#5

CDE. The very acronym instigates involuntary trepidations in some, and unbridled pulses of pleasure in others. Me? I’m somewhere in between. After all, it is the only subject where ‘you can score without really studying’, as Ms. Yeo puts it. But like it or not, it is indubitable that the module this semester has provided us with relevant insights into the various differences and nuances between Western and Eastern politics and gender issues, in particular that of China and America’s; frankly speaking, it’s really all about America and China.

What interests me content-wise in the elective is not so much the resources the teachers provide, but rather, the diverse range of opinions my classmates bring out during class discussions. While hard facts and statistics can be accessed by anyone online, the opinions we formulate after contemplating, understanding, and ultimately internalizing the readings are to a large extent unique, varied and probably invaluable. On the other end of the spectrum, a certain individual unwittingly provides occasional doses of comedic entertainment to help defuse the tense situation in the classroom through his epic randomness and overzealous desire to provide the class with additional statistics which are unfortunately, largely questionable. Still, apart from the aforementioned individual, class discussions are mostly productive and of high intellectual standards.

The topics in many of the tutorials link together to achieve a certain flow, giving the whole module a sense of ‘one-ness’. For instance, the tutorials on American and Chinese leadership styles often lead back to the discussion of the reasons behind youth’s political apathy in earlier tutorials, helping me to create a holistic view of the central issue. This is in my opinion much better than last year when topics were mostly different and segregated. In addition, the module’s focus on politics and gender equality has brought into perspective obscure topics which I have been previously uninterested about. Gender inequality, for example, was an issue I believed to be a thing of the past –until the CDE tutorial. I was astounded that sexism is still very much prevalent today, albeit implicitly hidden under the façade of gender equality in many instances. Since doing term assignments, reflective journals and the like are essential obligations throughout the module, it has forced me to delve deeper into said topics, consequently making me more educated about some prevalent issues around the globe.

As for the assessment of students, I feel that the criteria are apt; however, there are certain aspects that can be improved upon. The CDE assessment benchmarks are extremely efficient in encouraging, or rather, forcing a constant renewal and consolidation of knowledge. Students are presented with a set of readings every week. Besides understanding the tutorial, they need to do some additional research in order to pose valid opinions during the class discussions. The class discussions then provide a platform for students to exchange and compare viewpoints, and guided by a teacher, gives us further understanding of the topic at hand. Even those who did not go through the readings would be able to grasp the gist of the issue from the class discussions. The concepts are further consolidated by the almost weekly reflective journals. This is much more efficient than the assessment methods of other subjects, most of which just comprise of a single class test every term. Students often slack throughout the entire term, do some last-minute revising right before the test, then promptly forget everything after it.

However, I feel that the oral participation component of the assessment can be improved. Though the whole purpose of that component is to encourage students to speak up in class, it is just not that feasible in our class with 39 students. The meagre 2 hours we have for CDE every week definitely does not help the situation. Therefore, we see the same few outspoken individuals dominate the discussion, while the more introverted ones can only hope to pull up their marks with expression through written assignments. Even those who want to speak up might not have the opportunity to due to time constraints. To remedy this situation, I think an online forum could be set up for students to voice their opinions afterwards. OP marks can then be given to those with perceptive comments. While this does in a way contradict the whole purpose of OP, I feel that this measure is necessary since an opportunity for everyone to speak up in class is simply impossible due to the lack of time coupled with the overwhelming numbers of our class.

To sign off,

#4

Who’s Hu?

China has experienced a meteoric rise in power. This, of course, has garnered much attention from the international community, in particular the Western one. Not because of the magnanimity of other nations to accept China as a challenger to the position of world leader the U.S. has arrogated itself to, but rather because of the political system and leadership behind China’s success. It is not often that you see a “Communist” state overtaking democratic countries to become the second largest economy in the world. In fact, it has never happened. Not until China.

The collection of readings from the last few tutorials has painted China’s leadership in a negative light. They heavily criticise China’s leadership, claiming that the government utterly disregards the inalienable human right of free speech and expression. They condemn the Chinese government for its suppression of dissenting views from her citizens , and the widespread use of political propaganda upon the Chinese population.

All these would have been valid criticisms if not for a single factor - time. I admit that the current Chinese leadership does have many flaws. The inability to access many Western websites from within China, for instance, has been nothing short of utter frustration. The sterile political environment, while of no particular concern to me, is a big deal to Westerners who see democracy as the irrefutable political doctrine that every nation should encompass. But add the concept of time into the equation, and the dynamics of the situation change.

