say that democracy is a political system thatguarantees that sovereignty belonged to the people, but it is only oneof many systems that people have; it mainly regulates the politicallives of people and it cannot replace the other systems and it cannotregulate everything in people's lives. Democracy has its internallimitations, it is not a cure-all miracle medicine and it cannot solveall of humankind's problems. But democracy guarantees basic humanrights, it offers equal opportunity to people and it is a basic humanvalue. Democracy is not only a means to solve people's livelihoodissues, but it is a goal of human development; it is not only a toolto achieve other goals, but it is in accord with human nature. Evenif there is the best food and housing available, the human characteris incomplete without democratic rights.

Aditya: Excellent find. Regarding the previous issue, concerning protectionof the constitution, such that it in turn can defend human rightsand the democracy in action and truth, is best exhibited in aparliamentary democracy.Here, a dictator such as president or prime minister cannotillicitly usurp the powrful yet responsible position. This isbecause, for every amendment of the constitution, a major part ofthe representative parliament (70-80%) has to vote in favour of thechange. This would not then be implemented unless 70%+representatives of the people are corrupt. And that they cannot be.But what do we do in case an entire political body is corrupt? Insuch a case, a system where the consultation of every citizen in thenation ( i.e. a referendum or consensus) based on fair practicesshould be mandatory. It may be said that this is aconsensus/direct/interactive democracy, but not entirely.Note that the vote is only needed for change in constitution, whichis a major change as compared to passing of bills or laws that canbe undertaken as done normally in parliamentary democracy.Additionally, with the new technology and advancement incommunication and telecom facilities, large-scale consensus is soongoing to be much easier (through internet, gizmos etc.) and seems apromising form for the 'ideal' democracy, where every person has animportant role in every decision the government takes.An example of parliamentary democracy is again, India. In terms ofconstitutional amendments, it has been stable so far.

Cui Cheng: Could you futher elaborate on how has democract has helped Liberia restore peace and stability?I feel that democracy is able to establish stability as it considers the majorty's stand. As majority of the people are able to get along their way, they would be satiasfied with the situations and no confilict would arise. This stability is only applicable to the political aspect the way I see it as the only stability is that between that of the government and the maojority of the people. Socially, democracy's effect upon stability is limited as it would normally between the majority and the minority that the problems and confilicts arise, as their ideals clash. Democracy in this situation does nothing to stabilize the situation of the tension between the majority and the minrotiy groups. Democracy does has its reach on the stability of a country as it is. The goverment would constantly try to achive a comprimise between the different groups to satisfy everyone to maintain stability.Take Taiwan for example, when the "majority" is only slightly larger than that of the minroity, there would be a growing voice of opposition in the political stage as the majority is not influencial enough in terms of numbers.I feel that democracy helps to prevent conflict between the government and the people, but not that between that of the majority and minority groups, especially when the ratio is roguhly the same.

Jerome: One example of stability achieved in a country is Liberia, a countrylocated at the west coast of Africa.Liberia suffered civil wars from around 1989 until 2003, in which,democracy has helped her restore peace and stability. In 2005,president election was successfully held in liberia, new policieswere made my the president,Johnson Sirleaf including encouragingforeign investments and eliminating corruption, this brought an endto the 15 year unstability in Liberia. In which democracy played animportant role as everyone are represented in the liberian society,where conflict is reduced because people are able to choose their ownrepresentative in the paliarment.One more example of a new born democracy country is Mongolia, in the1990s, democracy activists triggered a revolution against thecommunist government, few years later, Mongolia's government systenbecame a democratic one, headed by a president and a prime minister.Democracy allows Mongolia to engage herself in building relationshipswith the other parts of the world, which made Mongolia aninternationally recognised country and also helped Mongolia build itsdiplomatic relations with other countries.These two examples have shown how democracy can bring about economyimprovements and diplomatic relations in the country, thus i thinkthat democracy has the ability to create stability in a country.Jerome: I feel that democracy is good for a country as everyone in the countrycan be represented in a democratic government. It is fair to variousethnic and religious groups and their views can be expressed andrecognised in a system of democracy. The most common forms of democracyare representative democracy, liberal democracy and paliarmentarydemocracy. All these forms of democracy requires people of the countryto vote and choose for their government. I think democracy serves as aplatform for all to express their view, their problems and theirbenefits and i think democracy is a good system in which countriesshould regulate democracy.

