To answer the question as to why country x has better housing subsidies than country y, the researchers would have to know first as to how different would Thailand’s constitutional monarchy is to the casual form of Parliament which Singapore uses. Thus, the researchers should first know and further study the bills these countries have filed related with housing subsidies. Questions like how a bill would be enacted in the constitutional monarchy and the parliamentary government. The researchers should weigh the pros and cons of the bills filed and how are they executed in each country. Are the standpoints of each nation would only be acceptable on a specific class or group of people? E.g: Senior citizens. Migrant workers etc. Or does it cover the whole and entire nation. What and how many programs these nations provide for their constituents.
The next step would have to involve the review of related literature wherein most texts intended to be used in the said comparative analysis would be coming from previous rulings from the courts of law of the Australian and New Zealand governments, and as well as United Nations resolutions and/or documents that depict or at to an extent, define the concept of indigenous people. This step would be important as it would depict the trend as to how both governments handle such concerns. Furthermore, by consulting the said texts, the researchers would then be able to support their initial claims from their analysis of how the Australian Parliament policy-making differs from that of the New Zealand Parliament.
The final step that the researchers would then have to take in order to answer the question would have to be a series of interviews with experts knowledgeable of the situation – delegates of the Singapore and Thailand governments and as well as advocacy groups and international non-governmental organizations which focus on the promotion of the rights and welfare of people in the said nations....