In the recently concluded Olympics, we see the Chinese dominating every other country in the overall gold medal tally. This tremendous feat is accomplished, even with many Chinese-versus-Chinese matches.
That means that China has more than enough human talent to acquire its top seat on the medal table, with the excess flocking to other countries to represent them, such as Singapore's entirely foreign China born table tennis team. Now I shall examine how this comes about.
China has suffered an inferiority complex against the West ever since the Opium war where China fell to the West. Since then, China began the long arduous journey of reclaiming her lost reputatation, by striving for superiority over Western countries. Sports was one of the ways of doing so.
Thus, China created a medal-winning-machine. With an army of talent scouts, and a huge government-sponsored budget, China picks the best talents and genes, even picking the most suitable body shape and structure, and people with the right mentality etc. This nearly perfect people are then perfected, by being sent off to training camps at a tender age, where they will live for the rest of their lives, their entire future, having been decided when they were spotted by the talent scouts.
Unfortunately for them, they are not the only ones. Many have been chosen by the talent scouts, but only a few will be given the opportunity to represent China. Those who do not make it, are still of a very high standard, given the size of the country and thus, its talent pool, and given the immense training they have gone through. Given a chance to represent another country, they will achieve success. Having invested, sacrificed and risked so much, it means the world to them to achieve success in their sport. Therefore, without a doubt, they will take that chance.
Thus, in today's sporting arena, Chinese represent many more countries apart from their homeland. And with this phenomena, there is much debate and controversy about foreign-born sportsmen representing countries for the Olympics.
In my opinion, we have to attempt to reach a conclusion on this issue with two tiers. Firstly, on the "rights" of sportsmen. "Rights" is used because they are not official, unlike the normal human rights. But I feel that these rights are equally important, given the nature of a sportsman in today's highly competitive context. For sportsmen, sports is no longer a job or profession, it has evolved into an activity their life revolves around, an obsession.
This is especially so with Chinese sportsmen. Their "education" (which is training) begins at 4 and ends around 18. Due to the short period where the physical ability of a person peaks, their career spans only a few years, from 18 to 25. Having devoted one's childhood and paid so much in terms of opportunity costs, that short time in the career means everything to a sportsman.
Therefore, if they fail to represent their country for one Olympics, they cannot simply wait and hope to do better and qualify for the next. Four years is too precious, considering how little time they have. The Olympics are the highest platform for sports, the most important test, whether they make it or break it, it seperates the successful from the mediocre, it decides whether their life's work pays off, or whether it was all a waste. Their only chance, is to find a way to compete in the Olympics, which means representing a foreign country.
Having sacrificed so much, they have earned the privilege for a fighting chance to achieve glory and success. But considering the tremendous amount of work required to earn that privilege, the blood, sweat and tears shed, that is more than a privilege, entirely worthy to be deemed a right, which it is. Thus, I have proven to you the "right" of these sportsmen and that right can only be fulfilled by representing a foreign country.
On the second tier, I shall examine the nature of the sporting event. What is the purpose of the Olympics? A platform for the sportsmen or the countries? If it is for the sportsmen, it means that they get to fulfill their right, as long as they are of sufficient calibre to be wanted by foreign countries and to represent them.
But this is unfeasible, given the status quo where the Olympics is a platform where countries, not sportsmen compete. Evidence for this is the hype that is given to the countries leading the medal tables. But is it fair? When the right of athletes is infringed upon, where they make the sacrifice for their country and get no reward or compensation when they are not allowed to achieve their full potential and fulfill their right, it is not fair, and definitely not right.
But the Olympics will stay this way. As George Orwell said, "Serious sport is war minus the shooting." Sports is war amongst the overly nationalistic, xenophobic countries. It is a pseudo-war amongst countries as they strive to prove their superiority over others, and be victorious in the arena of sports. Therefore, the Olympics will stay as a platform for countries to battle.
In that case, it is long overdue that we create a platform for sportsmen, one which is the epitome of sports and the human limit, one where their well-deserved right can be fulfilled, one where sportsmen will compete as individuals and not for their countries. A platform like the Olympics, where sportsmen can achieve the success and glory that they have toiled for, yet one where their right can be fulfilled.