‘Time’ seems to be the important element that Western ‘experts’ have willingly excluded from their scathing reviews on Chinese leadership. A change in political ideology takes time. It needs to come at the correct time as well. China, frankly, is not ready for a shift in politics now; especially not a change to democracy. Democracy, in my opinion, should only be considered when China has reached a considerable level of economic stability, and when most Chinese citizens, not just the urbanities, have a relatively acceptable standard of living. The current Chinese economy, while painting a rosy outlook, is really fraught with uncertainties and dangers below the surface. A sudden change in governance might very well send China tumbling back into the 1960s, rendering all her progress over the past 3 decades as naught. Just look at the developing nations who employ a democratic system of government. Look at Thailand. What has democracy brought them? Riots, demonstrations, instability. Years of economic progress have been brought crashing down by political turbulence. This is the mistake China is looking to avoid. This is the reason why the Chinese government has not accepted democracy to date.

The Westerners should know this. They know this. But they rarely bring it up in their articles and reviews. Perhaps it comes from the intrinsic fear that a rising China would be a threat to the Western nations. Perhaps the success of the Chinese economy poses a threat to the perception of democracy as the best form of governance. But at the risk of sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I believe what these Westerners are trying to do is to stop, or at least inhibit, China’s progress. Kick her while she’s getting up. Deal with her before she becomes too strong.

But then again, that is just my opinion.

I do not mean to demean democracy in anyway. Democracy, in its ideal state, is a wonderful political system. But so too, is communism. The critical factor is when the political ideologies come into play. How can a developing country, before fulfilling the basic benchmarks of progress, try to satisfy their citizens’ higher needs for freedom of expression and political activity? Developing countries like China need a strong, capable central government to progress. The inherent benefit of a totalitarian regime like that of China’s is that decisions are made swiftly. No swashbuckling between Republicans and Democrats. No passing of bills back and forth. No votes, no hassle, no unnecessary bureaucratic procedures. In China, when Hu says something, the Chinese just do it. And that has given China the impetus for its startling economic growth.

Indubitably, with China’s economic might, her leadership does not just concern herself. It is of paramount importance to the global community. The pressing question that follows is not whether if China can become a world leader. She already is. The issue here, is if she can become a responsible world leader.

“Responsible”, “world”, “leader”: each of these three words is pregnant with meaning and equally fraught with ambiguity, and there is no better way to unravel the phrase, “responsible world leader”, than to ask if there is any such thing. Not less significantly, how is it that American experts get to ask if China is going to be a “responsible world leader”, and why is it that such a question is not posed apropos of the United States itself? Has there ever been a time when the US exercised its responsibilities as a world leader, or has it always confused responsibilities with prerogative, right, and might? What does responsibility entail, and to whom is this responsibility owed? Was the US exercising responsibility when it waged war against Iraq? Should US involvement in Vietnam be construed as a textbook lesson on “responsibility”?

The problem with defining a responsible world leader is that it is subjective. We all have different opinions. Some think that the US is being responsible by getting involved in the matters of other states. Others think that the US is being too meddlesome, and should mind their own business. And since it is always impossible to come to a conclusion that satisfies everyone, I shall not. The following will therefore just be my humble viewpoints.

Much of the Western community is skeptical about China being a responsible world leader. Although they do involve China in various economic forums and such, an underlying suspicion of the Chinese government is still present. Violation of human rights? Check. Political repression? Check. Lack of freedom? Check. These are all valid points from which the suspicion arise. The fear that China would not be responsible for the global community is further heightened in the case of Sudan. The Sudanese government have led the Sudan Genocide. They are condemned by the United Nations for their grave violations of human rights, and have been slapped with various economic sanctions. However, China has continued to maintain friendly relations with Sudan in exchange for oil, the vital resource which fuels her economic growth. This has sparked widespread condemnation from Western activists, who blast China for putting their economic needs above the precious lives of the Sudanese citizens.

