A Chinese government committee said Thursday that a rush to build schools during the country’s recent economic boom might have led to shoddy construction that resulted in the deaths of thousands of students during a devastating earthquake in May.
As we all know, the earthquake in China devastated towns and buildings and killed many people. We have all been shocked by the big number of casualties but maybe we have not thought of the reason why there were so many deaths. Now we have an answer, finally. In fact, I am not surprised by the news report of poor construction because it is in a way a common phenomenon nowadays.
Back in China, I used to be very angry at these news. I think these construction firms were really bad that these news show that they only care about their profits and they left all their morality behind. Also, these things often happened to the schools and children, affecting China’s education condition seriously. I wanted to ask that how the firms or the managers can be so irresponsible. They simply take people’s lives as nothing while they consider money as everything in the world.
I used to be very disappointed, too, because many of these affected schools were called “school of wish” in China. These schools are sponsored to be build by charity or other individuals willing to help those in poverty. However, when they come to the towns and try to find construction firms to build the schools, these firms which lack responsibility are chosen. The outcome was serious. The firms only pursue profits but not quality of the building, leading to the poor construction. The schools were supposed to help the people in poverty, but now they become great potential danger to the students.
Now my view of this problem changes a bit. Firstly I see the transparency of Chinese government being improved. The government used to make some of the news invisible to us citizens for fear of our protests or dissatisfaction being shown out. The news mentions that it is rare for the government to admit the phenomenon and its terrible consequences, but I, as one of Chinese citizens have seen much improvement. Years ago government seemed to be quite afraid of reporting serious accidents or problems, and the censorship of media was very powerful. For example, the casualty of an accident would be reported fewer than the real number. Now the media is much more open, although still criticized by many western people.
Secondly I see the power of government being much stronger on such problems. Chinese government has seemed to be very powerful to the western people ever since the establishment of the country, but the power of government was quite weak when dealing with these civil problems which often involve much bureaucracy. Now we see the problem-solving of the government being much faster and stronger. More transparency also shows more confidence in dealing with these problems.
As the news reported, the problem of poor construction is quite serious in China, especially in poorer areas. The government need to take harsh measures towards those irresponsible construction firms which cause all these tragic accidents. However, we can also see transparency and power of the government being improved from the news, which is a great thing to us Chinese citizens.
05 September, 2008
30 May, 2008
Democracy does not promote stability ( essay)
Many people say that democracy is the best social and political system for a country and it is democracy that promotes stability as well as economic prosperity in a country. However, I do not agree with this idea.
Firstly, democracy cannot be achieved. There is no way for all the people to be satisfied at the same time. What democracy can do and what it is doing is just following the opinion of the majority to "violate" that of the minority. For example, in America, democracy not only failed to bring fortune to all the people, but also violated the rights of African American as the majority whites in the society are discriminatory towards them. In this case, democracy is deliberately used to deny the rights of the minority instead of satisfying all the members in the society.
Secondly, democracy is more and more often used as a tool by politicians or parties. Sometimes people do not care much of it because his vote is too small and negligible comparing to the whole society. Sometimes politicians can arrange their policy and make the majority think that it is more worthy voting for it instead of against it, and sometimes politicians even demarcate the voting area to ensure that they get the majority of votes in every voting region. Nowadays democracy is far more complicated than what it was hundreds of years before and it is always being used as a tool to satisfy the politicians or the parties’ needs but not the needs of the people.
Some people say that democracy produces the balance of all the opinions, ideologies and perspectives in the whole society, and thus it promotes stability. However, imagine a country that has just been established; the people in the country are now arguing for some issues and it can easily escalate to riots and conflict. It is democracy that gives the people the right to argue for their will and rights. In fact, it is not just a hypothetical situation but has happened or is happening now in the real world, just like in Sri Lanka, which is a country in great chaos. Therefore I think sometimes democracy does not create balance but controversy or even conflict, and of course it cannot promote stability in these cases.
Furthermore, some people say that democratic countries are usually more stable and developed than authoritarian countries. However, many countries, such as Sri Lanka, despite their democratic governments, are in great turmoil. Moreover, I think neither authoritarianism nor democracy is the reason for the poverty and famine in those countries. Authoritarian countries, like China, are usually established later than the developed democratic countries, resulting in the underdevelopment. In addition, those countries that are established later often choose authoritarianism instead of democracy, for democracy which appeals to the opinions of all the people may lead to chaos as the countries are struggling to develop. I cannot say that this statement is definitely right, but I think it is an interesting question to think about.