It is time this be done, time we stop this disgusting, atrocious abuse of human rights, the right of sportsmen.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Of Democracy, Stability and Society
“Democracy creates stability in a society.”
Approximately 65% of countries in the world are democracies. Democratically speaking, we are a democratic world. Democracies are the most common form of governance in the world today.
A Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people, where the people of the country get a say in the issues concerning their nation and where the majority rules. Derived from the Greek word “Demos” (people) and “kratia” (power), it literally means People-Power!
But does this necessitate that it creates stability in society? I think not. I disagree to a large extent that democracy creates stability in society, as I will prove in my essay.
There are two main forms of democracy in the world today, direct and representative, but since both are still democracies, I will be discussing both of them in my essay. Also, there are many degrees of democracies, from the liberal to the conservative. However, I will not make any such distinctions, but instead, discuss democracy as a whole.
Stability is a rather subjective concept, where sometimes, a society can be both stable and unstable at the same time, as I will discuss in my essay. But basically, to be stable is to be steady, enduring, resistant to change and steadfast.
Now, I shall begin on how, when and why democracy creates stability.
Equality, freedom of expression and fairness are the key virtues of democracy and its voting system. Everyone gets to vote on issues regarding the state. They are given the power to influence decisions that ultimately affects them. Laws and initiatives are passed according to the majority’s decisions. Thus, the government acts in the best interests of the majority of the people. The people are thus satisfied with their government and that their needs are being met. With satisfaction, conflict is chased away by peace and harmony, which results in stability.
Also, the government is of the people, and elected by the people and for the people. If the government fails to live up to the expectations of the people, and is unable or unwilling to exist for the people, or loses the people’s trust and respect, it can be replaced by another government which is also elected by the people. Any government that might potentially create instability is voted out of governance and a more capable one, in the people’s eyes, is re-elected.
Thus, we see that the people form the highest social strata of a democratic society. The entire society and government is made to revolve around its people. With their every whim and fancy attended to, the people are satisfied. Since the people form the society, society is satisfied. And a satisfied society is one that is resistant to drastic change, since it believes that it is already doing very well. So it remains steadfast and steady, and continuing its status quo, stably. Thus, democracy creates stability in society.
Now on the flip side of the coin, I shall begin examining how, why and when, democracy does not create stability for society.
Despite all the virtues of democracy, it is not perfect. Let us discuss the whole idea of the tyranny of the majority. A democracy is such that the majority gets to call the shots, disregarding the minority’s views. After all, a democracy disregards the idea of a herd mentality, and assumes that the more people agree to something, the better that decision would be. Therefore, the majority dictates over the minority.
Now this leads to the majority marginalising the minority, where the minority has to perpetually compromise. This minority would then be highly dissatisfied. It would want change, for more fairness. The plight they are facing is entirely contradictory to a democracy’s fundamental ideals of equality, freedom and fairness. But since they, being the minority, are unable to evoke change politically, they have no choice but to resort to violent physical means. Examining Sri Lanka and their Tamil Tigers’ protests, we know that the result is a highly unstable society.
Next, democracies are based on certain assumptions, that if untrue, tears down the whole system altogether. Democracies are based on decisions. The decisions its people make. However, a democracy also decides to assume that humans are rational beings, capable of making its own decisions. Therefore, it entrusts the common people to make all the decisions in the country. Whether or not these decisions are correct, or really in the best interests of the people, the democracy leaves it up to the people.
But what happens if this fundamental assumption is flawed? Perhaps people are not all that rational as they are assumed to be. Then, what kind of decisions can we expect the people to make? What kind of decisions do irrational beings made? Bad ones, I assure you. Drawing an analogy, it is similar to having an irrational dictator lead you. The dictator is chosen because I have already proven how tyrannically similar to dictators the majority can be. Looking back to a sad time in history, irrational dictators like Adolf Hitler, made decisions like Holocausts. That definitely leads to instability in society.
And even if humans are rational, they still need a certain level of education to be able to make the right decisions. Evidence for this is obvious. Just compare any Tom, Dick or Harry on the streets, with an academic. Who is able to make the better decision? Who is better-informed, better equipped to analyse and weigh his options? I think we all know the answer.