These points are once again, valid. But why should they stop China from becoming a ‘responsible world leader’, when the perceived ‘responsible world leader’, the United States of America, has also engaged in the acts they so readily condemn? Violations of human rights. Does Guantanamo Bay, or perhaps the Vietnamese War, ring a bell? Political propaganda. What about the CNN news report which substituted a clip of Nepal policemen beating Tibetian monks for Chinese policemen? Or the intentional misinformation about casualties in the Iraq War to garner more support for the war effort? Is the US being responsible by invading Iraq, killing scores of Iraqis, then messing up the whole country for almost a decade, before they decide to pull out not for the benefit of the Iraqi locals, but rather because the American economy cannot withstand the escalating costs of staying in Iraq? Many international surveys, conducted not just in Western countries, have shown that there are more countries who prefer China to be a global leader than America. Americans have never fundamentally bothered with much of the “world”; indeed, it would not be saying too much to suggest that, so long as Americans have their football and baseball games, their big Macs and hotdogs, they are likely to remain impervious to the consequences of the exercise of American power around the globe.Thus, before American experts gather to pontificate to others about the responsibilities that come with being a world leader, they may be well advised to reflect on what it does mean to become a responsible “stakeholder” in global affairs.

The point here? Every country has committed, whether in the past or present, the acts they so condemn China for. It is unfair to label China as irresponsible especially when the ‘responsible’ United States engage in the very same activities which have banished China to the ranks of uncivilised and crude nations.

Do I hope that China would dominate the global community in time to come? No. My knowledge is far too limited to speculate what will happen. However, I do hope that the Western community would give China a fair chance to prove herself, and not blast China with utmost hypocrisy.

#3

*No personal attacks meant. :)

Mr Lim is gone. Oh yeah. The sense of relief seems to be prevalent throughout our class this year. However, the departure of the imperious, ferocious tiger has not culminated in the liberation of style I expected. Rather, it has made presenters more comfortable with what they have been doing for years; dictating their essays aloud.

Aristotle once said, ‘Think as wise men do, but speak as the common people do’. The value of a presentation can be interpreted differently by everyone; it is subject to personal preference and external requirements. It can take on the form of a casual, extempore conversation, or perhaps a rigid, academic rendition. But the fundamental essence of presentation remains - it should be an elegant, beautiful, way of getting our ideas across to our audience. It should be clean, simple and succinct. Regretfully, many of the presenters have not made sufficient use of the power of speech - to captivate, compel and connect with their audience.

Most of the presentations have become an almost unbearable, dreadful bore. They lose their appeal when the presenters, like pre-trained robots, verbalize their essays in the same, austere structure. I agree, I agree, I disagree, blah blah blah. Structure and form, of course, is necessary. But when they are adhered to like how Nazis obey Hitler, presentations become tastelessly bland. Occasionally, presenters comes along and try to take advantage of the white-board; most of these endeavours fail. They come across to me as comical attempts to perhaps, get a few more marks ; how many times have we seen a presenter go up onto the platform, take a minute to draw some flashy tables and diagrams, add some text, and never once make a reference to their doodles on the board? Aren’t visual aids supposed to aid the us in our understanding of the topic at hand?Do these intricate tables not become mere adornments if the presenter never once utilizes them? Only a small, select minority of the presenters have been able to use visual aids to their advantage. Sheng Hui, for instance, was extremely innovative and effective in the use of his vanguard-plastic-card contraption. His visual tool immediately drew attention to his presentation, enabling him to engage the audience for the full duration of the presentation. Junyi also utilized his flow chart effectively to give the audience a greater understanding of the background and causes of the Tiananmen Incident.

Most presenters also missed the whole point of presentation completely; a presentation is to communicate, not impress. While their bombastic, fustian vocabulary might be ‘highly acclaimed’ in an academic writing assignment, the overuse of jargon and polysyllabic words only serve to distract and diverge the audience’s attention in a speech. I might be impressed, yes, but do I understand what you are getting at? If I don’t, why do you need to present when I can just read your essay? To add on, the overuse of the third-person perspective in majority of the presentations lends an impersonal and cold touch to the various speeches. Many presenters seem to be detached and aloof; they seem more eager to finish their presentation and end their ordeal rather than to engage and communicate with the audience. This consequently results in the audience’s inability to concentrate, amounting all of the presenter’s efforts to null.

Still, the presentations, or should I say, specific presentations, do have certain interesting aspects.

The one thing that intrigued me the most during the presentations were the accents. My beloved classmates seem to enjoy taking on a contorted, unnatural, funny accents when they present. Some make me laugh; others make me squirm in my seat. Yang Tao’s distinctive slur and pronunciation was comical - in a good way. The way in which he enunciated his words offered me a much-needed breather from the otherwise mundane presentations of the day. Others trying to mimic American accents made me extremely uncomfortable, but it was still interesting in a way. It is not their desire to put on an American accent, but rather, the product of their attempt which made me queasy. Many a time, I hear 3 different intonations in a single sentence. First few words in a Singaporean accent, words in the middle in a British accent, and the rest in an American accent. The next sentence comes along and again it is all jumbled up. Maybe certain people are trying too hard to impress; if you cannot speak American english, please, for god’s sake, stick with Singlish and try not to make a fool out of yourself. Still, I need to thank these people, in particular their comical accents, for brightening up the otherwise monotonous day.

