If you look under my "who and what are you" post, you would see a comment left by an anonymous. Firstly, thank you for you time and commet, it is greatly appreciated, let me now offer my humble response (it may be short and alittle inadequate, i am supposed to be working on a Cold War paper right now, and my apologies for not replying earlier).
I must first say that much of what you wrote in your comment is easily agreeable on my part, infact, i have heard it all before, as many of my closer friends in this island-state Singapore would agree with you, especially a Mr. Pang. However, i would have to disagree with your 5th paragraph. No, i do not know deep within myself that things are wrong, but i do agree that things could be better. The key word here would probably be be better in which area. Because we are all living human beings with wants, needs and desire, it is inevitable that some of us would want certain things, while others share different views all together. Democratically, it makes perfect sense for there to be either mutual compromise or choice by majority (ie: voting), however, mutual compromise may not be effective in dealing with certain issues because differences might be too great, at the same time, the choice by majority option may alienate minorities. Let me further elaborate on the latter point: By majorities and minorities, i do not mean race/language/religion issues, but the majorities and minorities of the people's choice. Minorities have to live with the decision of the majorities, and in a simplified and clear-cut scenerio, this may mean a reduction of certain norms they may be accustomed to, or a deprivation of certain rights and/or practices. In every family, there are rules that the seniors may impose upon the rest of the household, these rules may not necessarily be always pleasing to all under that roof, however, it is usually in the best interest of the household from the perspective of the ones who make those rules. When applied to national-governance, the same issues arises. Governmental policies and legislated laws may or may not be in the best interest for all the citizens, but under the right supervision and with the properly conducted research, might be in the best interest for the nation as a whole.
I also disagree with your point that true democracy could be a reality. For example, utopian views on communism failed in the Soviet Union, and even in modern day communist/socialist states such as Vietnam or China, capitalistic elements are injected for reasons of the economy and growth. True democracy could not exist, in my perspective, simply because of human nature. Freedom is something we all enjoy, however, we also know that when given full freedom with little laws and rules to regulate, there tend to be cases of abuse.
There is nothing wrong with being anti-something, we all are anti-something in someway or another, the crucial key is for us to have a better understanding, and to be willing to listen, because while we all believe in ourselves and our perspectives, we may be incorrect or misled.
Once again, thanks for the comment!!!