As the current Chinese Premier Wen Jie-bao [sic] once said in his address to the Chinese People’s Congress… He went on to say that history has shown that China had never harboured any imperialistic ambition and had not occupied an inch of anyone’s territory.

I cannot verify the accuracy of this quote, but I would like to believe that it is an approximately accurate quote of what was said. However, one should really consider the disparities between China’s actions and its rhetoric. Particularly in Chinese politics, there is a tendency to make vague statements pertaining to political stances and ideology that can be easily circumvented by clever political maneuvering. Perhaps China does not harbor imperialistic ambition in a militaristic sense, which makes it seemingly benign in comparison to the strong-handed tactics of the British Empire and Spanish Armada of yore. But does it really have no imperialistic ambition at all?

It is a well-known fact that China has an increasingly powerful global presence, especially in developing countries around the world. In places like Sudan, China is establishing itself as a powerful economic force and trading partner, selling arms in exchange for oil imports from the impoverished state that has been wrecked by the senseless violence of civil war.

Similarly, there is the hotly debated issue of the alleged annexation of Tibet by the People’s Republic of China. Despite having been “placed under the sovereignty of the Chinese Government” since the 1950s, civil unrest in Tibet has occurred as recently as the “314” (March 14^th 2008) riots which saw an uprising of the people being suppressed by the Chinese Government in the form of a major crackdown by the People’s Armed Police (中国人民武装警察部队).

Considering all this, the writer’s use of quotes from the Chinese Premier in such a context probably doesn’t reflect very well on his understanding of actual political circumstances in the real world. And by the way, the writer might want to note that the Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China is Wen Jiabao (温家宝), not Wen Jie-bao. Also it’s called the “National People’s Congress” (全国人民代表大会) not the Chinese People’s Congress.

And so the West, and in particular the U.S., want now to teach us how to run our countries according to their model of Democracy. Beware of their pulling cotton wool over our eyes. Do you seriously believe there is genuine Freedom and practice of Human Rights in America? May I refer you to Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent”, a book that exposes American Democracy as a sham?

Even if we overlook the seemingly juvenile language used in the quoted argument above, the inherent sense of cognitive disconnect in the article rears its ugly head again. My understanding of Chomsky’s argument against the existing state of democratic practices in the United States is that the political agenda in Washington tends to revolve around backroom politics and private-sector lobbying, rather than the actual needs and desires of the people.

However, it should be noted that Chomsky is also one who has great hope in America’s continual ability to uphold it’s reputation as the Land of the Free, where civil liberties are upheld and freedom of the individual is observed and ensured by the State.

Clearly, the writer of the article in question fails to acknowledge the fundamental difference between the practice of democracy and the notion of civil liberties, where he refers to the latter as the “genuine freedom, and practice of human rights in America”. In an ideal world, you would probably have both of these ideological concepts in practice, but in the real world, one can always exist without the other.

Besides, Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” is a 1988 publication that puts the blame on government for not only making use of mass media, or what we call the mainstream media today, as a means of influencing the ideology of the populace, but also effectively silencing news outlets that seek to deliver an alternative, allegedly “subversive” perspective. There’s no point in calling the kettle black when you’re a blackened pot yourself, but doesn’t Chomsky’s argument also ring true when you consider the circumstances in which the mainstream media operates in Singapore?

Right up to the second half of the 20th Century, Afro-Americans were still fighting their white counterparts to be accorded equal rights. Martin Luther King Jr. had this to say:

“I have a dream that the children of slaves and the children of former slave-owners will one day sit at the table of brotherhood”.

Martin Luther King Jr. may well be more than surprised should he be alive today to witness that an Afro-American, a coloured man holding the highest post in ‘the Land of the brave and the free’, the post, that is to say, of the President of the United States of America.

The writer should be commended for acknowledging the significance and non-triviality of the progress in civil rights that is reflected in the election of Barack Obama to the highest position of office in the United States of America.

