It has been quite a while since I last updated this blog, but now I shall whilst im convalescing here on my bed, aching all over like an old man. Growing old sucks, ok? Don't let anybody psycho you with all that bullshit about growing old 'gracefully'. When your butt and boobs start to sag, it ain't pretty.
Speaking of which, you sld really check out the latest photos of Putin. Arguably one of the few politicians in the world who CAN be photographed naked. It's said to be part of his re-election campaign by attempting to score points with young women - erm, seriously? so tall blonde slav chicks did old dyedushkas? i thought it was only a babushka thing. ah well.
Elsewhere in the world, Ahmadinejad's (omg i spelt it off-hand, and PS: its pronounced ACKH-ma-dee-nee-jad) coronation took place. Interesting to see how things wld play out for the coming months. Is this the tipping point for the conservatives in Iran? Can we finally say Goodbye to the Ayatollah?
and in the Straits Times, PROZZIES ARE SEEN AS MORE TRUSTWORTHY THAN PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN CHINA! HAHAHAHAHA. omg this is hilarious.
well.
at least u know what you're getting into when u give a prostitute $50.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Tuesday Happy Day
It's been almost half a year since I last updated this blog. Many things happened. Many of which are hardly worth a dime in recounting or retelling. Some are meant to be forgotten. The urge to write has somehow diminished as well.
Silence, and three weekends more.
Silence, and three weekends more.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Inspiration
You don't get inspiration sitting in an office all day long.
It is an elusive creature that needs to be sought out
pounces upon you unknowingly when
you're pouring the tea
or watching the
clock.
It is an elusive creature that needs to be sought out
pounces upon you unknowingly when
you're pouring the tea
or watching the
clock.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
An absolutely beautiful movie exemplifying the transcendental value of Fitzgerald's short story and it's incisive study of life and what it means to grow old - well, in the case of Benjamin, younger. This simple subversion is just so brilliant.
I'm plunged back into an existential crisis.
What the hell am I doing with my life? But what is the point of it all if we're going to die? Why go through all that love and pain? And no I don't the buy the story that we're all here because we're living a life of guilt and that we live in shame so we can go to heaven. If that's the only prerequisite needed to enter a perfect universe, the world as we know it wouldn't exist. The naive sheep don't talk about the other requirements like adherence to certain 'rules' though. Nobody actually follows everything.
Anyway
The movie was slow and painful. Just like life. Love, loss, hope, laughter, and death. Every single moment heart wrenching. Every life fated for something. Every life lived was for something.
And in the end was Death.
I also loved how the movie captured American history in the nutshell - from the post WW1 euphoria right up to the Beetles era, and then ending with Katrina. The centrality of New Orleans exemplifies the timeliness and the importance of context in appreciating the full power of the film. It's something that I'm going to keep thinking about cuz I don't think I really got it yet. Watch out for the clock at the end when the flood comes in though. It was said to have been a requiem to all the deaths during the war, and the desire for the dead to return back to life. for time to go back. maybe it's the same as with hurricance Katrina. absolutely beautiful metaphor.
oh i love the accents as well. There's something so beautifully exotic and distant about it. Something from our recent past, and yet suggestive of so much Black culture and history. Something very seductive.
The frequent recurrence of the storm acted very much like a Wagnerian leitmotif as well. Loved it.
Yet death pervades the entire movie right from the started. Benjamin sees death all around it. People come and go. He meets them at the end of their lives whilst he just begins his. Every moment is painful. Every death, loss. In the end was his, as with his lover.
What is life? love sex loss death pain pleasure happiness melancholy. Shakespeare knew that. So did Fitzgerald.
What am I doing with my life? Every life is one worth living but what for? I need to know.
I need to know.
I keep asking people for the answer and I continually ask myself that as well. But i wish i knew. Or maybe I will only find out in the end, just like in the movies. When I'm on my deathbed.
When that time comes, who will I be with? Who will i remember in those sudden stream of flashbacks? will there be any?
I wonder. And the young don't.
I'm plunged back into an existential crisis.
What the hell am I doing with my life? But what is the point of it all if we're going to die? Why go through all that love and pain? And no I don't the buy the story that we're all here because we're living a life of guilt and that we live in shame so we can go to heaven. If that's the only prerequisite needed to enter a perfect universe, the world as we know it wouldn't exist. The naive sheep don't talk about the other requirements like adherence to certain 'rules' though. Nobody actually follows everything.
Anyway
The movie was slow and painful. Just like life. Love, loss, hope, laughter, and death. Every single moment heart wrenching. Every life fated for something. Every life lived was for something.
And in the end was Death.
I also loved how the movie captured American history in the nutshell - from the post WW1 euphoria right up to the Beetles era, and then ending with Katrina. The centrality of New Orleans exemplifies the timeliness and the importance of context in appreciating the full power of the film. It's something that I'm going to keep thinking about cuz I don't think I really got it yet. Watch out for the clock at the end when the flood comes in though. It was said to have been a requiem to all the deaths during the war, and the desire for the dead to return back to life. for time to go back. maybe it's the same as with hurricance Katrina. absolutely beautiful metaphor.
oh i love the accents as well. There's something so beautifully exotic and distant about it. Something from our recent past, and yet suggestive of so much Black culture and history. Something very seductive.
The frequent recurrence of the storm acted very much like a Wagnerian leitmotif as well. Loved it.
Yet death pervades the entire movie right from the started. Benjamin sees death all around it. People come and go. He meets them at the end of their lives whilst he just begins his. Every moment is painful. Every death, loss. In the end was his, as with his lover.
What is life? love sex loss death pain pleasure happiness melancholy. Shakespeare knew that. So did Fitzgerald.
What am I doing with my life? Every life is one worth living but what for? I need to know.
I need to know.
I keep asking people for the answer and I continually ask myself that as well. But i wish i knew. Or maybe I will only find out in the end, just like in the movies. When I'm on my deathbed.
When that time comes, who will I be with? Who will i remember in those sudden stream of flashbacks? will there be any?
I wonder. And the young don't.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Of Decisions
It's Sunday and I'm out at Millennia Walk sitting at starbucks with a good hot chocolate typing this article.
This, particularly enraged me yesterday. According to Agence France-Presse, radical cleric Qatada, once labelled Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe by a Spanish judge, was awarded $5400 by the Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights - which will also rule on a final appeal against his deportation from Britain. It was this very court that also ruled against the UK's DNA project, hampering what could possibly have been a major milestone in the development of scientific research in DNA and the history of Man.
This, particularly enraged me yesterday. According to Agence France-Presse, radical cleric Qatada, once labelled Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe by a Spanish judge, was awarded $5400 by the Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights - which will also rule on a final appeal against his deportation from Britain. It was this very court that also ruled against the UK's DNA project, hampering what could possibly have been a major milestone in the development of scientific research in DNA and the history of Man.
The European court noted that the level of compensation was "substantially lower than those which it had made in past cases of unlawful detention", and that it reflected the fact that his detention "was devised in the face of a public emergency" and weighed protecting the public against a duty not to return people to countries where they faced a real risk of ill-treatment. The ruling was of course made a day after the House of Lords ruled that he could be deported to Jordon - where he already has been sentenced to life imprisonment for terror offences - and could possibly face torture.
I am personally against the ruling.
The sentence ruled on the following bases:
1) That it was ultimately an unlawful detention.
2) That the duty not to return peoples to a place where they could face torture outweighs the duty to protect the public.
Simplified as such, the ruling is stupid, idiotic and beyond the claims of common sense. If the sentence is to be believed, it is clear that the Strasbourg Court believes that the right of one outweighs the rights of the people. The logic goes like this:
Fact: Qatada is a convict in Jordan who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for terrorist activities.
Fact: Torture is prevalent in Jordan.
Premise 1: Man has the right to be protected from torture and from dangerous terrorists.
Premise 2: However, Qatada has been detained without clear evidence for terrorism in Britain.
Conclusion: Since his threat to the public is not immediate as such, his right to freedom from unlawful detention supersedes the concerns of the public and their desire for preventive detention, which is in this case deemed unlawful. And, until he is proven guilty otherwise, he shall enjoy the same rights as any other man in Europe, namely the right to protection from torture.
Let us re-examine the case...
Firstly, Qatada is a convicted terrorist, albeit in Jordan. He is therefore a threat - underlying and possibly subversive, though not immediate. There is therefore absolutely no guarantee that society is free from his machinations in the future. There is also absolutely no indication that he 'has turned over a new leaf', or that he has embraced Western culture and values. NYET! NON!
It is a given that every man has the right to certain basic provisions under the rule of law as law-abiding citizens. However, Qatada's status as a 'law-abiding' citizen is at best doubtful. While he may not have committed a crime under European soil as such, there is little doubt that the crimes of which he is convicted of in Jordan would similarly apply in the UK and in Europe. He cannot therefore be given the same status as with any other ordinary citizen. He is not.
Finally, while the judiciary has to be wary and mindful of the 'mob-mentality' so precarious in democracies (note: Atheneins killing Socrates), I find little in this case to support the idea that Qatada should have been COMPENSATED. This sends the wrong signal to the world, and to all terrorists out there who are seeking to undermine the fundamentals of our society - namely, our human rights.
The Court could have ruled against unlawful detention, but need not have compensated him.
That having said, I am against the use of torture on any man. However, as my concern ultimately lies with the safety of the public AND the protection of our value and way of life, and that no immediate conviction can be made in the UK, the only way to safeguard the safety of my citizens is to sentence Qatada to deportation to a country where he has indeed already been convicted of terrorism - the crime which seeks actively to subvert the prevailing order of society - so that he can be safely displaced from society. Qatada is no lamb or scapegoat. HE IS A CONVICTED TERRORIST! HE DESERVES IT! We should NOT in any way kid ourselves to think otherwise! He is NOT INNOCENT ON ANY ACCOUNT AND SHOULD NOT BE TREATED LIKE ONE. He needs to be put away for the sake of the world.
What the UK govt can do is to solicit a guarantee from the Jordanian govt for his freedom of torture. This compromise is arguably the lesser evil than releasing him back into the arms of the society of which he seeks actively to destroy. In fact, he hell shouldn't even have been granted asylum in the UK in the first place. What is wrong with these people????
---
On another note,
I found a Lonely Planet Guide on AFGHANISTAN yesterday and I just had to buy it. It's not as thick as the usual guides, 80% of the book is peppered with security warnings, that I have absolutely no idea how those guides even got round Afghanistan in the first place. It's quite cool really, with awesome pictures. Anyway, here's a picture of the Shah-e Doh Shamshira Mosque, which i got from http://flickr.com/photos/56905260@N00/2551848509/
I would still like the opportunity to work in some third world country for a period of time. Maybe not Afghanistan or any 'hot' war zone at the current moment. Somewhere relatively stable preferably. I'll like to make a real contribution, where politiking often fails. It's something I'll like to do soon. At least once in my life and not when I'm 60.
It is something so Singaporean to lament about the horrible state of affairs in the world whilst reading the newspaper, but forgetting it as soon as you close it because 'it doesn't directly concern you'. These are also the people who profess religions and morals. They fawn over people who actually do volunteer work, but when asked, shy away for 'personal reasons'.
I think double-standards governs every aspect of our lives, and that is should be the 8th deadly sin.
One of the first things you notice when growing up are your parent's double-standards. I should know. I had intimate encounters with them. So would you. However as time goes by, you lose that childish curiosity and the natural inclination to question, accepting things as the way they are and becoming immune to them. Many begin to adopt similar positions. When pressed further, they shut you out by means of linguistic or authoritative turns - as with what their parents once did.
There are also those who survive and become a better person.
Many however still bandy about postmodernist lingo like how 'there's nothing certain the world', or that 'no one is right or wrong', and adopt these positions for expediency to support a particularly whim at a particular moment in time.
Mommy, why does the maid not eat at the table with us?
Because she's the maid.
But why?
Shut up and eat your food. and it's because I say so.
.. and we should all strive to save paper in this office for the sake of the environment!
OH and secretaries, pls make sure that you print all documents with font size 14 only, and pls don't put 2 pages into one sheet as it will spoil my pretty eyes. remember! single-side for extremely classified documents...
double-standards. we all burn in hell.
BECAUSE I SAY SO.
Friday, February 20, 2009
On Human Rights and Politics
I reserve the right to digress.