Democracy assumes that its people have this education. However, a vast majority of the world together are living under a dollar a day. With barely enough to put food on their tables, and a roof over their heads, are they still capable of receiving an education? And not just any education, but it has to be sufficient education to allow them to take part in policy and law making. This is precisely what a democracy does, equating the common laymen to lawyers and politicians. Thus, wrong national decisions are presumably made, instability is caused.
Now, we move on to the assumption on participation. A democracy assumes that its people will participate in 100% in every referendum and vote it has. For a direct democracy, it is evidently impossible. Switzerland is such an example. It holds numerous votes, but the average participation rate is a mere 40%. Even if, we take an ideal situation, that all 40% of an entire nation agrees entirely, which is impossible, it is still unable to form a true majority. It is still a largely inaccurate representation of the people. This defeats the entire purpose of democracy.
In a democratic society where 100% of the people are supposed to make decisions for the entire society, any lesser percentage of people is unable to still act in the best interests of society. This is the crux of a democracy, without which, democracy does not stand. Thus, we have the formation of pseudo democracies, in which even if stability is created, it is still not a democracy and thus, opposes the statement.
Finally, although I talked about how the people’s power to re-elect its government creates stability, it can also do the opposite. Unlike a dictatorship, where the ruler stays in power for long periods of time, in a democracy, the ruling body can change much more frequently, depending on the outcome of the votes. Now, each new ruling body will have a different set of ideologies and ideals, and these new sets of ideas will be implemented nationwide. Comparing the two, would a country with a fixed set of ideals for a few decades be more stable, or would one which changes its ideals at every whim and fancy be more stable? Examining one of the mentioned criteria for stability, a stable society is one that is resistant to drastic change. The former is definitely more stable.
Thus, we see that democracy is not as pretty as it is painted out to be. Its fundamental principles are contradicted by itself. While it proclaims to promote virtues like equality, freedom and fairness, it submits its minority to unfair injustice and oppression. While re-electing may create stability, it can easily create instability as well. Democracy is chockfull with assumptions, on which it rests it entire system upon. These weak pillars can easily be torn down, and when they do, democracy falls with it. Humans may not be rational beings, participants in democracy may not be educated enough to make the right decisions and not every one in a democracy will participate in votes.
Thus, I conclude by disagreeing to a large extent that democracy creates stability in society.
Approximately 65% of countries in the world are democracies. Democratically speaking, we are a democratic world. Democracies are the most common form of governance in the world today.
A Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people, where the people of the country get a say in the issues concerning their nation and where the majority rules. Derived from the Greek word “Demos” (people) and “kratia” (power), it literally means People-Power!
But does this necessitate that it creates stability in society? I think not. I disagree to a large extent that democracy creates stability in society, as I will prove in my essay.
There are two main forms of democracy in the world today, direct and representative, but since both are still democracies, I will be discussing both of them in my essay. Also, there are many degrees of democracies, from the liberal to the conservative. However, I will not make any such distinctions, but instead, discuss democracy as a whole.
Stability is a rather subjective concept, where sometimes, a society can be both stable and unstable at the same time, as I will discuss in my essay. But basically, to be stable is to be steady, enduring, resistant to change and steadfast.
Now, I shall begin on how, when and why democracy creates stability.
Equality, freedom of expression and fairness are the key virtues of democracy and its voting system. Everyone gets to vote on issues regarding the state. They are given the power to influence decisions that ultimately affects them. Laws and initiatives are passed according to the majority’s decisions. Thus, the government acts in the best interests of the majority of the people. The people are thus satisfied with their government and that their needs are being met. With satisfaction, conflict is chased away by peace and harmony, which results in stability.
Also, the government is of the people, and elected by the people and for the people. If the government fails to live up to the expectations of the people, and is unable or unwilling to exist for the people, or loses the people’s trust and respect, it can be replaced by another government which is also elected by the people. Any government that might potentially create instability is voted out of governance and a more capable one, in the people’s eyes, is re-elected.
Thus, we see that the people form the highest social strata of a democratic society. The entire society and government is made to revolve around its people. With their every whim and fancy attended to, the people are satisfied. Since the people form the society, society is satisfied. And a satisfied society is one that is resistant to drastic change, since it believes that it is already doing very well. So it remains steadfast and steady, and continuing its status quo, stably. Thus, democracy creates stability in society.
