Should foreign born athletes be allowed to compete in the Games?

As the 2008 Olympic Game draws to a close, it will always be remembered fondly by the world, especialy for Singapore. Singaporeans roared in jubilation as the table tennis trio of Li Jia Wei, Feng Tian Wei and Wang Yue Gu won a silver medal in women’s team table tennis match, breaking the country’s dry Olympic medal spell of 48 years.

However, admist all the cheering and celebration, some people remain cynical about the win. They feel that Singapore actually did not win the medal as the three medalists are all imported talents from China. Similar cases of foreign talents competing for their adoptive countries have been rampant around the world.

The Armenian wrestler Ara Abrahamian won a bronze medal for Sweden, Jamaican Germaine Mason gave Great Britain a silver and its first high-jump medal since 1996; and Moroccan Rashid Ramzi ran to a gold in the 1,500m race for Bahrain.

The United States also fielded a brigade of immigrants – 36 from 28 countries – for this year’s Game. These include a South African-born tennis player, a Georgian archer, a Polish kayaker, a world champion Kenyan distance runner, among many others.

All these trading of natioanlity has raised the attention of the world. Currently, there have been heated debates on whehter it is justifiable for athletes to switch nationality and represent another country in competitions.

Regarding this issue, I shall offer two opposing points of view. I feel that it is unjustifiable for athletes to change nationality purely for financial reasons as it would have dire consequences. The richer countries will benefit greatly as they can afford to spend millions of dollar to buy world class athletes over and help them bring national glory. The poorer countries, on the other hand, will suffer as they have low financial capability to even keep their athletes on the jobs. The fundamental principle of international sporting event is to foster friendship and mutual understanding among different nations. If the trading of athletes is allowed, the sporting areana would be effectively turned into a fist fight of money, where the winner is the one with the deepest pocket. And even if these athletes manage to win medals for the countries, it would not be considered national glory. Nobody would be proud of the win as it is not through the concerted effort of the whole nation that the medal is earnt.

Furthermore, the athletes who change nationalities for financial reasons are very unloyal. Although their home countries have spent huge amount of time and resources to train them into world class competitors, they still choose to prioritise monetary gains over loyalty to their motherlands. Who can gurantee that these athletes, if being offered better incentives, would not betray their adoptive countries and change nationalities again?

However, what if athletes change nationality just to get a chance to compete in international arena? That would be a different story. In countries like Russia and China, due to a huge talent pool, the selection of athletes for the national teams become very stringent. Many high potential athletes are thus deprived of a chance to compete and let their ability shine. If they are offered such opportunities in other countries, why stop them? For example, the table tennis player Li Jia Wei, Feng Tian Wei and Wang Yue Gu all did not get into national team back in China. If not for Singapore’s Foreign Sports Talent scheme, the table tennis trio would never get the opportunity to take part in any Games.

The International Olympic Committee has ruled in 2002 that athletes must wait three years from receiving their new citizenship papers before they can compete for their adoptive country. I feel that some flexibility should be exercised in this rule. For world class athletes who want to change nationality purley for financial reasons, this rule will of course apply. But for athletes who migrate to other countries in search of opportunities to take part in international competition, they should not be denied the chance. I hope that in this way, both the countries as well as the athletes will benefit.

Source:
http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=08&year=2008&date=24&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2008_9781394

Democracy creates stability in a society

In today’s world, democracy has been widely associated with stability in a society. Many people believe that it is the only form of government that can bring about peace and progress to a country. But is it really so? Before we delve into the discussion, let us first define a few terms. Democracy can be defined as a system of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation. Stability, in the case, refers to stable social and economic progress in a country

Ibrahim Lincoln once said, “ democracy is a government of the people, for the people and by the people”. This quote succinctly summarises the essence of democracy, the principles of citizen participation, accountability and transparency. These principle are essentially the key to ensuring stability in a society. Citizen participation involves the people in government. Through voting and referendum, citizens can have a strong influence in the decision-making of the government and decide what is best for themselves.It also effectively bonds the people together as they strive to bring peace and progress to the country. Secondly, accountability of the government officials are ensured in a system of checks and balances. In order to be elected, the government officials must have good qualities that are recognised by the people. Once in power, these officials must make decisions and perform their duty according to the will and wishes of the people. If any official is corrupted, he will lose his power as people will no longer vote for him. Lastly, the transparency of the government allows any government decision to be placed under public scrutiny. Before any policy is implemented, the general public must agree with it. In this way, the welfare of the majority will be taken care of.