The contrasting presentation styles of certain outstanding individuals also offered me some insight into their personality and character, and little doses of unique viewpoints here and there made the whole experience an interesting one. Rather than the superficial perception of the presentation as a mere test as with so many other presenters, the excellent presenters are able to connect and captivate me on a much deeper level. They put their heart and soul into the presentation, expressing their character along with their points, and this makes the presentation really, really shine. They successfully compelled me to ponder, question and ask. They make me WANT to listen, not FORCED to listen.

The interesting part is this - we see the personalities of various students begin to surface as we observe their presentations; we see the casual, laid-back ones, we see the willy, comical ones, and we see the uptight, intense ones. And as we recognize the different characters in the class, we gradually realize that the presentation styles are intrinsically linked to the person’s personality, and that a presentation is actually a reflection of a person’s identity.

To conclude, the presentations thus far have been ample in content, but rather lacking in style. We need to realize that a speech is not merely about reading words off a piece of paper. Speech is a form of empowerment, which enables us to persuade, compel and communicate. Interesting as the presentations are, I would really like to see further improvements in style in the upcoming presentations.

#2

The standing of women in society has changed drastically over the ages. Their progress is especially astonishing in the past century; women have been empowered in many ways, possessing educational opportunities deemed impossible in the past. Women have now become major players in the various industries, from the male-dominated financial world to the elegant arts. Gone are the days where women were expected to stay home and look after the children; the women of today have become ultra-competitive individuals enjoying the same privileges as their male counterparts, and are no longer deemed as subservient beings who obey their husband’s every whim and fancy.

The change in the role of women in politics has been nothing short of astounding. Once politically dormant members of society, women now possess important political positions. For example, Hillary Clinton, the former First Lady, was a presidential candidate in the 2008 elections and now holds the position of Secretary of State in the U.S Cabinet. In the same election, Alaskan governor Sarah Palin was also a vice-president candidate in Mr John McCain’s presidential campaign. This is a vast improvement from a few decades ago in the 1960s, where less than 10% of politicians were female. Across the globe in China, 32% of the 73.36 million members of the Chinese Communist Party are female, and the number of female members is still constantly growing. Again, this is a stark contrast from the patriarchal history of ancient China, where most of the Emperors were men and women were at the lowest level of the social caste; women were considered to be the property of their parents before marriage, property of their husbands after marriage and then the property of their sons and mothers-in-law after their spouse has passed on. This constant degradation and objectification of women were one of the major factors which led to the countless feminist movements over the ages. With the many feminist movements in the 20th century, women began to fight for their rights and this inevitably gave women the brilliant idea of foraging into the realms of politics; if several females could be elected into the legislation, wouldn’t the discriminatory policies towards women be changed? Another reason for the increased participation in politics by women is because they want to prove to the men that women can be smart, savvy and capable too. After centuries of physical and physiological humiliation by the men, it is time for the women to show the males that they were every bit as, if not more, capable than men.

Women have also made fearsome progress on a economic level. Women were once thought to be too incompetent to work; women now almost have a level playing field with men. Take for example our own Singapore’s Olivia Lum, CEO of Hyflux Corporation. Or perhaps Elim Chew, founder of the popular streetwear accessory chain 77th street which boasts 13 stores island-wide; it has since become a global business, with the 77 Group Corporation even setting up a underground shopping complex called 77th Street Plaza in the prestigious Xidan Cultural Central in Beijing. On the international level, Indra Nooyi, an Indian female, is currently the CEO of Pepsi Co. In fact, during her reign as CFO, the company’s revenue has increased 72% while net profits have more than doubled. This shows that the economy does not rest solely on the shoulders of men now; women are now surpassing their counterparts in various male-dominated industries. As canvassed previously, the main reason for women’s newfound corporate importance is education.

Through education have they realized that they have the capability to do what the men do; through education have they gained the essential knowledge and skills for success in the corporate environment. Consequently, the role of women economically will continue to grow as they become influential people in the various industries.