Now on the flip side of the coin, I shall begin examining how, why and when, democracy does not create stability for society.
Despite all the virtues of democracy, it is not perfect. Let us discuss the whole idea of the tyranny of the majority. A democracy is such that the majority gets to call the shots, disregarding the minority’s views. After all, a democracy disregards the idea of a herd mentality, and assumes that the more people agree to something, the better that decision would be. Therefore, the majority dictates over the minority.
Now this leads to the majority marginalising the minority, where the minority has to perpetually compromise. This minority would then be highly dissatisfied. It would want change, for more fairness. The plight they are facing is entirely contradictory to a democracy’s fundamental ideals of equality, freedom and fairness. But since they, being the minority, are unable to evoke change politically, they have no choice but to resort to violent physical means. Examining Sri Lanka and their Tamil Tigers’ protests, we know that the result is a highly unstable society.
Next, democracies are based on certain assumptions, that if untrue, tears down the whole system altogether. Democracies are based on decisions. The decisions its people make. However, a democracy also decides to assume that humans are rational beings, capable of making its own decisions. Therefore, it entrusts the common people to make all the decisions in the country. Whether or not these decisions are correct, or really in the best interests of the people, the democracy leaves it up to the people.
But what happens if this fundamental assumption is flawed? Perhaps people are not all that rational as they are assumed to be. Then, what kind of decisions can we expect the people to make? What kind of decisions do irrational beings made? Bad ones, I assure you. Drawing an analogy, it is similar to having an irrational dictator lead you. The dictator is chosen because I have already proven how tyrannically similar to dictators the majority can be. Looking back to a sad time in history, irrational dictators like Adolf Hitler, made decisions like Holocausts. That definitely leads to instability in society.
And even if humans are rational, they still need a certain level of education to be able to make the right decisions. Evidence for this is obvious. Just compare any Tom, Dick or Harry on the streets, with an academic. Who is able to make the better decision? Who is better-informed, better equipped to analyse and weigh his options? I think we all know the answer.
Democracy assumes that its people have this education. However, a vast majority of the world together are living under a dollar a day. With barely enough to put food on their tables, and a roof over their heads, are they still capable of receiving an education? And not just any education, but it has to be sufficient education to allow them to take part in policy and law making. This is precisely what a democracy does, equating the common laymen to lawyers and politicians. Thus, wrong national decisions are presumably made, instability is caused.
Now, we move on to the assumption on participation. A democracy assumes that its people will participate in 100% in every referendum and vote it has. For a direct democracy, it is evidently impossible. Switzerland is such an example. It holds numerous votes, but the average participation rate is a mere 40%. Even if, we take an ideal situation, that all 40% of an entire nation agrees entirely, which is impossible, it is still unable to form a true majority. It is still a largely inaccurate representation of the people. This defeats the entire purpose of democracy.
In a democratic society where 100% of the people are supposed to make decisions for the entire society, any lesser percentage of people is unable to still act in the best interests of society. This is the crux of a democracy, without which, democracy does not stand. Thus, we have the formation of pseudo democracies, in which even if stability is created, it is still not a democracy and thus, opposes the statement.
Finally, although I talked about how the people’s power to re-elect its government creates stability, it can also do the opposite. Unlike a dictatorship, where the ruler stays in power for long periods of time, in a democracy, the ruling body can change much more frequently, depending on the outcome of the votes. Now, each new ruling body will have a different set of ideologies and ideals, and these new sets of ideas will be implemented nationwide. Comparing the two, would a country with a fixed set of ideals for a few decades be more stable, or would one which changes its ideals at every whim and fancy be more stable? Examining one of the mentioned criteria for stability, a stable society is one that is resistant to drastic change. The former is definitely more stable.
Thus, we see that democracy is not as pretty as it is painted out to be. Its fundamental principles are contradicted by itself. While it proclaims to promote virtues like equality, freedom and fairness, it submits its minority to unfair injustice and oppression. While re-electing may create stability, it can easily create instability as well. Democracy is chockfull with assumptions, on which it rests it entire system upon. These weak pillars can easily be torn down, and when they do, democracy falls with it. Humans may not be rational beings, participants in democracy may not be educated enough to make the right decisions and not every one in a democracy will participate in votes.