Xin Yong: I think that while it is good in this sense that the US 2 partysystem may be effective,but isnt this contradictory if we apply this2 party system to the war on terrorism? US tackles the problem bothby promoting democracy as well as through realistic actionsby "befriending" more other countries such that US would not be alonein the war of terrorism.In a democractic system, i think that it is important such that theparties are able to express themselves freely, be able to developthemselves, and to have the freedom of move and choice, thus i do notthink that the US democractic system is too "active".

Xin Yong: I shall list one example of a country following democracy as well asnot following democracy. Firstly, i think that the United States is avery good example as it offers a conflict btwn the 2 subjects.> Firstly, when George Bush has decided to promote democracy during theperiod where the US was fighting the war on terrorism, because a lot ofpoliticians under Bush believed that giving equal rights, benefits, etcetc to people will help solve the problem in a peaceful manner, butBush felt that this was an idealistic notion.So, Bush at that time also contemplated another approach, and he wasmaking "friends" with dictators with resources to aid him in fightingAL-Qaeda in the war against terrorism, but this approach would not bean act of democracy,but more of a realism notion,so theres a conflict,bewtween whether they should promote democracy or use realism methods.

Bhargav: I have been researching. One of the prime goals of the constitutionis to limit government powerand specify political, and socio-economic goals, belief andstructure of a country. We are basically looking forCONSTITUTIONALISM.The Bill of Rights is are followed for judicial practices thatsafeguard fundamental, civiland social rights independent of the government.But it can only safeguard rights directly against opression,violence and harm. We are supposedto devise aspects or point out some pre-existing systems thatprevent POLITICAL EXPLOITATION.In that sense, even holding onto power is illegal, past a term.Check this out :Amending the ConstitutionThe recent Senate debate over a proposed constitutional amendmentdealing with desecration of the U.S. flag raises the question ofexactly how the Constitution can be amended. (See Anti-Flag BurningAmendment Debated in Senate.)Article V of the Constitution provides two processes by whichamendments can be proposed and approvedCongress proposes amendments.As is the case with the flag burning amendment, both houses ofCongress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for theamendment. The resolution does not require the president'ssignature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must thenbe "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths ofthe states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven yearsfor ratification by the states.The states propose amendments.The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for aconvention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed.Amendments proposed by the convention would again requireratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.All twenty-seven amendments, including the Bill of Rights have beenadded through the first method. The Constitution has never beenamended using the second process.While over 10,000 have been proposed, only seventeen amendments tothe Constitution have been adopted since final ratification of theBill of Rights in 1791.(Source :usgovinfo.about.com/library/blconstamend.htm )I think the above has ensured that there are no objectionableamendments. In terms of active democracy,US has enjoyed a two party system.What do u say?

Bhargav: Before we even jump to democracy...lets ask this question. What is thefirst, foremost and the ultimate goal of a government? Is it not thehappiness and welfare of the people above all?Undeniably, happiness of people comes from freedom, equality, rightsand material benefits and securities like health, education, food andfundamentals. And just as unfortunately, todays government forms failto provide all the above. Dont they?I say communist government sacrifices liberty and personal rights,promising equality of all kinds and social and general well-being, ifnot prosperity. But this, does not work in cohesion with thepropensities of human nature, to have a notch above the rest. Intoday's world, to achieve this, people dont mind going the extra mile.So why waste talent and potential? Moreover, communist governmentsthat have clenched economic control havent really exemplified veryhappy citizenry or productive economic growth. Moreover, the rule isestablished through violence and suppression of pre-existing forms,which is blatant violation of human rights.But hey...not all democracies have been succesful. Many a times,democracies have been brought to an end by illegitimate amendment ofthe constitution by the political head, as happened inPakistan.President/Military General Pervez Musharaff modified theconstitution several times deigning himself legal right to continuehis term far longer than appropriate.How can we secure a democracy inthat way...when nothing binding can restrict the rule and authourityof the body in power?

Laboring in the Lion City - The Source

Burmese Workers in Singapore Make Great Sacrifices to Make Ends Meet.
By Moe Kyaw

