[Groot Gouda]

UN Slum Act
Social Justice, mild

The NationStates UN,

ALARMED by the international growth of slums and the number of people living in slums,

NOTING WITH REGRET that a high proportion of slum inhabitants is living below the poverty line,

ACKNOWLEDGING that it will cost extremely large amounts of money to get rid of slums and provide proper housing to the inhabitants,

REALIZING that the nations with large slum areas usually lack fincancial means to tackle the problem,

EMPHASIZING that with relatively low-cost solutions, slums can be reduced,

1. URGES all UN member nations to contribute to reducing slums, either their own or by reserving financial or organisational aid for countries that need help in reducing slums,

2. NOTES that the slum inhabitants have to be made responsible for their own living area, and that governments or organisations active in slum redevelopment should incorporate community efforts,

3. SUGGESTS as possible solutions: building roads, providing fresh running water and electricity, building schools and founding work agencies to get the inhabitants to work in the formal instead of the informal economy,

4. DECLARES adequate shelter to be a fundamental right of all UN citizens.

[Antrium]

I didn't see anything wrong with it really...but I am not an expert at writing proposals

Quote: NOTING WITH REGRET that a high proportion of slum inhabitants is living below the poverty line[/quote]

Only thing that needs changed that I can see is that is should be changed to are

[Lawtonia]

With the exception of clause 4 I would tend to think that these responsibilities would be dealt with on a national level rather then needing an international resolution - whether a nation has slums or not, or the economic conditions necessary to relieve slum conditions is entirely dependant on each nations individual economic and social welfare policies.

However - I do like clause 4

[Groot Gouda]

AntriumAug 22 2005, 10:58 PM I didn't see anything wrong with it really...but I am not an expert at writing proposals

Quote: NOTING WITH REGRET that a high proportion of slum inhabitants is living below the poverty line[/quote]

Only thing that needs changed that I can see is that is should be changed to are [/quote]
Although English is not my first language, I'm pretty sure that a "high proportion" is, not are.

lawtonia  With the exception of clause 4 I would tend to think that these responsibilities would be dealt with on a national level rather then needing an international resolution - whether a nation has slums or not, or the economic conditions necessary to relieve slum conditions is entirely dependant on each nations individual economic and social welfare policies.[/quote]

In one way you're right. But on the other hand, sometimes nations are unable to handle the problem without outside help. That's why I've phrased clause 1 as it is. And, of course, this resolution is a sneaky way to get clause 4 into the UN legislation :pisang:

[Grosseschnauzer]

the key word is "inhabitants," which itself is plural.

Try reading the sentence with "is" and then "are." I think you would find that "are" would be correct because as the verb, it is working off the the word "inhabitants" not the words "high proportion." Those words are modifiers to the word "inhabitants."

[Sober Thought]

FIRSTLY minor issue:

Ah, verb agreement and English! Never the twain shall meet. :o

Groot Gouda is grammatically correct, but to the native English speaker's eye it looks wrong because of the close proximity of "inhabitants" and "is." Try reading it as "NOTING WITH REGRET that a high proportion is living below the poverty line" and see how it looks now.

Even the British can't get it straight and they invented the language. It grates everytime I hear things like "Labour are running a good campaign." In North America, the issue usually arises with sports, getting the agreement with team (singular) and team nicknames (with rare exceptions, plural) hopelessly muddled. "The team is doing well. They are great this year."

And don't even talk about whether data and pants are plural! :blink: And lest you think I'm any better, I'm even more confused that usual because I actually think about it rather than just go with what looks right, so whatever I write looks wrong to me. A peculiar Canadianism is the synonomity of "that" and "which" for subordinate and independent clauses, which don't exist in other branches of the English language.

So my suggestion is just change "inhabitants" to "population" (singular) and avoid the whole issue which is not important but may distract from the main event. As I have read more and more of the unapproved UN proposals, I see that a bad presentation (e.g., one on "biodisel feul") can harm an otherwise potentially agreeable proposal.