It's really not healthy lying on your tummy (or really chiseled and hard pecs) on your bed with your laptop/Apple and think the proverb really went 'an Apple a day keeps le medecin away!'
En Contraire...
anyway
Human rights cannot be divorced from politics.
Politics is the vehicle by which we futher human rights. Political action leads to legislation, which in turn serves the larger human rights cause by either protection or enforcement.
Activists are what they are because they are attempting to influence the public, and are hoping that enough public pressure would spur politicians on to adopt their positions and translate them into policy. It's therefore really hilarious when a human rights activist tells you he 'hates politics and politicians'. No 'human right' can be enforced without politicians, but politicans, definitely, can do without human rights activists. That is the nature of relations between the two.
Human Rights are a human invention and creation. Nothing is self-evident about it.
Rights can be understood in various levels and degrees. Underneath the culture of every society lies certain very very broad commonalities. Every culture has an idea of 'good', 'bad', 'the moral', what should be protected, what should be treasured, so on and so forth. Go up higher those levels, and the differences become more stark and evident. Thererein lies the problem of enforcing a 'universal' standard of Rights.
The embodiment of Rights in legal documents itself raises a set of legal, linguistic, and historical problems. Legal documents are open to interpretation. The Common Law system is premised upon the continual building-upon on a tradition - particularly with reference to past judgments, and the creation of new norms with new cases. The use of law to protect or enforce rights therefore engenders change and evolution. The interpretation of those rights therefore can change.
The abuse of interpretation is however not always avoidable, given the problems of linguistics - semantics, in particular. Meaning changes with context. The problems of a 'universal' definition triple-fold.
Then there's the issue of 'freedom to' and 'freedom from'.
IS freedom necessarily about positives? The freedom to have sex with animals or the freedom to live a frigid and virginal life?
We give 'things' which are unable to speak for themselves 'rights' too. We say that children have the right to be protected. But why shouldn't children be given the right to choose their own parents or their own school? why should the forest have a 'right' from destruction and us humans the right to use its resources at our will?
Who told us that we 'know better' and that we therefore have the right to decide about the fate and lives of others?
Should the parent in a polygamist sect have the right to make her 14 yr old daughter marry a 40 yr old man?
Given the myriad of opinions and views, we need politics. Political parties advocate positions and sort out the mess. They simplify things, giving us debatable but generally discernible principles and policies. Otherwise nothing would be decided.
WE need activists to remind politicians not to get too presumptious. A govt should be scared of its people, not the other way round. But activists nevertheless do not make for a good govt.
balance balance balance.
It's really not healthy lying on your tummy (or really chiseled and hard pecs) on your bed with your laptop/Apple and think the proverb really went 'an Apple a day keeps le medecin away!'
En Contraire...
anyway
Human rights cannot be divorced from politics.
Politics is the vehicle by which we futher human rights. Political action leads to legislation, which in turn serves the larger human rights cause by either protection or enforcement.
Activists are what they are because they are attempting to influence the public, and are hoping that enough public pressure would spur politicians on to adopt their positions and translate them into policy. It's therefore really hilarious when a human rights activist tells you he 'hates politics and politicians'. No 'human right' can be enforced without politicians, but politicans, definitely, can do without human rights activists. That is the nature of relations between the two.
Human Rights are a human invention and creation. Nothing is self-evident about it.
Rights can be understood in various levels and degrees. Underneath the culture of every society lies certain very very broad commonalities. Every culture has an idea of 'good', 'bad', 'the moral', what should be protected, what should be treasured, so on and so forth. Go up higher those levels, and the differences become more stark and evident. Thererein lies the problem of enforcing a 'universal' standard of Rights.
The embodiment of Rights in legal documents itself raises a set of legal, linguistic, and historical problems. Legal documents are open to interpretation. The Common Law system is premised upon the continual building-upon on a tradition - particularly with reference to past judgments, and the creation of new norms with new cases. The use of law to protect or enforce rights therefore engenders change and evolution. The interpretation of those rights therefore can change.
The abuse of interpretation is however not always avoidable, given the problems of linguistics - semantics, in particular. Meaning changes with context. The problems of a 'universal' definition triple-fold.
Then there's the issue of 'freedom to' and 'freedom from'.
IS freedom necessarily about positives? The freedom to have sex with animals or the freedom to live a frigid and virginal life?
We give 'things' which are unable to speak for themselves 'rights' too. We say that children have the right to be protected. But why shouldn't children be given the right to choose their own parents or their own school? why should the forest have a 'right' from destruction and us humans the right to use its resources at our will?
Who told us that we 'know better' and that we therefore have the right to decide about the fate and lives of others?
Should the parent in a polygamist sect have the right to make her 14 yr old daughter marry a 40 yr old man?
Given the myriad of opinions and views, we need politics. Political parties advocate positions and sort out the mess. They simplify things, giving us debatable but generally discernible principles and policies. Otherwise nothing would be decided.
WE need activists to remind politicians not to get too presumptious. A govt should be scared of its people, not the other way round. But activists nevertheless do not make for a good govt.
balance balance balance.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Valentine's Day!
You know its Valentine's Day when you find moi at a Starbucks by the bay blogging.
Je suis fatigue. For some strange reason I am. Though I think it's due to the general lack of excitement or apprehension of anything. Just relaxing. Just floating.
I found this photo on IHT:
A historic moment alright, taken at the White house in 1979 after the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty. Sadat, Carter, Begin.
The cameras, the flashes, the smiles. The smiles that lasted only as long as the reception, receding like the tide at the end of the day. The carpets kept and the crumpets swept away. Peace remains ever elusive.
Do I think the conflict can ever be solved?
Yes. No conflict is unsolvable. All it takes is a little political resolve. That will not come, however, with a new right-wing Likud govt under Netanyahu who doesn't favour a 2-state solution. The problem with Israeli politicians is that they are still stuck in Camp David. Americans, in 1967. A 2-state solution is no longer sufficient to keep the peace. New problems have cropped up. The world has changed and the dynamics of international relations - the balance of power in the region has been shifting slowly, and in fact it seems particularly unstable at this moment in history with a new American president and the biggest global economic slump since the great depression.
Hamas has to be part of the solution, but peace will not come until they resolve to recognise Israel. That, or destruction. Or continued persecution and turmoil to the citizens of Gaza, as per.
The Israelis and Americans have to stop living the past. Things aren't just going to be 'OKAY' just because everyone suddenly agrees to abide by the pre-1967 boundaries. Israeli settlements are not going to be reversed overnight. Political boundaries and sovereignty are just the beginning. The Palestinian Authority requires substantial aid in order for it to commence vital infrastructural projects, essential to the Palestinians, and especially so in order for the PA to regain it's credibility and authority. All we need is for America and its people, like George Soros, to stop pouring money into the deep end in Moscow, stop babying the Israelis, and say 'enough is enough, time to help the Palestinians, directly'.
Another problem hence, is the Israeli lobby in the US. That is an endemic problem, but they also have to realise that they are NOT the persecuted Jews of the past. Nukes, Iran may have, but any nuclear warfare in the region automatically puts the entire region at risk. Israelis don't like it, but I'm sure that their Arab neighbours feel pretty much the same as well.
As such, Iran is not just an American or Israeli problem. Stop victimising yourself and start doing proactive diplomacy with your neighbours. If there's anything needed to counter the threat posed by Iran, it's the entire Middle East working hand in hand. This means that it's time to stop 'divide and rule'.
Ultimately, to prevent a return of Bush energy policies and their vested interests in Middle East Oil, substantial funding MUST go into the usage of alternative energy sources in the US. This is the only way to break the oil spell. Oil Oligarchs should be ignored, their pet projects and peeves broken - and for this to happen, the current US administration needs to introduce harsh legislation. if this doesn't happen now during this crisis, it never will. It's time for it to stop being an endemic feature of US politics.
As for the Palestinian problem - stop looking back to history. Deal with the present. Acknowledge present realities and work with the current situation. Truth and Reconciliation is possible, but we got to start somewhere.
--
And down in the outback...
I got this off the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7887561.stm. It's really tragic. Over a 100 ppl have died for nothing. Bushfires are common in Australia and yet it is only now that they are promising to remove bureaucratic hurdles that have prevented the creation of a nationwide fire alert system???? This is absolutely crazy. How can anybody live with that? It is irresponsibility at it's max.
Somebody has also been arrested for arson, but that does little to reveal the inadequate measures that they have against a foe which they have been all but too familiar with. I'll like to call it Australia's Day of Infamy.
These kind of things should not be happening in a First World country. Maybe we just have inflated ideals about the 'first world'. Or maybe it's because we as human beings deserve so much more.
---
And tomorrow will mark the 20th anniversary of the Soviet Union pulling out of Afghanistan. Read more about it on the BBC!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_4160000/4160827.stm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7888566.stm?lss
particularly the 2nd link...
Interestingly enough, tml also marks the day which Singapore is forced to surrender to the Japanese. Now, a day marked only as a footnote in sec2 history textbooks. The BBC notes that 'The British capitulation comes one week after Japanese forces invaded Singapore and only two weeks since their onslaught on the Malay Peninsula forced the British troops' withdrawal to the island.'
That is also the premise on which most of Singapore's state history is founded. The old tale which basically argues that self-reliance is therefore necessary because we cannot rely on any one else to defend our sovereignty.
They however forget to mention that we were nothing but a vassal. An important trading post rather, which only gained significance because we were the 'final frontier' against the Japanese.
Blame it on the British, not. Even that is taken forgranted in the national narrative today. The country has moved on from WW2 and the generation which lived through it is all but a step away from their graves. Nobody remembers. Nobody wants to. It doesn't concern them. The narrative is now about constant and steady progress. Slow and conservative, but nevertheless progressive. The past remains the past and the future is the now. The twain shall never meet.
I think that it is of the greatest ironies that success at peace breeds complacency and a general disbelief at the possibility of war. fantasy becomes reality and no one really understands war apart from what they see in the movies. Man spends so much of its time and effort PREVENTING war and devising ways and means of creating enduring peace. And yet in this tiny country, this speck in time, where peace has endured virtually since independence, a certain element of pomposity and complacency is bred.
Singapore is unreal.
Somalia is.
Sure. A particular mode of governance seems to have 'worked' in ensuring peace. Yet in a world where peace is the exception and not the norm, how long can it ensue? I can only wonder.
Food for thought.
Je suis fatigue. For some strange reason I am. Though I think it's due to the general lack of excitement or apprehension of anything. Just relaxing. Just floating.
I found this photo on IHT:
A historic moment alright, taken at the White house in 1979 after the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty. Sadat, Carter, Begin.The cameras, the flashes, the smiles. The smiles that lasted only as long as the reception, receding like the tide at the end of the day. The carpets kept and the crumpets swept away. Peace remains ever elusive.
Do I think the conflict can ever be solved?
Yes. No conflict is unsolvable. All it takes is a little political resolve. That will not come, however, with a new right-wing Likud govt under Netanyahu who doesn't favour a 2-state solution. The problem with Israeli politicians is that they are still stuck in Camp David. Americans, in 1967. A 2-state solution is no longer sufficient to keep the peace. New problems have cropped up. The world has changed and the dynamics of international relations - the balance of power in the region has been shifting slowly, and in fact it seems particularly unstable at this moment in history with a new American president and the biggest global economic slump since the great depression.
Hamas has to be part of the solution, but peace will not come until they resolve to recognise Israel. That, or destruction. Or continued persecution and turmoil to the citizens of Gaza, as per.
The Israelis and Americans have to stop living the past. Things aren't just going to be 'OKAY' just because everyone suddenly agrees to abide by the pre-1967 boundaries. Israeli settlements are not going to be reversed overnight. Political boundaries and sovereignty are just the beginning. The Palestinian Authority requires substantial aid in order for it to commence vital infrastructural projects, essential to the Palestinians, and especially so in order for the PA to regain it's credibility and authority. All we need is for America and its people, like George Soros, to stop pouring money into the deep end in Moscow, stop babying the Israelis, and say 'enough is enough, time to help the Palestinians, directly'.
Another problem hence, is the Israeli lobby in the US. That is an endemic problem, but they also have to realise that they are NOT the persecuted Jews of the past. Nukes, Iran may have, but any nuclear warfare in the region automatically puts the entire region at risk. Israelis don't like it, but I'm sure that their Arab neighbours feel pretty much the same as well.