Socially, women seem to have progressed by leaps and bounds. Women in urban areas have experienced drastic, positive changes in their social status. Gone are the days when they had to make sandwiches for their husbands on command like robots and were subjected to many forms of abuse. In China, for example, the cruel practice of foot-binding so prevalent in feudal China has been banned by law. Women, in their clothing and fashion, are no longer restricted by severe societal laws as they strut around in provocative outfits. Forced marriages are officially illegal and Chinese women now pick their husbands instead. As women become financially independent, they are no longer dependent on their spouses for a living and have gradually gained an equal say in the household. Women are no longer considered as objects for the mens’ pleasure; women sometimes even dominate men verbally and physically.

The points stated above are not to say that gender equality has been achieved - it would be foolish and naive to think so. In rural areas, especially in China, gender stereotypes are still prevalent. Boys are still preferred to girls, as they are able to help out in labour and carry on the family name. The killing of baby girls in rural villages is as common a sight as it was centuries ago. In the urban society, men are considered ‘wussies’ if they become ‘dominated’ by their wives. Let us ask ourselves this- if gender equality has been achieved, why are men regarded as cowards if they do not dare to oppose their wives? If women are of equal status as men, why are women not considered cowards if they are meek and obedient towards their husbands? From this we see a stark revelation which shatters the facade of gender equality- men are still considered to be superior over women, and men are ‘supposed’ to be the one in charge in a relationship.

I would also like to propose the idea that gender equality is taking a step backwards in the 21st century as the concept of gender equality has been warped to a large extent. Now, in modern society, women have to gain respect by doing the same things as MEN. Those who continue to engage in the basic roles of women i.e. housekeeping, raising the children etc. are regarded as slackers. This then leads me to ask - if women have to do what MEN do in order to gain social status and respect, haven't they unconsciously lost their feminine identities?

Let me raise an analogy to racial equality. Racial equality does not mean that an Indian should stop making his roti-prata and chapatis and start making Chinese cuisine to gain respect from the Chinese society; it means that the Indians, or whatever race, should be respected for the culture and traits unique to them, and that they should have the same opportunities as people of other races. If they stop making chapatis, an important part of the Indian identity would be lost.

Similarly, gender equality entails that women should have treated the same way as men, and most importantly, are respected for whatever they do, be it being a housewife or a corporate employee. When they start to emulate men, they lose their feminine identities. The whole point of the earlier feminist movements were to ensure that women had the same choices and opportunities as men; it did not mean however that women HAD TO engage in 'manly activities' to be respected. Therefore, I feel that in this modern society where women need to do what the men do for the sole sake of proving to the men that they can do what the men do to gain respect, women of both countries have not progressed in terms of gender equality, but have unknowingly taken a step backwards as they try to outdo the men.

To conclude, this week's tutorial has really opened my eyes to the issue of feminism. Like many of my friends, I had the notion that feminism was a thing of the past and not really a issue in modern society. After all, living in politically stagnant Singapore, we have never encountered any radical feminists putting up demonstrations for the betterment of female rights. Through this tutorial, I have learnt the changing roles of women from past to present, and it is a very interesting topic indeed.

#1

Reflect on youth apathy towards politics. Draw on examples from China, the US and Singapore in your reflections.

Politics. Mention the very word, and vivid images surface in our minds; boring old men constantly squabbling over the same old issues, supplemented by a dazzling assortment of blatant lies and underhanded tactics. To some, politics is an art; to others, politics is an ugly exhibition of the struggle for power. But to many youth, politics is virtually non-existent. The degrees of political apathy among youth vary throughout the world, with differences in culture, upbringing and political system.

The fundamental, internal reason for the disinterest in politics prevalent among youth is, in my opinion, the perceptions of politics and politicians to these youth. I would herein like to introduce 2 similar, yet contrasting concepts; one, that youth shun politics for fear of association with the negative connotations of politics and two, that youth shun politics because they are sick and tired of the political system itself. It is obvious that the former reason is an extremely superficial one that should be condemned - youth of today do not want to be associated with the mundane image of politicians. The general image of politics as a whole is extremely unappealing to the youth population. Old, balding men in uncomfortable suits quarreling with other old, balding men in even more uncomfortable suits hardly fits the image of ‘cool’, which is such an important element in the youth’s self-image today. Modern, ultra-hip youth want to be attractive. They want their friends to view them as cool and trendy people who are living their lives to the fullest, and getting involved in politics definitely would not elevate their social status amongst their peers.