With its own economy wracked by decades of mismanagement, many Burmese workers look overseas to make their financial dreams come true. But for workers wishing to jump Burma's sinking economic ship to go work in Singapore, they must first clear a series of legal hurdles, leaving many migrant workers wondering if making the journey is worth the effort.
"I decided to go to Singapore because I have no money and there is no way for me to survive in Burma," says Burmese architect Aung Moe Gyi. "Even if I had enough money or ran my own business, I could become a poor man in an instant because there is no rule of law in Burma."
Burmese have been working legally in Singapore for decades, but started arriving in larger numbers to compensate for the labor shortages during the city-state's construction boom in the mid-1980s. Some Burmese work as doctors and professors and have settled permanently in Singapore, but most legal Burmese laborers work physically demanding jobs in painting, welding, carpentry and other general construction work with their sights set on returning home after putting away enough cash.
Prior to January 1998, Burmese could get a visa-on-arrival for a seven-day stay, but now things are not so easy. Only the Singapore embassy in Rangoon has the authority to issue visas for Burmese, and applicants must first furnish a work permit and a sponsor letter: documents available only to naturalized Singapore citizens, to Burmese with Permanent Resident (PR) status, and to those who already have been granted an official Employee Pass (EP).
Only skilled labor will be issued work visas for Singapore. Requirements for an EP include completion of university education in Burma or enrollment in one of Singapore's polytechnic schools. For PR status, workers must first meet EP requirements and then convince the authorities that they are upright and law-abiding guests.
For those who cannot obtain a sponsor letter, they must put down a deposit of 2,000 Foreign Exchange Certificates (FEC) on top of the standard visa fee of 18 FEC (1 FEC = 960 kyat) at the Singapore embassy in Rangoon. If they overstay their visa, they lose their deposit money, says an embassy employee.
This initial investment may only be the beginning of an arduous financial journey through multiple layers of bureaucracy, sometimes encountering swindling job brokers along the way. To facilitate the move abroad, job broker agencies in Rangoon with close ties to Singapore businesses will arrange everything for a fee, but nightmarish tales of fraudulent services disappearing with people's money, and dreams, are commonplace.
Legitimate job agencies typically charge clients between 1,000,000-1,200,000 kyat. The exorbitant fee includes a passport, an air ticket and job training that can last up to six months. Thus, it can take up to eight months after the initial payment before workers can get to Singapore to work off their debt.
For ordinary Burmese who have trouble eking out a living, getting to Singapore is prohibitively expensive. Skilled manual laborers in Rangoon can earn a daily wage of 500-800 kyat while bureaucrats officially earn 4,000-4,500 kyat per month.
"We cannot get a good education or health care and there are no social services at home," says Hla Aye, a construction worker. "I can earn at least 100,000 to 150,000 kyat (about US $140) per month in Singapore and am able to take care of my family in Rangoon."
Laboring Legally in Singapore
Legal Burmese workers have it easier than their illegal counterparts in Singapore but the financial obligations can be daunting. Legal laborers generally receive about S$16 (9,200 kyat) per day with higher-skilled work earning a few dollars more. Some companies pay Burmese workers a monthly salary of about S$600 (345,000 kyat) per month. Basic monthly household expenditures range from S$80-100. The Burmese government charges a 10% tax on overseas income and S$30 is paid as a flat tax to the Singapore government. To renew a passport, the Burmese government charges S$300 and replacing a worn or lost one costs S$1,400, or nearly three months' wages.
"After taxes, hostel fees and living expenses, I only can remit about S$300 to my family each month. I try to work overtime to make ends meet but sometimes there is no overtime work available," says Tin Ko, a construction worker.
But the money is still attractive enough to lure workers eager to please families back home. "Of course I'm working hard labor jobs and have poor living conditions here but my family has been able to stay in their own house in Burma, and if I work hard, they might have a car in two or three years. That's why I am here," explains Soe Myint, a welder from Rangoon.
Some companies arrange for their migrant workers to stay in hostels, but the S$75 monthly rent is too steep for most construction workers such as Soe Myint, who prefers to live in a less expensive "container" where accommodations are tight.
Myint Swe, who mortgaged his house to finance his way to Singapore and now lives in a modified cargo container near his construction site, says, "We have to stay with at least four other workers in one container. I could stay at the hostel but then I won't save money to pay back my debt in Rangoon."
Others only wish that they could be in Myint Swe's shoes, however. With fake job broker agencies lurking in Rangoon, selling one's property and committing to a job in Singapore can be a risky undertaking; one bad deal can wipe out a life's savings.
"One of my friends mortgaged his house to get enough money to go to Singapore, but three months after giving a job agency his money, they closed down and disappeared, so he lost everything," says Ko Ko Aung, a businessman in Rangoon. "There are many others like my friend in Burma."
Illegal Workers
Most illegal Burmese laborers in Singapore arrive as stowaways on ships and work in factories, restaurants, and basic construction. Although the work is laborious and sometimes dangerous, for many, it beats facing the bleak economic realities at home. But without the protection of legal rights, undocumented workers are subjected to higher housing rents and arbitrary arrest by the authorities, even in their own homes.
"One of my friends with EP received three lashes with the cane and two years imprisonment for renting a room to illegal immigrants to earn extra income," says Zaw Htun, a construction worker who has lived in Singapore for eight years.
Others who get arrested for entering the country illegally get sent home--provided they have the money to pay for their own one-way ticket back to Rangoon. If not, then a stay in prison to work off the transportation cost can be expected.
"The police arrested us at our home in the afternoon. The next morning in court, I told the judge I arrived by boat only a week ago, and he sent me back on the next boat to Rangoon without caning. But some of my friends who had stayed a long time were caned," says Soe Soe. He added that the caning is administered by a martial arts expert with a six-foot long rattan cane that has been soaked in brine.
The prospects of leaving behind one's family and facing such hardships in a foreign land may not seem like an attractive option. But when presented with the alternatives--a repressive government that applies the law whimsically and an economic climate that inspires little cause for hope--working difficult jobs and living hand to mouth in Singapore may not be so bad after all. And for illegal workers subjected to arbitrary arrest and flexible application of the law, Singapore may feel a lot like home.