As such, Iran is not just an American or Israeli problem. Stop victimising yourself and start doing proactive diplomacy with your neighbours. If there's anything needed to counter the threat posed by Iran, it's the entire Middle East working hand in hand. This means that it's time to stop 'divide and rule'.
Ultimately, to prevent a return of Bush energy policies and their vested interests in Middle East Oil, substantial funding MUST go into the usage of alternative energy sources in the US. This is the only way to break the oil spell. Oil Oligarchs should be ignored, their pet projects and peeves broken - and for this to happen, the current US administration needs to introduce harsh legislation. if this doesn't happen now during this crisis, it never will. It's time for it to stop being an endemic feature of US politics.
As for the Palestinian problem - stop looking back to history. Deal with the present. Acknowledge present realities and work with the current situation. Truth and Reconciliation is possible, but we got to start somewhere.
--
And down in the outback...
I got this off the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7887561.stm. It's really tragic. Over a 100 ppl have died for nothing. Bushfires are common in Australia and yet it is only now that they are promising to remove bureaucratic hurdles that have prevented the creation of a nationwide fire alert system???? This is absolutely crazy. How can anybody live with that? It is irresponsibility at it's max.Somebody has also been arrested for arson, but that does little to reveal the inadequate measures that they have against a foe which they have been all but too familiar with. I'll like to call it Australia's Day of Infamy.
These kind of things should not be happening in a First World country. Maybe we just have inflated ideals about the 'first world'. Or maybe it's because we as human beings deserve so much more.
---
And tomorrow will mark the 20th anniversary of the Soviet Union pulling out of Afghanistan. Read more about it on the BBC!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_4160000/4160827.stm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7888566.stm?lss
particularly the 2nd link...
Interestingly enough, tml also marks the day which Singapore is forced to surrender to the Japanese. Now, a day marked only as a footnote in sec2 history textbooks. The BBC notes that 'The British capitulation comes one week after Japanese forces invaded Singapore and only two weeks since their onslaught on the Malay Peninsula forced the British troops' withdrawal to the island.'
That is also the premise on which most of Singapore's state history is founded. The old tale which basically argues that self-reliance is therefore necessary because we cannot rely on any one else to defend our sovereignty.
They however forget to mention that we were nothing but a vassal. An important trading post rather, which only gained significance because we were the 'final frontier' against the Japanese.
Blame it on the British, not. Even that is taken forgranted in the national narrative today. The country has moved on from WW2 and the generation which lived through it is all but a step away from their graves. Nobody remembers. Nobody wants to. It doesn't concern them. The narrative is now about constant and steady progress. Slow and conservative, but nevertheless progressive. The past remains the past and the future is the now. The twain shall never meet.
I think that it is of the greatest ironies that success at peace breeds complacency and a general disbelief at the possibility of war. fantasy becomes reality and no one really understands war apart from what they see in the movies. Man spends so much of its time and effort PREVENTING war and devising ways and means of creating enduring peace. And yet in this tiny country, this speck in time, where peace has endured virtually since independence, a certain element of pomposity and complacency is bred.
Singapore is unreal.
Somalia is.
Sure. A particular mode of governance seems to have 'worked' in ensuring peace. Yet in a world where peace is the exception and not the norm, how long can it ensue? I can only wonder.
Food for thought.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
WED
What's scarier?
Feeling, or realising that you don't, anymore?
Is that what they meant by 'growing up'?
Feeling, or realising that you don't, anymore?
Is that what they meant by 'growing up'?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Weekend
I had a rather eventful weekend. Not the most exciting, but at least it was packed.
3 notable mentions.
1) What the Butler Saw
It was really funny! I liked it. It was 'transcribed' and 'indigenized' from the original play by Joe Orton - which would explain the quintessentially British plots; the twists and turns. the ironies.
The play was also blatantly subversive. I'll leave it there. The audience lapped everything up like dogs, relishing every single minute of it. It did border somewhat dangerously on almost being a 'tragedy' though, and its extreme oscillations between comedy, tragedy and farce dampened my spirits somewhat and made it far less convincing than what it should have been.
Nevertheless, $30 well spent i guess. I'm too tired to go into details about the play, though i guess one can definitely google it online.
--
2) Jie Chen Piano Recital
I loved her interpretation of Bach-Busoni's Chaconne from Partita in D minor. Intense and emotional, it totally encapsulated the term 'sturm und drang'. Absolutely fascinating stuff. I teared.
Her ballads are less impressive though. After the intensity of the Busoni right before the interval, it seems almost inevitable that the general mood had to go down before picking up again - approximately around the 3rd ballade though. Her Ballade no 1 was crap. She got the interpretation wrong. didnt grasp the mood and tone of the piece properly and made various stark and i dare say careless note mistakes. the 2nd was slightly better. overall i thought she went really fast with all 4 ballades with kind of got me irked a little here and there, as though she was rushing through them.
i found the chinese pieces (liu yang river and bai nian chao feng [hundred birds paying respect to the phoenix] - yes chinese titles dont make sense in english) refreshing, but otherwise severely lacking in the logic encapsulated in her opening hayden and the busoni that followed them. im ok with guzheng-like imitations of the effect, but not when its the climax of the piece and seems to go on forever! it's absolutely percussive, non-harmonic and really really superfluous. i hate it. otherwise, the pieces were actually rather cute.
oh and i made it a point to give her my compliments after the concert during the autograph session. as a musician myself i feel compelled and somewhat obligated to do so.
lets put a smile on that face.
---
3) Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited
and I'm starting to write like Sebastian in Brideshead. Oh dear. in any case, my writing is no where comparable to Evelyn Waugh. His writing in BH is lush, evocative and compelling. i love it. its a slow and painful process of seduction.
Brideshead leaves many questions unanswered. ENIGMA. all the characters are, in someway. a very intense psychological study.
in many ways i also identify with the predicament of some. no, not all and certainly not everything. im neither of their position, predicament or period to begin with. the events dont tally and match up. nevertheless i find myself seduced by this novel with the sole identification with the loneliness and incomprehension that pervades throughout the story and the characters. those, on top of distance and indifference. many things pointed out in the story, i have come across somewhat, sometime in my life before, though it's just the beginning of mine.
i also find myself rediscovering the wonderful world of literature.
I'm only halfway through Brideshead, but i already feel as disturbed as i have been whilst watching the movie.
--
and I'm listening to the Walton Viola concerto on youtube now. wistful.
3 notable mentions.
1) What the Butler Saw
It was really funny! I liked it. It was 'transcribed' and 'indigenized' from the original play by Joe Orton - which would explain the quintessentially British plots; the twists and turns. the ironies.
The play was also blatantly subversive. I'll leave it there. The audience lapped everything up like dogs, relishing every single minute of it. It did border somewhat dangerously on almost being a 'tragedy' though, and its extreme oscillations between comedy, tragedy and farce dampened my spirits somewhat and made it far less convincing than what it should have been.
Nevertheless, $30 well spent i guess. I'm too tired to go into details about the play, though i guess one can definitely google it online.
--
2) Jie Chen Piano Recital
I loved her interpretation of Bach-Busoni's Chaconne from Partita in D minor. Intense and emotional, it totally encapsulated the term 'sturm und drang'. Absolutely fascinating stuff. I teared.
Her ballads are less impressive though. After the intensity of the Busoni right before the interval, it seems almost inevitable that the general mood had to go down before picking up again - approximately around the 3rd ballade though. Her Ballade no 1 was crap. She got the interpretation wrong. didnt grasp the mood and tone of the piece properly and made various stark and i dare say careless note mistakes. the 2nd was slightly better. overall i thought she went really fast with all 4 ballades with kind of got me irked a little here and there, as though she was rushing through them.
i found the chinese pieces (liu yang river and bai nian chao feng [hundred birds paying respect to the phoenix] - yes chinese titles dont make sense in english) refreshing, but otherwise severely lacking in the logic encapsulated in her opening hayden and the busoni that followed them. im ok with guzheng-like imitations of the effect, but not when its the climax of the piece and seems to go on forever! it's absolutely percussive, non-harmonic and really really superfluous. i hate it. otherwise, the pieces were actually rather cute.
oh and i made it a point to give her my compliments after the concert during the autograph session. as a musician myself i feel compelled and somewhat obligated to do so.
lets put a smile on that face.
---
3) Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited
and I'm starting to write like Sebastian in Brideshead. Oh dear. in any case, my writing is no where comparable to Evelyn Waugh. His writing in BH is lush, evocative and compelling. i love it. its a slow and painful process of seduction.
Brideshead leaves many questions unanswered. ENIGMA. all the characters are, in someway. a very intense psychological study.
in many ways i also identify with the predicament of some. no, not all and certainly not everything. im neither of their position, predicament or period to begin with. the events dont tally and match up. nevertheless i find myself seduced by this novel with the sole identification with the loneliness and incomprehension that pervades throughout the story and the characters. those, on top of distance and indifference. many things pointed out in the story, i have come across somewhat, sometime in my life before, though it's just the beginning of mine.
i also find myself rediscovering the wonderful world of literature.
I'm only halfway through Brideshead, but i already feel as disturbed as i have been whilst watching the movie.
--
and I'm listening to the Walton Viola concerto on youtube now. wistful.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
I love this article!
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/03/why-americans-need-to-know-more-about-canada/
we sld really have more of this!
many thanks to the AC360 team. i love you guys!
we sld really have more of this!
many thanks to the AC360 team. i love you guys!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Thanks.
Many thanks to you guys for coming to my dad's CNY dinner thingy. Wouldn't have been so fun if it weren't for all of you. Thanks! :D
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The Top 10 Scientific Discoveries of 2008
THIS IS SO COOL. check it out ppl:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/top10/article/0,30583,1855948_1863947,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/top10/article/0,30583,1855948_1863947,00.html
I survived!
I SURVIVED FRIDAY! WOO!
I SURVIVED THE BLOODY GOMBAK CROSS-COUNTRY RUN! yea baby!
It was a 'treacherous' (quote: chengxi) and gruelling (quote: subhas) 4.1km run up gombak hill. Goodness. I have technically never actually ran up hill - not to mention up and down various rocky inclines and one hell of an inline of 28degrees??? i dont recall a single person having actually ran up that slope.
and I STILL managed to beat CDF! woo! i'm good! :D i so thought i was gonna come in last. Towards the end I could hear my heart beating ONLY. many thanks to god for everything.
...
I also made it for the COA CNY reception. A job well done too! :D
my 2nd emceeing experience - less hallowing than the first and much better too. Of course, with the annoying emcee accent.
Yes. and today is laze around day as I finally feel my glutes, thighs and calves after such a long long while.
I swear to god that i have never felt so alive after the run yesterday. my nasal passageways were absolutely clear it was kinda freaky, and i was feeling really light headed too. wow! does wonders for confidence. yay!
what's next?
I SURVIVED THE BLOODY GOMBAK CROSS-COUNTRY RUN! yea baby!
It was a 'treacherous' (quote: chengxi) and gruelling (quote: subhas) 4.1km run up gombak hill. Goodness. I have technically never actually ran up hill - not to mention up and down various rocky inclines and one hell of an inline of 28degrees??? i dont recall a single person having actually ran up that slope.
and I STILL managed to beat CDF! woo! i'm good! :D i so thought i was gonna come in last. Towards the end I could hear my heart beating ONLY. many thanks to god for everything.
...
I also made it for the COA CNY reception. A job well done too! :D
my 2nd emceeing experience - less hallowing than the first and much better too. Of course, with the annoying emcee accent.
Yes. and today is laze around day as I finally feel my glutes, thighs and calves after such a long long while.
I swear to god that i have never felt so alive after the run yesterday. my nasal passageways were absolutely clear it was kinda freaky, and i was feeling really light headed too. wow! does wonders for confidence. yay!
what's next?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Of Romantics and Republicans
It just enrages me every now and then in the midst of my book - Holy Madness: Romantics, Patriots, and Revolutionaries, 1776-1871.
No I have nothing against Zamoyski.
I just get riled up and pissed off when I read about some silly Romantic patriot who's so engulfed by his ideals - or the similarities between state-worship and christian-worship. however you define it. The irony of the 19th century is that a belief in rationality coincided with a widespread irrationality of the Romantic sort that pervaded through Europe like a disease; and through Europe the world!