Hence, I do not agree that democracy promotes stability.
Firstly, democracy cannot be achieved. There is no way for all the people to be satisfied at the same time. What democracy can do and what it is doing is just following the opinion of the majority to "violate" that of the minority. For example, in America, democracy not only failed to bring fortune to all the people, but also violated the rights of African American as the majority whites in the society are discriminatory towards them. In this case, democracy is deliberately used to deny the rights of the minority instead of satisfying all the members in the society.
Secondly, democracy is more and more often used as a tool by politicians or parties. Sometimes people do not care much of it because his vote is too small and negligible comparing to the whole society. Sometimes politicians can arrange their policy and make the majority think that it is more worthy voting for it instead of against it, and sometimes politicians even demarcate the voting area to ensure that they get the majority of votes in every voting region. Nowadays democracy is far more complicated than what it was hundreds of years before and it is always being used as a tool to satisfy the politicians or the parties’ needs but not the needs of the people.
Some people say that democracy produces the balance of all the opinions, ideologies and perspectives in the whole society, and thus it promotes stability. However, imagine a country that has just been established; the people in the country are now arguing for some issues and it can easily escalate to riots and conflict. It is democracy that gives the people the right to argue for their will and rights. In fact, it is not just a hypothetical situation but has happened or is happening now in the real world, just like in Sri Lanka, which is a country in great chaos. Therefore I think sometimes democracy does not create balance but controversy or even conflict, and of course it cannot promote stability in these cases.
Furthermore, some people say that democratic countries are usually more stable and developed than authoritarian countries. However, many countries, such as Sri Lanka, despite their democratic governments, are in great turmoil. Moreover, I think neither authoritarianism nor democracy is the reason for the poverty and famine in those countries. Authoritarian countries, like China, are usually established later than the developed democratic countries, resulting in the underdevelopment. In addition, those countries that are established later often choose authoritarianism instead of democracy, for democracy which appeals to the opinions of all the people may lead to chaos as the countries are struggling to develop. I cannot say that this statement is definitely right, but I think it is an interesting question to think about.
Hence, I do not agree that democracy promotes stability.
06 March, 2008
Term1 Blog Entry
Gunman kills 8 in school in Jerusalem
A gunman entered a prominent Jewish seminary in the heart of Jerusalem on Thursday night, killing at least eight students and wounding at least nine others, three of them seriously, the Israeli police said. The gunman, who was killed at the scene, was thought to be either a Palestinian or an Israeli Arab living in Jerusalem. He has not been identified.
Today, when I first saw this news on the internet, I was really shocked. I hadn’t seen any terrible news like this about Israel and Palestine for a long time before I clicked to the link this afternoon. I had thought that maybe Israelis and Palestinians would finally live without conflicts very soon. Then it came. In fact, it was the deadliest attack on Israeli civilians in nearly two years and the first attack inside Jerusalem in four.
I’m also quite concerned about the news. Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting against each other for a long time, ever since the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended that Palestine be divided into an Arab state and a Jewish state in 1947. However, things seemed to have turned better since the death of Arafat in 2004. Both sides began to be more and more willing to cooperate and to negotiate, though some extremists and terrorists still want to resolve the conflicts with violence. Now deadly attack happens again, so whether the conflict will be escalated is what I’m worrying about. Will the irritated Israelis take revenge? If they do so, both Israelis and Palestinians will suffer again, because history has told us that those conflicts can easily turn into a terrible and endless loop.
Moreover, I’m quite indignant with the news not only because the attack is so sudden and cruel, but also because the attack happens in a school and kills 8 students! In my mind, attacking children is the cruelest thing on the earth since all the children are totally innocent. They have nothing to do with the conflict, but in the end they get killed because of it. Isn’t that ridiculous and cruel? As a child (hope I can still be regarded as a child), I’m sympathetic to the students who were killed or wounded, while indignant with the news. Terrorism and extremism are bad enough, and terrorism towards young children is too much for me. Seeing the pictures of a child being carried onto an ambulance car, with blood all over his body, I feel really upset.
I hope that similar attack will never happen again, and I hope peace will finally come to Israelis and Palestinians, for the children will not suffer anymore then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