Thus, I conclude by disagreeing to a large extent that democracy creates stability in society.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Is doping in sports ever justifiable?
How much are some willing to sacrifice to beat his time, further his distance and gain the glory? How much are some willing to risk? Is it worth it to sacrifice one’s health and integrity, sacrifice one’s everything; all for that champion title?
Doping has always been a plague of sports. The question that now arises is whether it is ever justifiable and whether the athlete is really to be blamed.
Faster. Higher. Stronger.
This is the goal of every sportsman. The reason they are willing to undergo near impossible amounts of hardship. The reason they devote their entire lives to. The reason some of them lose their integrity. The reason they dope.
In this article, I am not trying to say that it is alright to dope. I am merely saying that I understand why some of them are driven to such extreme measures.
Not anyone can be a sportsman. One would need the right physique, the right genes and the talent. In some countries like China, these sportsmen are chosen at a tender age through certain screening processes, often even before they begin schooling. They are shifted to a training academy, often far away from home, where they seldom, or even never get to see their parents.
Their life would then revolve around an activity called training. In this activity, the sportsman is put under tremendous amounts of stress, physical, mental and emotional. Physical stress, because they push their bodies to the limits of humanity.
“3.45am alarm that heralded a 16-kilometre run in the dark. The athletes were exhausted from that, but they then had to complete a two-hour weights session - and they still hadn't eaten. Then they did two massive rowing sessions. This was the expected work rate every day.”
Mental stress, because they have to force their mind to cut out all distractions like fatigue and pain that will obstruct their ability to achieve their goal. Emotional stress, because they often have to find the will to go on day by day or after a failure and not give up.
This stress and pressure originates from themselves and those who invested in them. The word “invest” here is used literally. These athletes are merely like a commodity which you sponsor in the hopes of reaping rewards.
“When we talked about the athletes we referred to them not as a name but a number.”
But to them, it is a great privilege. To most of these athletes, their sport had become their lifeline. Through it, they were given an opportunity of a lifetime to better their lives and their family’s lives. When you hear about coaches abusing their players, you probably think this external pressure is a lot. Although it is already more than many can handle, the pressure an athlete places on himself can be far higher when his and his family's future depended on his performance. And so, they would stop at nothing to achieve their dreams.
When the time comes for the culmination of their blood, sweat and tears; the culmination of their entire lives’ work, it was a make it or break it situation. If they performed in the meet, their families would continue their relatively good life while the athlete would continue to be invested in. If not, it was all over for them.
“…everything there was about winning gold. If you don't win, the money dries up and the programme stops. The pressure was huge. The parents of the athletes were given houses; if the athletes weren't successful, their parents would have to leave. At the National Games, Henan's rowing improved from nineteenth (of 22 provinces) to second and we won two silvers and three bronzes but no gold. Within half an hour of the last final, half my staff had been sacked.”
Having all their eggs in the same basket, if they did not perform up to expectations, they had no where else to go, and nothing else to do. They risked everything they had when they were selected for this treacherous path. They had no other qualifications apart from their sport. Their lives revolved around it. Without sports, they had nothing.
How would you feel if you were in their situation? Where you have did your best throughout your life but still would not make it no matter how hard you tried. Where the fate of your future was at risk if you did not win. Driven to such extremes in such a critical situation, can you guarantee that you would still behave rationally?
In such a situation, would you seriously be concerned about the “ideals of olympics”, “dehumanizing the human spirit” and so on? With your back up against the wall, what choice would you have? Think about this before you are so quick to pass your judgment. Think of this before you expect too much from athletes, who despite their super-human capabilities, are after all, merely human.
DISCLAIMER: I am not saying that all athletes who doped do it under the circumstances mentioned in my article. Neither am I saying that my article justifies doping in any circumstance. I am just presenting another perspective on this doping issue. I am merely trying to empathize with these sportsmen. This is merely a commentary, where its purpose is not to persuade. As my English teacher says, “take it or leave it”.