Come the 21st century, reason and emotionality can't be defined and separated clearly anymore. American politics is a good example. So is YW, the epitome of dark irrationality.
It issn't the case that what we say goes.
And no, you don't decide the facts, or what's right and wrong. (As a side point, I have decided to coin a term ("confusionasionism"), meaning the emotive attempt to assert one's moral superiority over another through the posing of a question in a seemingly innocent way, but subverts truth through the use of poor reasoning smoked in a series of illogical - but not always identified clearly - arguments.)
In other news, Obama's stimulus package has been approved by Congress - but rejected by all house Republicans. Am I surprised? No. What irks me is all the confusionasionism going on. Facts and truths are subjugated amidst emotive appeals to 'poverty', 'transparency' and 'accountability'.
I think a good 99% of AC360 viewers have NEVER scrutinized the bill firsthand.
I also think that a good number of Republican reps close to that never have probably never bothered because voting FOR could lose them their seat.
And above all I think that no plan is perfect, but doing something is better than doing nothing at all. If there's anything I learnt, it seems pretty much that a system which has the greatest possibility of instilling confidence also encapsulates the worst. Why should it be otherwise? The American coin can flip either way any day. I'm just unable to comprehend at the present moment the complexity and alien-ness of American politics to my own country and culture. There is something wrong in all this. Democracy wasn't meant to be like that. Then again, why shouldn't it be?
We need a plan that is viable and accountable. I think the debate has to move away from 'what we should do'. Republican policy is hollow and empty. 8 yrs is enough. But we need to improve the current one as well so that the world won't go down to hell with the Americas.
No I have nothing against Zamoyski.
I just get riled up and pissed off when I read about some silly Romantic patriot who's so engulfed by his ideals - or the similarities between state-worship and christian-worship. however you define it. The irony of the 19th century is that a belief in rationality coincided with a widespread irrationality of the Romantic sort that pervaded through Europe like a disease; and through Europe the world!
Come the 21st century, reason and emotionality can't be defined and separated clearly anymore. American politics is a good example. So is YW, the epitome of dark irrationality.
It issn't the case that what we say goes.
And no, you don't decide the facts, or what's right and wrong. (As a side point, I have decided to coin a term ("confusionasionism"), meaning the emotive attempt to assert one's moral superiority over another through the posing of a question in a seemingly innocent way, but subverts truth through the use of poor reasoning smoked in a series of illogical - but not always identified clearly - arguments.)
In other news, Obama's stimulus package has been approved by Congress - but rejected by all house Republicans. Am I surprised? No. What irks me is all the confusionasionism going on. Facts and truths are subjugated amidst emotive appeals to 'poverty', 'transparency' and 'accountability'.
I think a good 99% of AC360 viewers have NEVER scrutinized the bill firsthand.
I also think that a good number of Republican reps close to that never have probably never bothered because voting FOR could lose them their seat.
And above all I think that no plan is perfect, but doing something is better than doing nothing at all. If there's anything I learnt, it seems pretty much that a system which has the greatest possibility of instilling confidence also encapsulates the worst. Why should it be otherwise? The American coin can flip either way any day. I'm just unable to comprehend at the present moment the complexity and alien-ness of American politics to my own country and culture. There is something wrong in all this. Democracy wasn't meant to be like that. Then again, why shouldn't it be?
We need a plan that is viable and accountable. I think the debate has to move away from 'what we should do'. Republican policy is hollow and empty. 8 yrs is enough. But we need to improve the current one as well so that the world won't go down to hell with the Americas.
Monday, January 26, 2009
MR Hong Kong 08
It's old news but I'm watching it on TV now on CNY. Yes it's a very boring 1st day of CNY.
I'm reminded of the unfairness of the world once more and how I'm probably slapbang right at the top of the bellcurve. The winner was Michael Tsu. some hong-kong born american i think.
I'm reminded of the unfairness of the world once more and how I'm probably slapbang right at the top of the bellcurve. The winner was Michael Tsu. some hong-kong born american i think.
Apart from that I was frankly quite appalled and tickled by all the himbo-ness flying around. Oh god. It's so hilarious when they say 'im cute and hot and here to make you happy! vote for me!' *rolls eyes* sheesh. Not to mention the few really lame-ass vomit-inducing moments which made me say 'oh FUCK' involuntarily.
I need better entertainment, pronto.
Chomsky on Gaza
You be the judge.
Chomsky comes in around 30mins+
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/obamas-gaza-policy-it-is-approximately-the-bush-position/
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/23/noam_chomsky_obamas_stance_on_gaza
Chomsky comes in around 30mins+
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/obamas-gaza-policy-it-is-approximately-the-bush-position/
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/23/noam_chomsky_obamas_stance_on_gaza
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Unfairness
Its not fair how some guys can be so hot.
Check this guy out:
chisled looks - check
double-chin - check
sunny sunshine looks - check
boyish grin - check
perfectly symmetrical face - check
almost flawless skin - check
amazing chest and pecs - check
and he even has a workout video on youtube!
OKAY.
inspiration to work harder...
The West's Selective Reading of History
A very good article from Le Monde! Here's an extract:
Only the individual who fully recognises the humanity of others can be called civilised. “For a long time,” Todorov continues, “the ideas of the Enlightenment served as a source of inspiration for a liberal, reformist tendency that fought conservatism in the name of universalism and equal respect for all. Things have changed now, and the conservative defenders of the superiority of western thought claim to be the heirs of the Enlightenment, battling against the ‘relativism’ that they associate with the Romantic reaction of the early 19th century. But they can only achieve this by renouncing the true Enlightenment tradition with its articulation of universal values and cultural pluralism. We must go beyond the clichés: Enlightenment thought should not be confused either with dogmatism (my culture must be imposed upon all) or nihilism (all cultures are equally valid). To use it to denigrate others, as an excuse to subject or destroy them, is simply to hijack the Enlightenment.”
But was the Enlightenment really hijacked, or did it go along willingly? Hobson argues that the construction of 18th- and 19th-century European identity allowed the affirmation of an “exceptionalism” that no other civilisation has ever asserted. “Ultimately, the Europeans did not seek to remake the world simply because ‘they could’ (as in materialist explanations). They sought to remake the world because they believed they should. That is, their actions were significantly guided by their identity that deemed imperialism to be a morally appropriate policy.” Many European supporters of the anti-colonialist struggle and the Third World rejected this vision, often in the name of the Enlightenment. The debate will no doubt continue.
You can find the whole thing at: http://mondediplo.com/2009/01/07west
Only the individual who fully recognises the humanity of others can be called civilised. “For a long time,” Todorov continues, “the ideas of the Enlightenment served as a source of inspiration for a liberal, reformist tendency that fought conservatism in the name of universalism and equal respect for all. Things have changed now, and the conservative defenders of the superiority of western thought claim to be the heirs of the Enlightenment, battling against the ‘relativism’ that they associate with the Romantic reaction of the early 19th century. But they can only achieve this by renouncing the true Enlightenment tradition with its articulation of universal values and cultural pluralism. We must go beyond the clichés: Enlightenment thought should not be confused either with dogmatism (my culture must be imposed upon all) or nihilism (all cultures are equally valid). To use it to denigrate others, as an excuse to subject or destroy them, is simply to hijack the Enlightenment.”
But was the Enlightenment really hijacked, or did it go along willingly? Hobson argues that the construction of 18th- and 19th-century European identity allowed the affirmation of an “exceptionalism” that no other civilisation has ever asserted. “Ultimately, the Europeans did not seek to remake the world simply because ‘they could’ (as in materialist explanations). They sought to remake the world because they believed they should. That is, their actions were significantly guided by their identity that deemed imperialism to be a morally appropriate policy.” Many European supporters of the anti-colonialist struggle and the Third World rejected this vision, often in the name of the Enlightenment. The debate will no doubt continue.
You can find the whole thing at: http://mondediplo.com/2009/01/07west
Saturday, January 24, 2009
China's DWP 2008
I was reading a Foreign Policy analysis of the Chinese Defence White Paper and was rather skeptic. Therefore i decided to scrutinise it myself.
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/22/you_were_at_the_inauguration_china_was_planning_to_fight_america
In essence, "China's national defense policy for the new stage in the new century basically includes: upholding national security and unity, and ensuring the interests of national development; achieving the all-round, coordinated and sustainable development of China's national defense and armed forces; enhancing the performance of the armed forces with informationization as the major measuring criterion (took a tip or two from georgia); implementing the military strategy of active defense; pursuing a self-defensive nuclear strategy; and FOSTERING a security environment conducive to China's peaceful development."
Nevertheless, I have to say that I concur with the writer Dan Twining that the White Paper's primary audience is the USA. They aren't very subtle of course. Look at this:
"World peace and development are faced with multiple difficulties and challenges. Struggles for strategic resources, strategic locations and strategic dominance have intensified. Meanwhile, hegemonism and power politics still exist, regional turmoil keeps spilling over, hot-spot issues are increasing, and local conflicts and wars keep emerging. The impact of the financial crisis triggered by the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis is snowballing. In the aspect of world economic development, issues such as energy and food are becoming more serious, highlighting deep-seated contradictions. Economic risks are manifesting a more interconnected, systematic and global nature. Issues such as terrorism, environmental disasters, climate change, serious epidemics, transnational crime and pirates are becoming increasingly prominent."
It's a summary which I daresay some GP kids can't even do themselves, though it seems more of a checklist of developments in the later part of the 20th century. But look at the underlying resentment with the specific reference to 'THE U.S. subprime mortgage crisis'. It's not the 'global economic crisis', but a pinpointing of what the Chinese feel IS THE ROOT CAUSE. Not too different from Russia in this aspect.
And then there's this. It's thick.
"Driven by competition in overall national strength and the development of science and technology, international military competition is becoming increasingly intense, and the worldwide revolution in military affairs (RMA) is reaching a new stage of development. Some major powers are realigning their security and military strategies, increasing their defense investment, speeding up the transformation of armed forces, and developing advanced military technology, weapons and equipment. Strategic nuclear forces, military astronautics, missile defense systems, and global and battlefield reconnaissance and surveillance have become top priorities in their efforts to strengthen armed forces. Some developing countries are also actively seeking to acquire advanced weapons and equipment to increase their military power. All countries are attaching more importance to supporting diplomatic struggles with military means. As a result, arms races in some regions are heating up, posing grave challenges to the international arms control and nonproliferation regime."
The notables here is really the not-too-subtle reference once again to the US, which is the indisputed leader of the RMA (albeit with its own difficulties but nevertheless STILL the indisputed leader...). The usage of these terms should send 'pings!' into you. I'm not sure about the 'arms races' bit, though i think the reference to 'international arms control' and the 'nonproliferation regime' are just diplomatic-talk meant to appease the UN.
Again,
"At the same time, the U.S. has increased its strategic attention to and input in the Asia-Pacific region, further consolidating its military alliances, adjusting its military deployment and enhancing its military capabilities. In addition, terrorist, separatist and extremist forces are running rampant, and non-traditional security issues such as serious natural disasters crop up frequently. The mechanisms for security cooperation between countries and regions are yet to be enhanced, and the capability for coping with regional security threats in a coordinated way has to be improved...In particular, the United States continues to sell arms to Taiwan in violation of the principles established in the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques, causing serious harm to Sino-U.S. relations as well as peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits."
It's interesting to see how this blatant reference to the US presupposes the US itself to be part of the problem. The Chinese stand is therefore officially this: we ain't pursuing any extension of a sphere of influence, so you shouldn't as well. I'm wondering if China will go Putin in the future, if America keeps walling up China and pushing it back.
It's also not to subtle on things like - "China is playing an active and constructive role in multilateral affairs, thus notably elevating its international position and influence."
and even ASEAN is mentioned - "The conclusion of the ASEAN Charter has enabled a new step to be taken toward ASEAN integration. Remarkable achievements have been made in cooperation between China and ASEAN, as well as between ASEAN and China, Japan and the Republic of Korea."
While this is interesting - "The Six-Party Talks on the Korean nuclear issue have scored successive achievements, and the tension in Northeast Asia is much released."