SECONDLY major issue:

While the goal is laudable, I don't think you can make adequate (or even any housing) an absolute right on either the national or international level. To use the analogy with other human rights: you have the right not to be tortured or murdered by your own government, but you can still be tortured or murdered by your fellow citizens in ordinary street crime. It is impossible for government to absolutely ensure their citizens were not tortured and murdered, but they can take reasonable steps. Similarily, if you stated governments could not interfere with people building adequate shelter and were encouraged to help people in that endeavour, then I think it would pass.

Furthermore, one person's slum is another's palance. In RL Canada, a single person on welfare living in Toronto (an expensive city) gets C$520 a month in total. The average cost of a 1 bedroom apartment, for instance, is C$850. However, that same "poor person" being forced to live in a "slum" in one of the city's less desirable neighbourhood's rooming houses, is better of than a resident of RL Bombay who makes US$400 a year picking rags.

I realize section 1 is voluntary, but it may be perceived as more hectoring or admonishing from the UN. In Sober Thought, we see this issue as part of our defence and international relations portfolio. Helping poor but democratic countries raise their lliving standards -- health, housing, social welfare, education, etc. -- is integral to creating world stability and peace. Overseas development workers are exempt from civil or military conscription because they are already on the job. But that's just me. Other countries are free to do similar, more or less; they may attach similar, more or fewer conditions to the aid. I say leave the pressure to individual nations without urging from the UN.

Section 2 is crucial. Self-government builds self-esteem and self-discipline. Feeling out of control or at the mercy of others is not condusive to getting out of the poverty rut. With the focus on low-cost solutions, this is the way to go. That's why I voted for the Microcredit Bazaar. In RL, my brother did some field research on this sort of thing in Bangladesh, and it proved to be one of the most efficient and sustainable ways to go. It is especially effective for women and groups often excluded from the cash economy, which warms the hearts of humanitarians, and it uses economic discipling which warms the hearts of freemarketeers.

[Lawtonia]

QUOTE; Groot Gouda:
[In one way you're right. But on the other hand, sometimes nations are unable to handle the problem without outside help. That's why I've phrased clause 1 as it is.]

This is a verrry sticky problem. We already know what happens from RL situations when countries assume to know whats best for other countries and give them assistance (sometimes with force). While I agree that some nations are not able to handle the problem, it should be up to them to ask for assistance - assistance should not be forced upon them - it a breach of their sovereign rights (even if we disagree with the way that country is run).

Personally I think that every human deserves adequate food, shelter, education and security but I don't the world (even with its 144,00 or so nations) has the resources to give every UN citizen the same basic living standard. While all peoples are equal - all nations are not.

Still love the work on clause 4 - do we have a UN agency to take care of these things? Isn't their already a resolution that covers this basic human right? What is the definition of "adequate shelter", in most RL countries that doesn't include plumbing, electricity, running water or indoor toilet facilities. I don't think Clause 4 should be sneaked in - its a really important issue that needs to be looked at.

I guess i'm just lucky that I live in a RL country (Australia) that pays approx A$900 (about $US650) per month for a single unemployed person and has free universal health care. I just hope Lawtonia turns out the same way. (except for having a complete knob for a leader!)

[Groot Gouda]

In general reply:

The high proportion definitely is, as Sober Thought showed. It's also a common error in Dutch, so no worries.

Section one is vital in that it makes this a UN issue, by calling for international aid and cooperation. It's "urges", so no force and no forced taking. I don't think I need to make that clear in this resolution.

Secondly, on clause 4. In the real-life UN, there are 4 "basic goods": food, shelter, education and healthcare. Each human being should have those. Now, I'm not mandating what kind of housing. Just "adequate". A leaking piece of cardboard for a family of 10 is not adequate, so the government has to provide something for those people. It could even cost a bit: a lot of people in slums are not actually below the poverty line. So set the same poverty standard throughout the UN would be silly, but what we can give is a generic bottom line: every citizen needs food, shelter, education and healthcare. The last two are already covered by the NS UN. Now it's for us to go for the first two.

In short, this resolution prescribes nothing too specific not to be able to implement it in every nation.

(OOC: I got the idea from an article on the Bombay slums, which made me remember some astonishingly easy ways of helping people in slum areas by simply providing running water and sewerage, or by building roads. They can greatly improve living conditions in slum areas and aren't all that expensive compared to building thousands of houses)