Migration: Is it worth the pain?

As I witness the act of a Burmese maid or euphemistically “domestic worker” creating a more presentable house for my family to live in, my mind questions, “Why do they need to do this? Will they ever return to their homeland?” These questions are catalysts for a more layered discussion on the pros and cons of migration using the case study of Burmese workers in Singapore.

Defining migration as the movement of people from one place to another in the geographic perspective would be easy. However, pivotally, in what ways does migration act as a beneficial “tool” for both the parties involved in terms of economic, political and socio-economic reasons (ie. Migrants and Host Country)

Firstly, what are the benefits of migration? From the migrants’ viewpoint, it gives them a fresh opening as they would invariably gain monetary benefits by working in another country where the better exchange rate guarantees a higher home-land return for them. For example, one Singapore dollar is equal to 4.43 kyat – the Myanmar currency. This would mean that their main aim of migrating would be fulfilled as they would be sending sufficient cash for the sustenance of their family back home. This is most important of all the underlying reasons and the tangible benefits due to these sudden riches would be much more relevant than the intangible gains such as forging new bonds with the Singaporean counterparts.

“With its own economy wracked by decades of mismanagement, many Burmese workers look overseas to make their financial dreams come true. But for workers wishing to jump Burma's sinking economic ship to go work in Singapore”

From the host country’s perspective, they would be at the receiving end of invaluable cheap labour, a concept which has been adopted from the Western world. The concept of cheap labour is simple. It just means importing people from less developed countries for lower wages in order to cut operating costs. Singapore has adopted this model as these Burmese workers would be filling the gaps in the blue-collar sector. However, for a country like Singapore where the literacy rate is very high, we do need manual labor to construct buildings, work in hawker centres etc. From a societal viewpoint, the Burmese community may bring about cultural integration and enhancement with the existing races.

However, there are many cons which override the positive effects of migration. The migrant has to clear stringent legal procedures which also include checks on their educational qualifications. If they do not meet the requirements of even the smallest criterion, they would not be given the Employment Pass. Also, their pay of 2000-3000 kyat does not match up to the hype which is generated by those back home. When making ends meet is tough, eking out extra cash for healthcare, social services, and basic entertainment becomes increasingly tougher. Poor living conditions mar their health. Their deteriorating health adversely affects their work and companies which need to ensure quality control retrench them. When this happens, the people back home in Burma would not be able to sustain because they would have started ‘leaning’ on them by then.

The host country would have to consider two big issues. Firstly, illegal immigrants. Secondly, they would have to counter a societal backlash due to these immigrants overtaking the locals in the “occupational ladder.” Illegal immigrants pose a threat as they have the tendency to commit crimes and the country’s security would be affected. While arbitrary checks are conducted, these illegal immigrants are involved in drug trafficking and other cross-border crimes.

While Singapore is a thriving ground for graduates, not everyone makes the cut in the corporate world. Those who fall below, resort to manual labour. When these Burmese, enter the fray, they would naturally demand a lower price than the not-so-bright Singaporeans. Therefore, they would lose out and a societal backlash on the government’s policies regarding immigration would be raised.

In conclusion, migration is a double-edged sword for both the host country and the immigrant. The Burmese domestic worker is a graduate in Chemistry in Burma. Her plight makes one feel, “Is the pain worth it?” For a four million populace like ours, is it that tough to create or refine a “service” which would appeal to the masses?

As said in the play “Pickle King,” a Sri Lankan doctor is a New Zealand bus driver. The realism may be stark for the Burmese but the push to be economically competitive from the host country is a factor which is hard to ignore.

And... the source of this article is here.