This portion illicits careful reading though: "Issues of existence security and development security, traditional security threats and non-traditional security threats, and domestic security and international security are interwoven and interactive. China is faced with the superiority of the developed countries in economy, science and technology, as well as military affairs. It also faces strategic maneuvers and containment from the outside while having to face disruption and sabotage by separatist and hostile forces from the inside. "
There is lingering suspicion of American espionage attempts attempting to aid rebellion and resistance within China. This brings to mind the Tibet fiasco last year, not to mention annoying human rights groups based in America as well, though the bottom line is that internal threats to the regime are still their primary concern. The status quo can be jeopardised however, by international developments (i.e. global credit crunch and impact on the CCP).
It is nevertheless, good to know that "China will never seek hegemony or engage in military expansion now or in the future, no matter how developed it becomes", though the question begs as to how it plans to FOSTER 'a security environment conducive to China's peaceful development'
...
Technology is the essence of RMA and this is how the Chinese plan to do it:
" Persisting in taking mechanization as the foundation and informationization as focus, China is stepping up the composite development of mechanization and informationization. Persisting in strengthening the military by means of science and technology, China is working to develop new and high-tech weaponry and equipment, carry out the strategic project of training talented people, conduct military training in conditions of informationization, and build a modern logistics system in an all-round way, so as to change the mode of formation of war-fighting capabilities. "
However I think on the whole, 'the strategic project of training talent people' is highly flawed. My impression of the chinese system is still rather 'factory-like' in its produce, and im not sure about their capability to produce leadership which looks beyond mere knowledge of technical facts. They may prove me wrong, but I don't think that their 'talent management scheme' is currently producing much results, esp with cronyism in the upper echelons.
Meanwhile with their economy in deep shit too, I highly doubt their ability to "call for the building of a lean and effective deterrent force and the flexible use of different means of deterrence." I'm quite concerned about this - It takes military operations other than war (MOOTW) as an important form of applying national military forces, and scientifically makes and executes plans for the development of MOOTW capabilities. - which could point to greater Chinese exposure through the UN platform (or not). Not sure where they got their idea from...
OOOO and this part i like: The PLA insists on putting ideological and political work first, and pushing forward the innovative development of ideological and political work, to ensure the Party's absolute leadership over the armed forces, the scientific development of the military, the all-round development of the officers and men, the increase of combat capabilities and the effective fulfillment of historical missions...The PLA persists in arming its officers and men with the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics, educates them in its historical missions, ideals, beliefs, fighting spirit and the socialist concept of honor and disgrace, and carries forward the fine traditions of obeying the Party's orders, serving the people, and fighting bravely and skillfully. The PLA's ideological and political education adheres to six principles: to be guided by scientific theories, to put the people first, to focus on the central task and serve the overall interests, to aim at concrete results, to educate through practical activities, and to encourage innovation and development.
I really don't see how any of this is 'socialist'. It's Maoist alright, but merely cliche. The 'historical' part makes me laugh out loud cuz its vaguely marxist, but really just an abuse of commie jingo. It all goes downhill from there...
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/22/you_were_at_the_inauguration_china_was_planning_to_fight_america
In essence, "China's national defense policy for the new stage in the new century basically includes: upholding national security and unity, and ensuring the interests of national development; achieving the all-round, coordinated and sustainable development of China's national defense and armed forces; enhancing the performance of the armed forces with informationization as the major measuring criterion (took a tip or two from georgia); implementing the military strategy of active defense; pursuing a self-defensive nuclear strategy; and FOSTERING a security environment conducive to China's peaceful development."
Nevertheless, I have to say that I concur with the writer Dan Twining that the White Paper's primary audience is the USA. They aren't very subtle of course. Look at this:
"World peace and development are faced with multiple difficulties and challenges. Struggles for strategic resources, strategic locations and strategic dominance have intensified. Meanwhile, hegemonism and power politics still exist, regional turmoil keeps spilling over, hot-spot issues are increasing, and local conflicts and wars keep emerging. The impact of the financial crisis triggered by the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis is snowballing. In the aspect of world economic development, issues such as energy and food are becoming more serious, highlighting deep-seated contradictions. Economic risks are manifesting a more interconnected, systematic and global nature. Issues such as terrorism, environmental disasters, climate change, serious epidemics, transnational crime and pirates are becoming increasingly prominent."
It's a summary which I daresay some GP kids can't even do themselves, though it seems more of a checklist of developments in the later part of the 20th century. But look at the underlying resentment with the specific reference to 'THE U.S. subprime mortgage crisis'. It's not the 'global economic crisis', but a pinpointing of what the Chinese feel IS THE ROOT CAUSE. Not too different from Russia in this aspect.
And then there's this. It's thick.
"Driven by competition in overall national strength and the development of science and technology, international military competition is becoming increasingly intense, and the worldwide revolution in military affairs (RMA) is reaching a new stage of development. Some major powers are realigning their security and military strategies, increasing their defense investment, speeding up the transformation of armed forces, and developing advanced military technology, weapons and equipment. Strategic nuclear forces, military astronautics, missile defense systems, and global and battlefield reconnaissance and surveillance have become top priorities in their efforts to strengthen armed forces. Some developing countries are also actively seeking to acquire advanced weapons and equipment to increase their military power. All countries are attaching more importance to supporting diplomatic struggles with military means. As a result, arms races in some regions are heating up, posing grave challenges to the international arms control and nonproliferation regime."
The notables here is really the not-too-subtle reference once again to the US, which is the indisputed leader of the RMA (albeit with its own difficulties but nevertheless STILL the indisputed leader...). The usage of these terms should send 'pings!' into you. I'm not sure about the 'arms races' bit, though i think the reference to 'international arms control' and the 'nonproliferation regime' are just diplomatic-talk meant to appease the UN.
Again,
"At the same time, the U.S. has increased its strategic attention to and input in the Asia-Pacific region, further consolidating its military alliances, adjusting its military deployment and enhancing its military capabilities. In addition, terrorist, separatist and extremist forces are running rampant, and non-traditional security issues such as serious natural disasters crop up frequently. The mechanisms for security cooperation between countries and regions are yet to be enhanced, and the capability for coping with regional security threats in a coordinated way has to be improved...In particular, the United States continues to sell arms to Taiwan in violation of the principles established in the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques, causing serious harm to Sino-U.S. relations as well as peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits."
It's interesting to see how this blatant reference to the US presupposes the US itself to be part of the problem. The Chinese stand is therefore officially this: we ain't pursuing any extension of a sphere of influence, so you shouldn't as well. I'm wondering if China will go Putin in the future, if America keeps walling up China and pushing it back.
It's also not to subtle on things like - "China is playing an active and constructive role in multilateral affairs, thus notably elevating its international position and influence."
and even ASEAN is mentioned - "The conclusion of the ASEAN Charter has enabled a new step to be taken toward ASEAN integration. Remarkable achievements have been made in cooperation between China and ASEAN, as well as between ASEAN and China, Japan and the Republic of Korea."
While this is interesting - "The Six-Party Talks on the Korean nuclear issue have scored successive achievements, and the tension in Northeast Asia is much released."
This portion illicits careful reading though: "Issues of existence security and development security, traditional security threats and non-traditional security threats, and domestic security and international security are interwoven and interactive. China is faced with the superiority of the developed countries in economy, science and technology, as well as military affairs. It also faces strategic maneuvers and containment from the outside while having to face disruption and sabotage by separatist and hostile forces from the inside. "
There is lingering suspicion of American espionage attempts attempting to aid rebellion and resistance within China. This brings to mind the Tibet fiasco last year, not to mention annoying human rights groups based in America as well, though the bottom line is that internal threats to the regime are still their primary concern. The status quo can be jeopardised however, by international developments (i.e. global credit crunch and impact on the CCP).
It is nevertheless, good to know that "China will never seek hegemony or engage in military expansion now or in the future, no matter how developed it becomes", though the question begs as to how it plans to FOSTER 'a security environment conducive to China's peaceful development'
...
Technology is the essence of RMA and this is how the Chinese plan to do it:
" Persisting in taking mechanization as the foundation and informationization as focus, China is stepping up the composite development of mechanization and informationization. Persisting in strengthening the military by means of science and technology, China is working to develop new and high-tech weaponry and equipment, carry out the strategic project of training talented people, conduct military training in conditions of informationization, and build a modern logistics system in an all-round way, so as to change the mode of formation of war-fighting capabilities. "
However I think on the whole, 'the strategic project of training talent people' is highly flawed. My impression of the chinese system is still rather 'factory-like' in its produce, and im not sure about their capability to produce leadership which looks beyond mere knowledge of technical facts. They may prove me wrong, but I don't think that their 'talent management scheme' is currently producing much results, esp with cronyism in the upper echelons.
Meanwhile with their economy in deep shit too, I highly doubt their ability to "call for the building of a lean and effective deterrent force and the flexible use of different means of deterrence." I'm quite concerned about this - It takes military operations other than war (MOOTW) as an important form of applying national military forces, and scientifically makes and executes plans for the development of MOOTW capabilities. - which could point to greater Chinese exposure through the UN platform (or not). Not sure where they got their idea from...
OOOO and this part i like: The PLA insists on putting ideological and political work first, and pushing forward the innovative development of ideological and political work, to ensure the Party's absolute leadership over the armed forces, the scientific development of the military, the all-round development of the officers and men, the increase of combat capabilities and the effective fulfillment of historical missions...The PLA persists in arming its officers and men with the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics, educates them in its historical missions, ideals, beliefs, fighting spirit and the socialist concept of honor and disgrace, and carries forward the fine traditions of obeying the Party's orders, serving the people, and fighting bravely and skillfully. The PLA's ideological and political education adheres to six principles: to be guided by scientific theories, to put the people first, to focus on the central task and serve the overall interests, to aim at concrete results, to educate through practical activities, and to encourage innovation and development.
I really don't see how any of this is 'socialist'. It's Maoist alright, but merely cliche. The 'historical' part makes me laugh out loud cuz its vaguely marxist, but really just an abuse of commie jingo. It all goes downhill from there...
Hotness
I found this on Prof Chris Blattman's blog. this is so cool -
http://chrisblattman.blogspot.com/2009/01/political-science-and-economics-hot-or.html
In 2006, James Felton, Peter T. Koper, John Mitchell and Michael Stinson conducted research that sought to establish, inter alia how perceived hotness of professors affected their RateMyProfessors evaluations for teaching quality. As part of this exercise, Felton et al. ranked (Table 2 in their paper) the relative hotness quotients of 36 different academic disciplines.
so sorry rajesh!
anyway its kind of queer how religion is high in the rankings...
On another note, I found a brilliant article on the AC360 blog linked to foreignpolicy.com. its by Prof Stephan M. Walt who has a blog on FP.com. The full text is here - http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/17/the_myth_of_israels_strategic_genius
Here are some excerpts...
"In the late 1980s, Israel helped nurture Hamas -- yes, the same organization that the IDF is bent on destroying today -- as part of its long-standing effort to undermine Yasser Arafat and Fatah and keep the Palestinians divided. This decision backfired too, because Arafat eventually recognized Israel and agreed to negotiate a two-state solution, while Hamas emerged as a new and dangerous adversary that has refused to recognize Israel's existence and to live in peace with the Jewish state.
The signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 offered an unprecedented chance to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all, but Israel's leaders failed to seize the moment. Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Benjamin Netanyahu all refused to endorse the idea of a Palestinian state -- even Rabin never spoke publicly about allowing the Palestinians to have a state of their own -- and Ehud Barak's belated offer of statehood at the 2000 Camp David summit did not go far enough. As Barak's own foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, later admitted, "if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David as well." (bolding and colors mine) Meanwhile, the number of settlers in the West Bank doubled during the Oslo period (1993-2001), and the Israelis built some 250 miles of connector roads in the West Bank. Palestinian leaders and U.S. officials made their own contributions to Oslo's failure, but Israel had clearly squandered what was probably the best opportunity it will ever have to negotiate a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Barak also derailed a peace treaty with Syria in early 2000 that appeared to be a done deal, at least to President Bill Clinton, who had helped fashion it. But when public opinion polls suggested that the Israeli public might not support the deal, the Israeli Prime Minister got cold feet and the talks collapsed. "
and...