However, this acknowledgement turns into the Achilles’ heel of the general argument brought forth by his article. Considering the fiery rhetoric where he questions the existence of freedom and individual liberties in America, isn’t it a tad ironic that the election of an African American to the Office of President of the United States demonstrates the ability of America to rise above its troubled history and ensure that freedom reigns in the land – where a man who would have been denied the right to vote before the National Voting Rights Act of 1965, was not only able to see his name on the ballot, but win the election itself.

After all, to paraphrase the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. himself, in a world where people will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, the notions of freedom, democracy, and individual liberties are not an American concept, nor a European concept. Neither are they an African concept, nor an Asian concept. They are a universal concept that should apply to anyone and everyone who considers themselves a member of the human race.

So let freedom ring, not just from the paddy fields of Burma, or the killing fields of Darfur, or the mountaintops of Tibet.

Let freedom ring from every village, every city, every state, every nation, and every nook and cranny of the universe.

Let freedom ring.

As a final note, the provenance of the article in question already suggests the inherent bias that is to be expected from an officially sanctioned mouthpiece of the youth wing of a political party. However, even if we set aside our differences and seek to adopt an objective perspective, this very brief analysis of the article shows the lack of depth and intellectualism of the article in question. Seriously, is this really the best that the up-and-coming political elite can come up with, or am I expecting too much? I wonder.

Related posts:

1. 2008 Human Rights Report: Singapore
2. My Country, My Home.

Mainstream media needs to rebuild broken trust ( theonlinecitizen.com )

the original article from which this quote is retrieved has been removed from theonlinecitizen,
the reason for which is this. a related article is available here.

Since being lambasted by the MM (Minister Mentor) for having ‘highfalutin’ ideals, Viswa Sadasivan, Nominated Member of Parliament and former senior manager of Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) has been transformed into the darling of the online world. After all, it is not everyday that the ageing MM becomes agitated enough to personally intervene in parliament. [2] Even so, Viswa, an admittedly non-partisan politician, does not appear to relish the limelight, nor does he take a stand against the MM.

Recognizing the tendency for some sections of the internet readership to mercilessly engage in government-bashing, he views his exchange with the MM not with fear, but with a healthy respect that one might give to one’s grandfather… …

No related posts.

I’m Chinese, not Malay. But does it matter? I am Singaporean, and despite the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies which I stand against, this is my country, and this is my pledge. Our pledge. Ikrar kita. For a reason unbeknownst to even myself, I have preferred to recite the pledge in its Malay form for a couple of years already. There’s nothing wrong with that, is there? Perhaps it’s the way my favourite phrase in the pledge invokes a strong wave of emotion – “kepada keadilan dan persamaan” (based on justice and equality). Maybe it’s the powerful visions of hope it contains – a hope that the nation we live in can yet be so much better. I’m no constitutional law expert, but I know what my pledge means, and I believe in it.

I wasn’t surprised then to find out that I’m not the only one who views the pledge as more than the words of a mind-numbing ritual conducted daily in public schools across the country.

The Singapore of our National Pledge ( theonlinecitizen.com )

… As the ranks of patriotic Singaporeans who share these ideals swell, the fear will fade, as it is beginning to. All that is missing now, readers, is you. Do you share that vision?

If you do, then I promise you, surely change will come. Change will come from those citizens of our country who put their hands to their chest and mean every word of our National Pledge, not from those who deride it as impractical aspiration.

Change will come despite those who deride the impracticality of a “democratic society, based on justice and equality”. The day has come, a line has been drawn in the sand, between those who believe in living Rajaratnam’s vision, and the men who see it as empty rhetoric…

No related posts.

US Department of State – 2008 Human Rights Report

Singapore is a parliamentary republic in which the People’s Action Party (PAP), in power since 1959, overwhelmingly dominates politics. The population was approximately 4.6 million, with foreign workers accounting for nearly one fifth of the total. Opposition parties exist, and the May 2006 parliamentary elections were generally fair and free of tampering; however, the PAP placed formidable obstacles in the path of political opponents. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces.

The government has broad powers to limit citizens’ rights and to handicap political opposition, which it used. Caning is an allowable punishment for numerous offenses. The following human rights problems also were reported: preventive detention, executive influence over the judiciary, infringement of citizens’ privacy rights, restriction of speech and press freedom and the practice of self-censorship by journalists, restriction of freedoms of assembly and association, limited restriction of freedom of religion, and some trafficking in persons.