Word Count: 498 (excluding Disclaimer, Introduction (bold) and quoted text (italicized) from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/article3330003.ece)
Other references:
http://www.financialpost.com/money/Story.html?id=223495&p=2
http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2004/03/04/Sports/Players.Accuse.Coach.Of.Abuse-626121-page3.shtml
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_sports/view/333679/1/.html
Doping has always been a plague of sports. The question that now arises is whether it is ever justifiable and whether the athlete is really to be blamed.
Faster. Higher. Stronger.
This is the goal of every sportsman. The reason they are willing to undergo near impossible amounts of hardship. The reason they devote their entire lives to. The reason some of them lose their integrity. The reason they dope.
In this article, I am not trying to say that it is alright to dope. I am merely saying that I understand why some of them are driven to such extreme measures.
Not anyone can be a sportsman. One would need the right physique, the right genes and the talent. In some countries like China, these sportsmen are chosen at a tender age through certain screening processes, often even before they begin schooling. They are shifted to a training academy, often far away from home, where they seldom, or even never get to see their parents.
Their life would then revolve around an activity called training. In this activity, the sportsman is put under tremendous amounts of stress, physical, mental and emotional. Physical stress, because they push their bodies to the limits of humanity.
“3.45am alarm that heralded a 16-kilometre run in the dark. The athletes were exhausted from that, but they then had to complete a two-hour weights session - and they still hadn't eaten. Then they did two massive rowing sessions. This was the expected work rate every day.”
Mental stress, because they have to force their mind to cut out all distractions like fatigue and pain that will obstruct their ability to achieve their goal. Emotional stress, because they often have to find the will to go on day by day or after a failure and not give up.
This stress and pressure originates from themselves and those who invested in them. The word “invest” here is used literally. These athletes are merely like a commodity which you sponsor in the hopes of reaping rewards.
“When we talked about the athletes we referred to them not as a name but a number.”
But to them, it is a great privilege. To most of these athletes, their sport had become their lifeline. Through it, they were given an opportunity of a lifetime to better their lives and their family’s lives. When you hear about coaches abusing their players, you probably think this external pressure is a lot. Although it is already more than many can handle, the pressure an athlete places on himself can be far higher when his and his family's future depended on his performance. And so, they would stop at nothing to achieve their dreams.
When the time comes for the culmination of their blood, sweat and tears; the culmination of their entire lives’ work, it was a make it or break it situation. If they performed in the meet, their families would continue their relatively good life while the athlete would continue to be invested in. If not, it was all over for them.
“…everything there was about winning gold. If you don't win, the money dries up and the programme stops. The pressure was huge. The parents of the athletes were given houses; if the athletes weren't successful, their parents would have to leave. At the National Games, Henan's rowing improved from nineteenth (of 22 provinces) to second and we won two silvers and three bronzes but no gold. Within half an hour of the last final, half my staff had been sacked.”
Having all their eggs in the same basket, if they did not perform up to expectations, they had no where else to go, and nothing else to do. They risked everything they had when they were selected for this treacherous path. They had no other qualifications apart from their sport. Their lives revolved around it. Without sports, they had nothing.
How would you feel if you were in their situation? Where you have did your best throughout your life but still would not make it no matter how hard you tried. Where the fate of your future was at risk if you did not win. Driven to such extremes in such a critical situation, can you guarantee that you would still behave rationally?
In such a situation, would you seriously be concerned about the “ideals of olympics”, “dehumanizing the human spirit” and so on? With your back up against the wall, what choice would you have? Think about this before you are so quick to pass your judgment. Think of this before you expect too much from athletes, who despite their super-human capabilities, are after all, merely human.
DISCLAIMER: I am not saying that all athletes who doped do it under the circumstances mentioned in my article. Neither am I saying that my article justifies doping in any circumstance. I am just presenting another perspective on this doping issue. I am merely trying to empathize with these sportsmen. This is merely a commentary, where its purpose is not to persuade. As my English teacher says, “take it or leave it”.
Word Count: 498 (excluding Disclaimer, Introduction (bold) and quoted text (italicized) from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/article3330003.ece)
Other references:
http://www.financialpost.com/money/Story.html?id=223495&p=2
http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2004/03/04/Sports/Players.Accuse.Coach.Of.Abuse-626121-page3.shtml
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_sports/view/333679/1/.html
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)