"Finally, a similar strategic myopia is apparent in the assault on Gaza. Israeli leaders initially said that their goal was to inflict enough damage on Hamas so it could no longer threaten Israel with rocket attacks. But they now concede that Hamas will neither be destroyed nor disarmed by their attacks, and instead say that more extensive monitoring will prevent rocket parts and other weapons from being smuggled into Gaza. This is a vain hope, however. As I write this, Hamas has not accepted a ceasefire and is still firing rockets; even if it does accept a ceasefire soon, rocket and mortar fire are bound to resume at some point in the future. On top of that, Israel's international image has taken a drubbing, Hamas is probably more popular, and moderate leaders like Mahmoud Abbas have been badly discredited. A two-state solution -- which is essential if Israel wishes to remain Jewish and democratic and to avoid becoming an apartheid state -- is farther away than ever. The IDF performed better in Gaza than it did in Lebanon, largely because Hamas is a less formidable foe than Hezbollah. But this does not matter: the war against Hamas is still a strategic failure. And to have inflicted such carnage on the Palestinians for no lasting strategic gain is especially reprehensible. "
"The moral of this story is that there is no reason to think that Israel always has well-conceived strategies for dealing with the problems that it faces. "
--
Well said Prof Stephen. You can find his blog here-http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/
This gives me great ideas with my time in oxford! I will probably be posting random stuff abt the things im reading and on current affairs too! We need cool profs in ox too.
http://chrisblattman.blogspot.com/2009/01/political-science-and-economics-hot-or.html
In 2006, James Felton, Peter T. Koper, John Mitchell and Michael Stinson conducted research that sought to establish, inter alia how perceived hotness of professors affected their RateMyProfessors evaluations for teaching quality. As part of this exercise, Felton et al. ranked (Table 2 in their paper) the relative hotness quotients of 36 different academic disciplines.
so sorry rajesh!
anyway its kind of queer how religion is high in the rankings...
On another note, I found a brilliant article on the AC360 blog linked to foreignpolicy.com. its by Prof Stephan M. Walt who has a blog on FP.com. The full text is here - http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/17/the_myth_of_israels_strategic_genius
Here are some excerpts...
"In the late 1980s, Israel helped nurture Hamas -- yes, the same organization that the IDF is bent on destroying today -- as part of its long-standing effort to undermine Yasser Arafat and Fatah and keep the Palestinians divided. This decision backfired too, because Arafat eventually recognized Israel and agreed to negotiate a two-state solution, while Hamas emerged as a new and dangerous adversary that has refused to recognize Israel's existence and to live in peace with the Jewish state.
The signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 offered an unprecedented chance to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all, but Israel's leaders failed to seize the moment. Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Benjamin Netanyahu all refused to endorse the idea of a Palestinian state -- even Rabin never spoke publicly about allowing the Palestinians to have a state of their own -- and Ehud Barak's belated offer of statehood at the 2000 Camp David summit did not go far enough. As Barak's own foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, later admitted, "if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David as well." (bolding and colors mine) Meanwhile, the number of settlers in the West Bank doubled during the Oslo period (1993-2001), and the Israelis built some 250 miles of connector roads in the West Bank. Palestinian leaders and U.S. officials made their own contributions to Oslo's failure, but Israel had clearly squandered what was probably the best opportunity it will ever have to negotiate a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Barak also derailed a peace treaty with Syria in early 2000 that appeared to be a done deal, at least to President Bill Clinton, who had helped fashion it. But when public opinion polls suggested that the Israeli public might not support the deal, the Israeli Prime Minister got cold feet and the talks collapsed. "
and...
"Finally, a similar strategic myopia is apparent in the assault on Gaza. Israeli leaders initially said that their goal was to inflict enough damage on Hamas so it could no longer threaten Israel with rocket attacks. But they now concede that Hamas will neither be destroyed nor disarmed by their attacks, and instead say that more extensive monitoring will prevent rocket parts and other weapons from being smuggled into Gaza. This is a vain hope, however. As I write this, Hamas has not accepted a ceasefire and is still firing rockets; even if it does accept a ceasefire soon, rocket and mortar fire are bound to resume at some point in the future. On top of that, Israel's international image has taken a drubbing, Hamas is probably more popular, and moderate leaders like Mahmoud Abbas have been badly discredited. A two-state solution -- which is essential if Israel wishes to remain Jewish and democratic and to avoid becoming an apartheid state -- is farther away than ever. The IDF performed better in Gaza than it did in Lebanon, largely because Hamas is a less formidable foe than Hezbollah. But this does not matter: the war against Hamas is still a strategic failure. And to have inflicted such carnage on the Palestinians for no lasting strategic gain is especially reprehensible. "
"The moral of this story is that there is no reason to think that Israel always has well-conceived strategies for dealing with the problems that it faces. "
--
Well said Prof Stephen. You can find his blog here-http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/
This gives me great ideas with my time in oxford! I will probably be posting random stuff abt the things im reading and on current affairs too! We need cool profs in ox too.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Ode to Idiocy
when you're illogical and stubborn
you're life sucks but you don't know it
and you think others are bad.
your life is really really sad and i feel for you.
contempt.
anger.
irritated.
it seems clear to me now that your foolishness cannot be eradicated easily without a traumatic and terrible experience that will destroy whatever inclinations you have. it is unfortunate that you will never go through that.
education has failed you.
reason has eluded you.
and the Enlightenment never was.
you're life sucks but you don't know it
and you think others are bad.
your life is really really sad and i feel for you.
contempt.
anger.
irritated.
it seems clear to me now that your foolishness cannot be eradicated easily without a traumatic and terrible experience that will destroy whatever inclinations you have. it is unfortunate that you will never go through that.
education has failed you.
reason has eluded you.
and the Enlightenment never was.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
King of the Office
I'm alone in the office this morning! I'm hereby King for the morning! MUAHAHAHA.
Obama's Transatlatic Challenges
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=3179
MADRID, Spain -- Barack Obama begins his presidency with an unprecedented level of goodwill among Europeans, who are hoping he will reverse many of the unpopular policies that embittered transatlantic relations under his predecessor. As the contours of Obama's foreign policy come into focus, however, much of the onus for smoothing the frayed relationship will lie with Europe, not the United States.
Obama faces a daunting list of domestic and foreign policy challenges, at a time when the United States' historic levels of debt -- combined with the faltering American economy -- will force him to call on Europeans to do more. Transatlantic relations will certainly suffer if Europeans are unwilling to meet his requests.
But even if Europeans do come to Obama's aid, the transatlantic landscape will still be subject to tension. Not only are Obama's positions on many key domestic and foreign policy issues quite different from those held by European leaders, he is likely to make many of the same demands on Europe that his predecessor did.
His formidable national security team, too, surrounds him with advocates of "American pre-eminence" (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton), and the unilateral use of military force in the absence of U.N. support (Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice). Neither approach is likely to win him friends in European capitals.
The following is a brief summary of what Obama's first year in office holds in store for transatlantic relations.
Afghanistan. Afghanistan will, more than any other foreign policy issue, determine the course of transatlantic relations during Obama's presidency. Obama plans to send as many as 30,000 additional American soldiers to Afghanistan, while also seeking greater troop contributions from his already very reluctant European counterparts. The tension will come to a head in April 2009, when leaders of the 26-member NATO alliance gather for a summit in France and Germany.
Iran. Obama has vowed to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, declaring on the one hand that he "will never take military options off the table," while on the other that he would like to engage Iran with no preconditions. This puts him on a collision course with European officials, who want to continue with the existing European-led diplomatic track that makes Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment a precondition for U.S. engagement.Moreover, should Obama's own diplomatic outreach fail to elicit a shift from Tehran, efforts to establish new, more comprehensive sanctions will prove a hard sell in Europe, which has a robust trading relationship with Iran.
European-based Missile Defense. As a candidate, Obama said he would cut spending on "unproven" missile defense systems, but he has not made any definitive declarations on a planned missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Despite a NATO endorsement for the plan at the Bucharest summit in April 2008, Europeans remain deeply divided over the issue. Poland and the Czech Republic believe missile defense will enhance their security vis-à-vis Russia, while much of Western Europe is nervous about antagonizing Moscow, which strongly opposes the system's deployment.
NATO. In addition to the problem of troop commitments, the United States and its European allies have fundamentally different ideas about what is needed to turn Afghanistan into a functioning country. The practical effect of the rift has been to undermine NATO's credibility by exposing the alliance's inability to carry out ambitious projects. Allies are also divided over the issue of NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Obama says he supports their admission to NATO "when they are ready." NATO allies like France and Germany, however, are opposed to expanding the alliance, again for fear of provoking another confrontation with Russia.
Climate Change. Obama has vowed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies. If approved by the U.S. Congress, his approach will be far more ambitious than anything proposed by Europe, which nevertheless portrays itself as the global leader on this issue.EU leaders agreed to new climate change targets in December 2008, but the issue will come to a head in December 2009, at scheduled U.N. talks in Copenhagen on a pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol.
Global Economics. While Obama has pledged to implement a comprehensive series of reforms to the American economy designed to prevent a repeat of the current financial crisis, he is unlikely to agree to European demands to "rewrite the rules of global capitalism." Transatlantic differences over the appropriate levels of state intervention will come to a head at a major economic summit in London in April 2009.
Arab-Israeli Conflict. European leaders are hoping for more "balance" in the American approach to the conflict, but indications are that U.S.-Israeli ties will remain close. Although Obama's position will in part depend on the winner of Israeli elections in February, he has expressed sympathy for Israel's security dilemma, and Clinton has historically been a staunch supporter of Israel.
Guantánamo. Although Obama wants to shut down the Gitmo detention camp, the many legal challenges involved means that it may take as long as a year to actually close the site. European governments, who have for years called for the camp's closure, will be under pressure to help Obama find a home for some of its 248 remaining detainees. But Europeans remain split on the issue, with some countries saying they will consider taking some inmates, and others insisting it is Washington's responsibility.
Despite Obama's much-vaunted global worldview, as president he will put American interests first. But the help he receives from Europe could well determine how successful he is in advancing them. In this context, one of Obama's major trump cards is European public opinion, which across the political spectrum genuinely wants him to succeed. As a result, European governments may find it easier to support Obama on the the most difficult and important issues in ways not possible before.
Soeren Kern is senior fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.
MADRID, Spain -- Barack Obama begins his presidency with an unprecedented level of goodwill among Europeans, who are hoping he will reverse many of the unpopular policies that embittered transatlantic relations under his predecessor. As the contours of Obama's foreign policy come into focus, however, much of the onus for smoothing the frayed relationship will lie with Europe, not the United States.
Obama faces a daunting list of domestic and foreign policy challenges, at a time when the United States' historic levels of debt -- combined with the faltering American economy -- will force him to call on Europeans to do more. Transatlantic relations will certainly suffer if Europeans are unwilling to meet his requests.
But even if Europeans do come to Obama's aid, the transatlantic landscape will still be subject to tension. Not only are Obama's positions on many key domestic and foreign policy issues quite different from those held by European leaders, he is likely to make many of the same demands on Europe that his predecessor did.
His formidable national security team, too, surrounds him with advocates of "American pre-eminence" (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton), and the unilateral use of military force in the absence of U.N. support (Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice). Neither approach is likely to win him friends in European capitals.
The following is a brief summary of what Obama's first year in office holds in store for transatlantic relations.
Afghanistan. Afghanistan will, more than any other foreign policy issue, determine the course of transatlantic relations during Obama's presidency. Obama plans to send as many as 30,000 additional American soldiers to Afghanistan, while also seeking greater troop contributions from his already very reluctant European counterparts. The tension will come to a head in April 2009, when leaders of the 26-member NATO alliance gather for a summit in France and Germany.
Iran. Obama has vowed to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, declaring on the one hand that he "will never take military options off the table," while on the other that he would like to engage Iran with no preconditions. This puts him on a collision course with European officials, who want to continue with the existing European-led diplomatic track that makes Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment a precondition for U.S. engagement.Moreover, should Obama's own diplomatic outreach fail to elicit a shift from Tehran, efforts to establish new, more comprehensive sanctions will prove a hard sell in Europe, which has a robust trading relationship with Iran.
European-based Missile Defense. As a candidate, Obama said he would cut spending on "unproven" missile defense systems, but he has not made any definitive declarations on a planned missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Despite a NATO endorsement for the plan at the Bucharest summit in April 2008, Europeans remain deeply divided over the issue. Poland and the Czech Republic believe missile defense will enhance their security vis-à-vis Russia, while much of Western Europe is nervous about antagonizing Moscow, which strongly opposes the system's deployment.