…… or is this just part of a western conspiracy to do Singapore in?

Related posts:

1. to the critics of democracy and human rights
2. My Country, My Home.
3. A Tribute to the Civil Rights Movement

MOSCOW (Associated Press)

A jury in Moscow voted unanimously Thursday to acquit three men in the killing of journalist Anna Politkovskaya, dimming hopes for justice in a case that has mocked Russia’s claims to be a modern democratic nation.

The brazen 2006 slaying of the crusading investigative reporter sent a grim signal to other dissenters in Russia, proving that even the most prominent of Kremlin critics could be murdered with impunity.

And it provoked international outrage, raising suspicions that her death was ordered by prominent public officials.

A jury acquitted two Chechen brothers and a morose ex-cop following a trial that defense attorneys and Politkovskaya’s supporters said was marred by prosecution errors and oversights.

This is what happens when 3 loosely culpable suspects are put on trial and the feeblest of attempts is made to prosecute them within a legal system that is a sham, at least when it comes to politically motivated cases.

The issue at hand is not whether this was an expected outcome, predetermined by the forces that be, or at least by the shadowy figures that lurk within the Kremlin. After all, only those with the thickest of skins could possibly say that this was an actual hearing rather than a shameless exhibition of unchecked power overturning the hand of justice.

While it is easy and instinctive to rebuke Moscow for its actions, the lesson we ought to draw from this rather, is the price of our shared ideals of democracy and liberty.

Few amongst us have tasted the sweet dew of freedom that is the essence of a genuine constitutional democracy. However, the price that most of us pay for speaking up for ourselves and our brethren is much less than that of the ultimate sacrifice – one’s own life.

In my opinion then, the best way to honour the memory of Anna Politkovskaya and countless others who have gone down the path of the sacrificial lamb is to do what they could not. Speak up, exercise your rights, and stand up to the fear (imaginary or otherwise) of being persecuted for your words and actions. It is an empirical truth that absolute power corrupts, so then, let us the people strive to regain the voice that we rightfully deserve.

No related posts.

From Alex Au of yawningbread.org

Did Mediacorp cock up and let the cat out of the bag? Is a general election this year confirmed?

Look at this screen shot from 9:36 pm, Thursday, 19 February 2009. When I saw it, I called Choo Zheng Xi of The Online Citizen immediately and he got exactly the same page, so that I have a witness. He took a screen shot too.

What about it? Look at the page title -– it says “General Election 2009″. The contents though are from 2006. Ask yourself: Why would a page from 2006 carry a title that references 2009?

The only explanation I can think of is that Mediacorp is preparing all their websites to support an election. The easiest thing to do, as any webmaster knows, is to recycle previously designed pages.

So that’s what’s happening -– they are in the process of updating and recycling, but forgot that the pages are still “live”. As a result, we can see the work in progress.

But if there is work in progress, does it mean the election is a sure thing?

No related posts.

以纪念人民的总统，王鼎昌先生 – 政府的监督者，法律的维护者，永垂不朽的爱国者

No related posts.

I may not agree with Chee Soon Juan’s political ideology (at least not in its entirety), nor do I understand his intentions well enough to either commend or repudiate his actions. However, I believe that there is a fundamental truth in what he says about the denial of freedoms that are not only described in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights,  but also in the Constitution of many nations – not to mention that of the sunny, vibrant and (once) economically thriving city-state of Singapore. Even if you are among those who think that Chee Soon Juan is an anti-establishment rebel of psychopathic tendencies who intends to destroy the socio-political fabric that the incumbent ruling party of 44 years has painstakingly established, then at least you ought to agree with what he says about the blatant and brutal political oppression of the likes of Aung San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma.

There may be those who disagree with me. I am neither offended nor displeased. Rather, I am delighted that there is a viewpoint that opposes mine. After all, we can only call ourselves a democracy when every man, woman, and child can disagree in a civilized and tactful manner with his or her voice heard by all.

No related posts.