In this respect,I feel that it is disheartening that youth have such a disdainful neglect of politics just because of its mundane image, that the youth of today forsake vital matters of their country for their status among their circle of friends. However, if youth shun politics due to the partisan and treacherous nature of the political system, it is a different case altogether. The very fact that they are able to realize the flaws in the workings of the political system is a testament to their political knowledge. Ironically, they stay away from politics not because of various superficial reasons, but because they actually have a deep understanding of the politics and are able to see the petty and unethical tactics politicians employ; they are therefore turned away by the fundamental flaws in the political system. The distinction between the two types of youth are clear; one is concerned with the negative effect of association with politics would have on their social status and consequently steer clear of politics, while the other is politically savvy but choose to stay away due to their disdain for the deceitful nature of the political system.

However, what I feel is the most disturbing trend among politically apathetic youth, especially in China, is their tendency to use various excuses to cover up their self-centeredness which ultimately culminates in a lack of involvement in politics. In the article “China’s ME Generation” by Simon Elegant, many attributed their political inactiveness to a plethora of reasons such as government restrictions and fear of persecution. For instance, some proclaim that they are afraid of government persecution should they get involved in politics, which are backed by many horror stories their parents told them about political events such as the Great Leap Forward and the Tiananmen Incident. Others say that their involvement in politics might destabilize China and hinder her economic growth. However, if we compare the above to the public demonstration by hundreds of young dog owners in Beijing, a stark contrast is formed. These youth care more about the size of the dogs they can own than issues of free speech and human rights. That public demonstration also highlighted an issue that is somewhat contradictory to the perception of Chinese citizens as slaves of the Communist Party - that the youth have the courage to go against authority and the ability to organize mass demonstrations to protest against government ruling, but only, and only, when their immediate interests are under threat.

They claim that they are repressed by the government, they claim that political freedom would bring about instability and hinder China’s economy,yet they took to the streets to demand for allowance for taller pets. Through this event, we can see that majority of the reasons Chinese youth attributed to their lack of political involvement becomes invalid and come across as mere excuses for their self-centeredness; if they can risk government persecution for matters as trivial as pet size, why can’t they risk government persecution for issues much more important to their country? Furthermore, weren’t thousands of students involved in the Tiananmen Incident to protest against the Gang of Four’s limit on the period of public mourning on Premier Zhou Enlai’s death? These youth faced much bigger risk than present day youth, and yet they were proactive in making their opinions heard. Herein lies the difference between the ME generation and the youth of the past; the ME generation is driven by self-interest, while the Chinese youth of the past are driven by progress for their country. Still, I feel that we cannot blame the Chinese youth entirely, since they are in essence products of governmental policies. Policies such as the one-child policy have spawned a new breed of spoiled youth, who are only interested in things that bring them personal gain.

Therefore, I feel that China’s ME generation’s self-centeredness, coupled with the bad image of politicians are 2 of the most important reasons for political apathy amongst Chinese youth today.

The Chinese youth’s attitude towards politics can also be compared with that of the Singaporean youth. Both countries share remarkable similarities, being governed by a single party for long periods of time. The youth in both countries possess the same mentality as well; as long as the government provides us with good living conditions and material comforts, we do not need to bother about politics. Leave that to the lawmakers.

However, I feel that the youth in the U.S. are quite politically active. Yes, the readings said that many of them failed their civics education tests. However, this does not mean necessarily mean that they are politically apathetic. Claiming that U.S youth are politically inactive on the sole basis of their tests scores is analogous to claiming that one does not like music simply because he/she failed a music theory test. Having a poor understanding on the basic values of democracy does not directly correlate to lack of political interest and involvement. For instance, many youth vote during the presidential elections. More recently, American youths turned out in droves to support Barack Obama’s campaign. Is that not testament enough to their involvement in politics? With the protection bestowed upon them by the First Amendment, American youths are able to state their dissatisfactions without worry, leading to a much more politically active environment than China overall. Still, the American youth have started to take their two-century-old democracy for granted, and this is a alarming trend that has to be stopped.

To conclude this somewhat lengthy journal, this week’s tutorial has heightened my understanding on the causes of political apathy amongst youth all over the world. Upon deeper reflection, I realized that in this pragmatic, modern society, politics are often never cared about unless they cross with the youth’s personal interests. I learnt that the degree of political apathy in different countries with different government ideologies are different, but most of the reasons stem from complacency as youth become satisfied with the material comforts brought by current political models and do not seek progress. Of course, political activeness in the U.S is much higher than that of China, due to their solid democratic foundations which ensure protection of freedom of speech. Having analyzed and studied the readings, I have developed a significantly improved understanding of the political apathy amongst youth today, and this would definitely be helpful in future bi-cultural studies.