NATO. In addition to the problem of troop commitments, the United States and its European allies have fundamentally different ideas about what is needed to turn Afghanistan into a functioning country. The practical effect of the rift has been to undermine NATO's credibility by exposing the alliance's inability to carry out ambitious projects. Allies are also divided over the issue of NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Obama says he supports their admission to NATO "when they are ready." NATO allies like France and Germany, however, are opposed to expanding the alliance, again for fear of provoking another confrontation with Russia.
Climate Change. Obama has vowed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies. If approved by the U.S. Congress, his approach will be far more ambitious than anything proposed by Europe, which nevertheless portrays itself as the global leader on this issue.EU leaders agreed to new climate change targets in December 2008, but the issue will come to a head in December 2009, at scheduled U.N. talks in Copenhagen on a pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol.
Global Economics. While Obama has pledged to implement a comprehensive series of reforms to the American economy designed to prevent a repeat of the current financial crisis, he is unlikely to agree to European demands to "rewrite the rules of global capitalism." Transatlantic differences over the appropriate levels of state intervention will come to a head at a major economic summit in London in April 2009.
Arab-Israeli Conflict. European leaders are hoping for more "balance" in the American approach to the conflict, but indications are that U.S.-Israeli ties will remain close. Although Obama's position will in part depend on the winner of Israeli elections in February, he has expressed sympathy for Israel's security dilemma, and Clinton has historically been a staunch supporter of Israel.
Guantánamo. Although Obama wants to shut down the Gitmo detention camp, the many legal challenges involved means that it may take as long as a year to actually close the site. European governments, who have for years called for the camp's closure, will be under pressure to help Obama find a home for some of its 248 remaining detainees. But Europeans remain split on the issue, with some countries saying they will consider taking some inmates, and others insisting it is Washington's responsibility.
Despite Obama's much-vaunted global worldview, as president he will put American interests first. But the help he receives from Europe could well determine how successful he is in advancing them. In this context, one of Obama's major trump cards is European public opinion, which across the political spectrum genuinely wants him to succeed. As a result, European governments may find it easier to support Obama on the the most difficult and important issues in ways not possible before.
Soeren Kern is senior fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Inauguration
I'm watching CNN's Larry King Live. Caught glimpses of it.
An elderly black man was sobbing, saying something about how the inauguration was a reflection of the US being a 'good country'. True emotions poured out. Pain and anguish. The triumph over oppression.
In many ways, the Obama administration should not be idealised. But in many other ways, it has come to symbolise much more.
He has his way with words, but those words can only take effect because they mean so much more and give so much more to the people. They give hope. I find myself moved. Will def post the speech here and give my thoughts on it soon.
An elderly black man was sobbing, saying something about how the inauguration was a reflection of the US being a 'good country'. True emotions poured out. Pain and anguish. The triumph over oppression.
In many ways, the Obama administration should not be idealised. But in many other ways, it has come to symbolise much more.
He has his way with words, but those words can only take effect because they mean so much more and give so much more to the people. They give hope. I find myself moved. Will def post the speech here and give my thoughts on it soon.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Tuesday
IT's just one of those long days when I'm stuck in office while some meeting just refuses to end and I'm left high and dry without any real food cept for a couple of grapes and wasabi pops. not exactly the kind of dinner Jamie would have in mind...
Either way, I'm here.
I started re-reading Adam Zamoyski's Holy Madness: Romantics, Patriots, and Revolutionaries, 1776-1871.
It's everything I expect my first yr module in Oxford to be. Broad-based with a somewhat thematic approach covering lots of ground together with the ability to see trends. It wasn't till I got through the first few pages that I remembered his horrilbly factual ramblings were the reason I stopped halfway the first time. Almost 2 yrs ago in fact - i bought the book in New York and stopped reading soon after I got back. In a way it's a good thing too, cuz I actually know a little bit more now to comprehend whatever he's trying to tell me.
For instance, I managed to get through a good 80% of Tommaso Astarita's Between Salt Water and Holy Water: A History of Southern Italy, which is really REALLY easy to read. It's fascinating, exciting and colorful. He has a lovely writing style. Simple easy to understand prose that captivates like any good novel does. That really contributed much to ameliorate the severe drought in understanding rgrding not just Italy, but also medieval history in general.
And back to Zamoyski. My initial impression was pretty much transfixed on his ability to make a wonderfully exciting era become so placid and boring that I almost fell asleep at my desk (again). Nevertheless, things really picked up towards the chapters on 'Civil Rites' and 'Holy War' where he went rather in-depth into the French Revolution - which is in my opinion is a fascinating epoch. A turning-point in the evolution of humanity.
From what I gather, 'nationalism' then is really the rationale by-product of religion after processing it through the factories of the enlightenment. The desire to supplant the Catholic Church in turn brought about a newfound religiosity in REASON as the ultimate aim and goal in life. This was a process started way back from the renaissance and the two reformations. As of now, religion has fought back but we never replace the role of reason and science in society
- unless you're living in some polygamist sect in the middle of America -
SEA nationalism then is different in that it's leaders aimed to create that kind of emotionale fervour from scratch. in some cases, nationalism = a more refined expression of culture and religion in that particular society. This differs much from that in Europe, in degrees of course. Nationalism, as with many other -isms, was merely layered upon the fabric of society and in many ways became entertwined with its various parts. You can't pick them out easily anymore.
And I'm only in Chapter 7 trying to get through Hungarian nationalism! Got to plough through my details...
I've also unfortunately stopped reading Anton La Guardia's Holy Land Unholy War, which is actually very good but just overflowing with details. It's good journalism. Less boring than academia, but the style of writing gets into you after a while. Good for general knowledge, bad for studying. And yes, it was getting really depressing too.
One of the things that baffles me greatly is the ongoing Israel V Hamas war. Arrogance? Hubris? The belief that they would actually achieve some long-lasting good out of a punitive strike in Gaza? Have they never considered the lives lost, the anger and pain, the possibility of greater support for anti-Israeli movements regardless of the short-term capabilities of Hamas?
One wonders what leaders think. Maybe they don't think at all.
And we all know which one doesn't.
All hands up in favour of the inauguration!
I'm so proud to be alive to witness history in the making. Daunting as it may seem, I hope to place my little and tiny faith in the possibility of Obama making a difference to the ongoing crises. He is no messiah. The least we could do though is to give him a chance.
No more shit from the Whitehouse! That should be our slogan.
Either way, I'm here.
I started re-reading Adam Zamoyski's Holy Madness: Romantics, Patriots, and Revolutionaries, 1776-1871.
It's everything I expect my first yr module in Oxford to be. Broad-based with a somewhat thematic approach covering lots of ground together with the ability to see trends. It wasn't till I got through the first few pages that I remembered his horrilbly factual ramblings were the reason I stopped halfway the first time. Almost 2 yrs ago in fact - i bought the book in New York and stopped reading soon after I got back. In a way it's a good thing too, cuz I actually know a little bit more now to comprehend whatever he's trying to tell me.
For instance, I managed to get through a good 80% of Tommaso Astarita's Between Salt Water and Holy Water: A History of Southern Italy, which is really REALLY easy to read. It's fascinating, exciting and colorful. He has a lovely writing style. Simple easy to understand prose that captivates like any good novel does. That really contributed much to ameliorate the severe drought in understanding rgrding not just Italy, but also medieval history in general.
And back to Zamoyski. My initial impression was pretty much transfixed on his ability to make a wonderfully exciting era become so placid and boring that I almost fell asleep at my desk (again). Nevertheless, things really picked up towards the chapters on 'Civil Rites' and 'Holy War' where he went rather in-depth into the French Revolution - which is in my opinion is a fascinating epoch. A turning-point in the evolution of humanity.
From what I gather, 'nationalism' then is really the rationale by-product of religion after processing it through the factories of the enlightenment. The desire to supplant the Catholic Church in turn brought about a newfound religiosity in REASON as the ultimate aim and goal in life. This was a process started way back from the renaissance and the two reformations. As of now, religion has fought back but we never replace the role of reason and science in society
- unless you're living in some polygamist sect in the middle of America -
SEA nationalism then is different in that it's leaders aimed to create that kind of emotionale fervour from scratch. in some cases, nationalism = a more refined expression of culture and religion in that particular society. This differs much from that in Europe, in degrees of course. Nationalism, as with many other -isms, was merely layered upon the fabric of society and in many ways became entertwined with its various parts. You can't pick them out easily anymore.
And I'm only in Chapter 7 trying to get through Hungarian nationalism! Got to plough through my details...
I've also unfortunately stopped reading Anton La Guardia's Holy Land Unholy War, which is actually very good but just overflowing with details. It's good journalism. Less boring than academia, but the style of writing gets into you after a while. Good for general knowledge, bad for studying. And yes, it was getting really depressing too.
One of the things that baffles me greatly is the ongoing Israel V Hamas war. Arrogance? Hubris? The belief that they would actually achieve some long-lasting good out of a punitive strike in Gaza? Have they never considered the lives lost, the anger and pain, the possibility of greater support for anti-Israeli movements regardless of the short-term capabilities of Hamas?
One wonders what leaders think. Maybe they don't think at all.
And we all know which one doesn't.
All hands up in favour of the inauguration!
I'm so proud to be alive to witness history in the making. Daunting as it may seem, I hope to place my little and tiny faith in the possibility of Obama making a difference to the ongoing crises. He is no messiah. The least we could do though is to give him a chance.
No more shit from the Whitehouse! That should be our slogan.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Betrayed Babies
Betrayed Babies
17 January 09, 3pm
Esplanade Recital Studio
A missed opportunity.
Betrayed Babies is essentially a play about techies acting as actors when none show up for rehearsal, and are of course acted by none other by the techies in Panggung ARTS themselves. It is funny and light-hearted, spoofing the Sandiwara-style of TV dramas, which so happens to be titled ‘Betrayed Babies’ as well, but says little about what ‘family’ really is.
Me: Could you perhaps elaborate on the title ‘Betrayed Babies’? Why did you decide on this?
Director: *Blank look*. Erm… I’ll leave you to make the association…
Sure, I found the humour and the melodrama really funny. I identified with the dynamics of back-stage work. The director cum playwright Aidli Mosbit herself professed that the people at Panggung ARTS were like a family to her – coupled with the somewhat matriarchal production director, the need to balance professionalism with friendships, and so on. She also noted the growing presence of women in backstage work in the Singapore arts scene, which was clearly reflected in this all-female production.
Once you get past the melodrama and the spoofs, you also realise that the play is rather bold in the issues it explores, ranging from lesbianism to pre-marital sex to fuck-buddies, together with a whole slew of lies, and deceit. The portrayal of a retarded-girl being the illegitimate offspring of an ‘ulamma’ and everyone dancing in their prayer outfits was perhaps the more memorable moments of the play which bordered on the blasphemous.
Nevertheless, it wasn’t clear if the play’s focus as a whole was on the life of the backstage crew, or the play that they were acting out. Little on what ‘family’ is was probed or discussed. During the post-show dialogue, they merely reflected on how hard acting really was, and the play seemed only like an avenue for personal exploration. The verdict? The majority would rather continue being techies – safe backstage with fewer chances of screwing up.
With the play acted in Singlish and punctuated with Malay and the occasional Chinese, the play has limited appeal beyond our shores, not to mention those who have never known the existence of Suria, and it is unlikely to even stand a chance in conservative Malaysia. While it was perhaps a learning experience and a brave attempt for the techies of panggung ARTS, it was less so for the audience of the half-filled Esplanade Recital Studio. The girls were having fun, but that’s about all there was.
17 January 09, 3pm
Esplanade Recital Studio
A missed opportunity.
Betrayed Babies is essentially a play about techies acting as actors when none show up for rehearsal, and are of course acted by none other by the techies in Panggung ARTS themselves. It is funny and light-hearted, spoofing the Sandiwara-style of TV dramas, which so happens to be titled ‘Betrayed Babies’ as well, but says little about what ‘family’ really is.
Me: Could you perhaps elaborate on the title ‘Betrayed Babies’? Why did you decide on this?
