Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Wealth vs Freedom Prezi
Transcript of Wealth vs Freedom Prezi
(more money = more options to buy). There is no need to be concerned because allowing more freedom could actually adversely affect the pursuit of economic stability and growth by disrupting social stability and peace.
Crusaders for freedom could look more like distracting nuisances trying to overturn the ‘Singapore Way’ - e.g. Alan Shadrake ? Gopalan Nair ? Pink Dot ? – waste time, tax payers money Has wealth become the
new ''opiate of the people",
as Karl Marx said ?
This could be the government's leverage against the people. The pursuit of wealth
is meant to increase freedom.
So if there is less freedom, that very pursuit loses
one of its functions. What position would Singapore have in the world stage if it goes against the pro-freedom climate that is dominant in many countries today ? Should we be concerned
if our country has wealth,
but its people have less freedom ? A General Paper Essay Presentation There's NO need to be concerned YES, Be Concerned ! There is no need to be concerned because we can learn from history that the wealthy must share their riches in order to prevent public dissatisfaction from erupting into chaos. Various forms of redistributing wealth (e.g. taxation for public services, New Singapore Shares etc) can help quell the need for liberties in the name of championing the poor or the marginalised. There is no need to be worried because, Singapore is in a much better state compared to countries that have neither freedom nor wealth. Some avenues to speak up may have been closed for people in Singapore, but they can still use the remaining avenues to voice their opinions. Besides, at the end of the day – or 5 years, in Singapore’s case – there is always the ballot box. RESOLUTION :
Some freedom must be given up to the state in order for the state to perform its duties, in this case, work towards economic progress, while avoiding anarchic situations.
So, the concern then is not that having less freedom is undesirable, but the issue is deciding which freedoms we can do without, and what checks and balances have to be in place to protect the remaining freedoms we have. We can do with less freedom. After all, having more of it may not lead to the active championing of rights for the less privileged. It has led to greater complaints and airing of 'first world problems'.