However, many people argue that democracy is a “tyranny of the majority”. The principle tenets of democracy are that everyone must be represented, no matter how insignificant they are. But in practice, only the majority is represented, while the minority is deprived of its representation. This essentially contradicts with fundamental principle of equal representation. The conflict in Sri Lanka is a classic example of how the majority can manipulate the system of democracy to discriminate against the minority. As Sinhalese form the majority of the country’s population, only Sinhala is recognised as the official language. Tamil, which is considered the language of the minority, goes unrecognised, showing a clear insult to the Tamil population. Also, in order for Sinhalese government to remain in power, Tamil dominated districts were broken into several parts to be drawn into Sinhalese constituencies, such that Sinhalese will still have the majority vote in elections. This form of unequal representation leads to marginalisation of the minority, creating instability instead of stability.

All in all, we must recognise that for every form of government, its success and failure depend on many factors, like the quality of the government officials, the level of participation of the public and etc. Even the most successful form of government can be brought to a complete failure under the manipulation of corrupted officials. However, this question is essentially asking whether democracy itself, without considering any form manipulation, can bring about stability. The answer is a definite yes, as democracy promotes the value of equality, transparency and accountability, which form the fundamental framework of a stable society.

Teen to write apology for swearing at teacher

It was another incident of student being rude to the teacher.

The Straits Times reported that a secondary four student by the name of Jeremy Tan Wei Liang was sued in court by his Chinese teacher for using vulgar language in class with the intent to distress her. The teacher had confiscated his MP3 which he listened to during lesson. He confronted the teacher to get it back. When the teacher refused, he used abusive words on her and even rummaged through her bag to try to find his player.

After reading this article，I was totally appalled. Teenagers nowadays are so disrespectful for their teachers. They seem to treat teachers not as their higher authority, but as employees paid to be at their service. This incident, however,is not a lone case. The recent reports of students taking upskirt photos of female teachers and even physically abusing them have clearly shown that the status of teachers in students’hearts have dropped to a bottom low. And it is a pity that the last place for teachers to voice their plights and defend for their rights is actually the court of law.

In the past, the situation was completely different. Teachers are held in high regard by all the students. When teachers mete out punishments, students would meekly accept them as they know clearly that they have done something wrong.

The declining level of respect for teachers is really worrying. It reflects the rebellious nature of most teenagers nowadays. They are deliberately flaunting the rules and regulations set by the higher authority, without considering the consequences of their actions, clearly demonstrating the attitude of “I don’t care”.

This leads me to my next question. Why then are teenagers behaving in this manner? I feel that there are many causes to this problem. First is the lack of parental education. Scientists have shown that family education has the most influence on a child’s future life. However, most Singaporean parents are working adults, and juggling between work and family is already enough for them to cope with, let along spending time with their child and educating them. Thus, many basic values like respect for others are not inculcated in them from a young age. The media also plays a significant role in this issue. With movies, drama series and advertisement showing scenes of violence, it is no wonder that the young, impressionable minds of teenagers are being influenced by these inappropriate signals. Lastly, the fault also lies with the teenagers themselves. Teenagers nowadays are becoming more individualistic, eager to show off their distinct personalities. Therefore, by behaving rudely to the teachers or even physically abusing them, they feel that it is the way to differentiate themselves from the crowd and to gain attention from the student population.

This article offers us deeper insight into the becoming of teenagers nowadays. Why is the Singapore’s education system producing these problem teenagers? What then can be done to change to mindset of our next generation? Considering that teenage issues have great implication on the future of our nation, it is thus important for us to ponder over these pressing questions.

Word count: 524 words

Link to the article

Reference:

-Smith, David (2008). Parenting style linked to Teenage Delinquency Rates. Retrieved March 6, 2008, from Society Today Web site:

http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/PO/releases/2001/July/index2.aspx?ComponentId=6300&SourcePageId=1402

-Lauhari, Nurudin (2007). 2 boys taking upskirt photo of female teacher. Retrieved March 6, 2008, from A mind of my own Web site: http://mymind.escrito.info/2008/02/04/2-boys-take-upskirt-photo-of-female-teacher/