Director: *Blank look*. Erm… I’ll leave you to make the association…
Sure, I found the humour and the melodrama really funny. I identified with the dynamics of back-stage work. The director cum playwright Aidli Mosbit herself professed that the people at Panggung ARTS were like a family to her – coupled with the somewhat matriarchal production director, the need to balance professionalism with friendships, and so on. She also noted the growing presence of women in backstage work in the Singapore arts scene, which was clearly reflected in this all-female production.
Once you get past the melodrama and the spoofs, you also realise that the play is rather bold in the issues it explores, ranging from lesbianism to pre-marital sex to fuck-buddies, together with a whole slew of lies, and deceit. The portrayal of a retarded-girl being the illegitimate offspring of an ‘ulamma’ and everyone dancing in their prayer outfits was perhaps the more memorable moments of the play which bordered on the blasphemous.
Nevertheless, it wasn’t clear if the play’s focus as a whole was on the life of the backstage crew, or the play that they were acting out. Little on what ‘family’ is was probed or discussed. During the post-show dialogue, they merely reflected on how hard acting really was, and the play seemed only like an avenue for personal exploration. The verdict? The majority would rather continue being techies – safe backstage with fewer chances of screwing up.
With the play acted in Singlish and punctuated with Malay and the occasional Chinese, the play has limited appeal beyond our shores, not to mention those who have never known the existence of Suria, and it is unlikely to even stand a chance in conservative Malaysia. While it was perhaps a learning experience and a brave attempt for the techies of panggung ARTS, it was less so for the audience of the half-filled Esplanade Recital Studio. The girls were having fun, but that’s about all there was.
_father.mother.dog
_father.mother.dog/
16 January 09, 8pm
Seminar Room, National Museum of Singapore
Family just is.
I absolutely loved _father.mother.dog/. It bedazzles. It is provocative, eccentric, disturbing and yet enthralling. Humour is blended with tension, angst and resent, strewn in with a dash of Freud and a pick of the future. Amongst all the plays in the Fringe Festival that I watched, it was perhaps the only one which dared to portray a vision for a radically different notion of ‘family’, and boldly questioned human nature itself.
--
FMD is a male-oriented play.
Three men dominate - a renowned unmarried French professor with 4 daughters who have 6 mothers, an Italian manager representing the ‘classical’ notion of family, and the German researcher/protagonist who is obsessed about finding a solution to the problem of ‘the family’.
The beginning was abrupt and disturbing. I have no inkling whatsoever about German absurdist theatre (think Bertolt Brecht) apart from the groans from my Theatre-studies friends in NUS, but starting of with a power-point presentation titled ‘Research Project on the Prospect of New Family Structures by The Institute for the Studies on Marriage and Family Matters’ in a Seminar Room, clearly set my head wheeling, and I seriously thought that the Italian guy donning a beekeeper suit humming a strange Italian tune and playing with honey whilst walking around was going to seriously hamper my ability to write this review.
Nevertheless, it turned out to be a wonderful experience.
While the actors professed to have toned down the stereotyping for their first non-European audience, the characters nevertheless each represent a prototype of their nationality (together with friendly jibes that their stereotypes). Though the play leaves little room for real character development, it skilfully explores the question of human nature successfully.
Schneider is the gung-ho German social scientist whose ultimate aim in this project is to create a ‘new family structure’. This very aim and desire itself however suggests something of a darker nature, as he seems almost bent on freeing himself from the bonds of familial ties. Yet the painful dramatic irony is his susceptibility to it. In his lecture he argues that parenthood is delinquency and urges his audience against the ‘dumbmastification’ of humanity. Yet, he reminisces over a few baby toys (presumably his), lunges maniacally towards a ‘father-figure’ trying to shake him off, and writhes in angst, horror and ultimately pain as his creation refuses to acknowledge him as father.
French prof rips off shirt exclaiming: Schneider! Be a man! Run into me like a cannonball! I will hold you!
Schneider: ahhhhhh!
French prof: It’s ok Schneider. Papa’s got you. It’s ok… And now I will let you down. You can come down now. (German guy climbs onto him). Erm… Schneider?
Towards the end, the play even bordered along horror, continuing the tradition of Shelley in Frankenstein, Huxley in Brave New World and yes – even Hollywood (The Island). A blister is presented (uncannily similar to the ‘embryos’ in The Island really…) with a creature inside - a human without any notion of familial bonds. The offspring of Schneider, but hardly his son.
I couldn’t help but feel immensely disturbed when the blister was finally unwrapped at the end, revealing the voodoo doll-like robot thing which is supposedly the end-point and pinnacle of evolution and humanity. Sure - the thing is cute with his blue-pin eyes, its whirling heads and limbs, and it’s Bart impression of ‘eat my shorts’, but it shocks me at the same time. It really does. Ultimately, the play doesn’t explain why familial ties are the way they are – indeed they can’t. They just are, according to the Italian. But that becomes the strength of the play because it indirectly forces me to consider whether our notion of family is really inherent to us. A prerequisite to being human.
I shall not dive into a discussion of philosophy now, but it would be interesting to note John Locke’s theory of the Tabula Rasa – the blank slate (The actors themselves also did a crazy amount of research prior to the production and I’m sure that they would have come across it). Are all humans born a blank slate, waiting to be filled with knowledge via the senses, or are certain things inbred and born within us like our notion of family, love, ties and kinship? Even the promiscuous French professor has a very conservative notion of family - almost sobbing visibly upon hearing his son having done well in school. Having come from an incomplete family myself, it makes me wonder if this is an inevitable truth.
And then they were the bees.
Bees just are. They don’t ask why they exist or why they carry out that particular function. They just do it. Kinship, is merely a natural impulse and instinct. The instinct to produce honey for instance. At the moment of ‘revelation’ of the creature, the beekeeper guy runs in panicking. All the bees had left. No drones, no queen, no nothing. While the playwright had drawn inspiration from the recent news of the decreasing number of bees in America, it also served as a strong and resounding parallel to the action of the main plot. There, the scientists had found a new possibility of humanity – the abolishment of the family in itself. The bees similarly, seemed to have broken away from the very ties which kept them together in the first place. Two disturbing phenomena mirror and illuminate each other at the same time. No bees no honey. No family no love?
It would be impossible to cover all the issues brought up by the play in this article itself. You have to watch it yourself. I liked how the actors were inspired to do this play not only to bring awareness to the pressing issue of population decline in their homeland, but also their own personal journey to fatherhood as they all become fathers for the very first time. The fact that this performance was also the first time the actors did it in English instead of German to a non-European audience also heightens the universality of the issues discussed and presented. Ania, a German lady I spoke to, noted its pertinence to her being a German.
It’s relevance to Singaporeans? During the post-show dialogue, one of the actors noted chancing upon the ‘Romancing Singapore’ website while doing up research on Singapore – which was promptly noted by a member of the audience to be ‘a national embarrassment’. Nevertheless, it does clearly exemplify the difficulty of even breaking out of that ‘classical’ idea of a family – father.mother.child. The furthest we have come to, is perhaps only father.mother.dog.
Unfortunate? I leave that to you.
16 January 09, 8pm
Seminar Room, National Museum of Singapore
Family just is.
I absolutely loved _father.mother.dog/. It bedazzles. It is provocative, eccentric, disturbing and yet enthralling. Humour is blended with tension, angst and resent, strewn in with a dash of Freud and a pick of the future. Amongst all the plays in the Fringe Festival that I watched, it was perhaps the only one which dared to portray a vision for a radically different notion of ‘family’, and boldly questioned human nature itself.
--
FMD is a male-oriented play.
Three men dominate - a renowned unmarried French professor with 4 daughters who have 6 mothers, an Italian manager representing the ‘classical’ notion of family, and the German researcher/protagonist who is obsessed about finding a solution to the problem of ‘the family’.
The beginning was abrupt and disturbing. I have no inkling whatsoever about German absurdist theatre (think Bertolt Brecht) apart from the groans from my Theatre-studies friends in NUS, but starting of with a power-point presentation titled ‘Research Project on the Prospect of New Family Structures by The Institute for the Studies on Marriage and Family Matters’ in a Seminar Room, clearly set my head wheeling, and I seriously thought that the Italian guy donning a beekeeper suit humming a strange Italian tune and playing with honey whilst walking around was going to seriously hamper my ability to write this review.
Nevertheless, it turned out to be a wonderful experience.
While the actors professed to have toned down the stereotyping for their first non-European audience, the characters nevertheless each represent a prototype of their nationality (together with friendly jibes that their stereotypes). Though the play leaves little room for real character development, it skilfully explores the question of human nature successfully.
Schneider is the gung-ho German social scientist whose ultimate aim in this project is to create a ‘new family structure’. This very aim and desire itself however suggests something of a darker nature, as he seems almost bent on freeing himself from the bonds of familial ties. Yet the painful dramatic irony is his susceptibility to it. In his lecture he argues that parenthood is delinquency and urges his audience against the ‘dumbmastification’ of humanity. Yet, he reminisces over a few baby toys (presumably his), lunges maniacally towards a ‘father-figure’ trying to shake him off, and writhes in angst, horror and ultimately pain as his creation refuses to acknowledge him as father.
French prof rips off shirt exclaiming: Schneider! Be a man! Run into me like a cannonball! I will hold you!
Schneider: ahhhhhh!
French prof: It’s ok Schneider. Papa’s got you. It’s ok… And now I will let you down. You can come down now. (German guy climbs onto him). Erm… Schneider?
Towards the end, the play even bordered along horror, continuing the tradition of Shelley in Frankenstein, Huxley in Brave New World and yes – even Hollywood (The Island). A blister is presented (uncannily similar to the ‘embryos’ in The Island really…) with a creature inside - a human without any notion of familial bonds. The offspring of Schneider, but hardly his son.
I couldn’t help but feel immensely disturbed when the blister was finally unwrapped at the end, revealing the voodoo doll-like robot thing which is supposedly the end-point and pinnacle of evolution and humanity. Sure - the thing is cute with his blue-pin eyes, its whirling heads and limbs, and it’s Bart impression of ‘eat my shorts’, but it shocks me at the same time. It really does. Ultimately, the play doesn’t explain why familial ties are the way they are – indeed they can’t. They just are, according to the Italian. But that becomes the strength of the play because it indirectly forces me to consider whether our notion of family is really inherent to us. A prerequisite to being human.
I shall not dive into a discussion of philosophy now, but it would be interesting to note John Locke’s theory of the Tabula Rasa – the blank slate (The actors themselves also did a crazy amount of research prior to the production and I’m sure that they would have come across it). Are all humans born a blank slate, waiting to be filled with knowledge via the senses, or are certain things inbred and born within us like our notion of family, love, ties and kinship? Even the promiscuous French professor has a very conservative notion of family - almost sobbing visibly upon hearing his son having done well in school. Having come from an incomplete family myself, it makes me wonder if this is an inevitable truth.
And then they were the bees.
Bees just are. They don’t ask why they exist or why they carry out that particular function. They just do it. Kinship, is merely a natural impulse and instinct. The instinct to produce honey for instance. At the moment of ‘revelation’ of the creature, the beekeeper guy runs in panicking. All the bees had left. No drones, no queen, no nothing. While the playwright had drawn inspiration from the recent news of the decreasing number of bees in America, it also served as a strong and resounding parallel to the action of the main plot. There, the scientists had found a new possibility of humanity – the abolishment of the family in itself. The bees similarly, seemed to have broken away from the very ties which kept them together in the first place. Two disturbing phenomena mirror and illuminate each other at the same time. No bees no honey. No family no love?
It would be impossible to cover all the issues brought up by the play in this article itself. You have to watch it yourself. I liked how the actors were inspired to do this play not only to bring awareness to the pressing issue of population decline in their homeland, but also their own personal journey to fatherhood as they all become fathers for the very first time. The fact that this performance was also the first time the actors did it in English instead of German to a non-European audience also heightens the universality of the issues discussed and presented. Ania, a German lady I spoke to, noted its pertinence to her being a German.
It’s relevance to Singaporeans? During the post-show dialogue, one of the actors noted chancing upon the ‘Romancing Singapore’ website while doing up research on Singapore – which was promptly noted by a member of the audience to be ‘a national embarrassment’. Nevertheless, it does clearly exemplify the difficulty of even breaking out of that ‘classical’ idea of a family – father.mother.child. The furthest we have come to, is perhaps only father.mother.dog.
Unfortunate? I leave that to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
