The Possum Bistro

Wordpressing

2008-11-13T12:01:00.002+08:00

The possums are jiving at their swanky, new bistro at Wordpress. You will be redirected in 5 seconds, or simply click here!

It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown!

2008-11-03T23:15:00.012+08:00

One by one, they crept out of the woodwork. Some scurrying, some crawling at a lackadaisical pace, oblivious to the sheer activity around them. Ears popped, tails grew, busts expanded, colours exploded - the metamorphosis had begun, and Halloween was here.

Walking around campus on Oct 31, I had already noticed that students here are seriously into the whole festive spirit of Halloween, decked in superhero costumes that tend to exagerrate rather than accentuate existing figures; or witch hats and wizard capes; or another random monstrosity from one of many forgettable horror flicks churned out every year. Occasionally, the mainstays - Scream masks, Frankenstein - would surface, lending to the timelessness of their appeal.

Fred picked us up from Rieber Hall at around 3pm, taking an alternative route to his house that took about 2 full hours just to beat the horrendous traffic that Los Angeles is so well-known for. The freeways were beginning to pack tightly by mid-afternoon, though the weather was more forgiving this Friday as clouds had peppered the sky since Thursday afternoon. It was amazing to think that drivers in LA could acclimatise somehow to the claustrophobic pressures of being stuck in traffic for a good 2-3 hours on a daily basis without having the urge to take public transportation, which also underscores how inaccessible and inefficient the system is here.

Arriving at Fred and Rose's house, the familiar sight of their humble abode simply washed off the tensions generated from one hectic week at campus. Upon the steps of the front porch, we heard the comforting, staccato (yes, Preeya, I got it right this time) barks and pit-pattering of paws on the parquet flooring as Chi-chi scurried forth to greet us. He is such an adorable dog, and I never thought I'd ever find myself being acquainted or comfortable with an animal around me, since I've never been one to keep a pet.

Which marks one of several firsts in California: my first time that I've had a chihuahua sit on my lap, cuddled comfortably as he lets me stroke his back, behind his ears, ruffling his skin around his neck. Chi-chi has definitely earned his place in the hearts of us three, and Fred joked that the only thing we could remember when we returned to Singapore would be Chi-chi - we were literally showering so much attention on the little one!

While waiting for Rose to prepare her baby back ribs, oxtail and saffron rice, we headed out into the neighbourhood to preview the decorations that others had laboriously set up.

As you can see, the pumpkin makes for a good bolster of sorts.

Be wary of the seductively beautiful...

...for evil lurks closely behind.

Obviously, some undertaker tried to scrimp on the six-feet-under prerequistite.

We also had, in order to please our constituencies, take some time out for campaigning. The difference between us and political action committees (PACs) that are behind the Obama and McCain campaigns? We are self-funded (so no special interests linked to Washington - score one point), self-staffed (Preeya and Kaixian are members of my group, Preeya and I are members of Kaixian's group, Kaixian and I are members of Preeya's group), and self-absorbed.

Kaixian figuring out how to vote for herself.

The Republican...

...the cynical Democrat...

...and the disgruntled Independent!

The girls' best attempt at looking kawaii!

Fred had bought these sheikh robes from Egypt, and Rose simply insisted that I wear them just in the festive spirit of Halloween, along with the girls on one end of the room egging me on. In any case, I did not convincingly look like either Saudi royalty or the rich owner of Chelsea.

This was Michael's first Halloween, so it definitely was special - even more so that his first and our first Halloween experience would coincide! His inexperience was evident when he said "trick or treat!", and then proceeded to walk past the front door, into the house before stopping midway and standing there, wondering what to do next.

Peter Pan just kept his globular eyes trained on my D60.

And to top it off, Rose had noticed that I had mentioned that I love crossaints the other day, so she actually made them herself for us to bring back to our apartments to eat the following morning! Her oxtail was just fantastic, seriously - the faint wisp of red wine diffusing as one chewed through the succulent, soft meat off the bones of oxtail was irresistable. Couple that with delicious baby back ribs that were glistening off the oven rack, and fragrant saffron rice that reminded us of the type that we usually have back home - we truly are grateful to have Fred and Rose take care of us here, and we thank both of them deeply for everything they have done so far to make our stay in California so much more memorable.

On the campus front, we've been able to handle the workload rather efficiently so far, even though I must admit that somehow psychologically, it was indeed rather taxing at one point in time. And her voice penetrated the negativity that was beginning to surround my vision at that time, like a sunbeam piercing ruthlessly through, evaporating the darkness and showing me what I was actually capable of. She reminded me of who I am, why I am here, and that led me to recover from that brief and unsavoury encounter with something that I have always vowed never to become.

To her, I dedicate this entry, just like every other entry before - for each letter that I scribe, I feel the inspiring power of her words run through the course of my veins, into my fingers as they fly across the keyboard, surging with purpose. I feel the tenderness of her voice permeating the harshness of the static generated by the travelling of sound waves across continents as they are filtered through numerous channels and devices; and as it arrives, it electrifies even with its gentle embrace.

I cannot find words to display my gratitude, and so I endeavour with every inch of effort I can exert from my mind, body and soul to keep her safe, because to see her hurt would render my heart asunder; to let her keep me safe, because I trust her as I have never trusted anyone before; to devote to her my heart, because we deserve each other.

Only a day to the elections, six weeks to the end of the quarter. I shall be patient, and we shall be together soon.

Crabcakes Deserve a Heading of Their Own

2008-10-13T14:25:00.011+08:00

Sweet, sweet Saturday - Malibu, we're coming for you!

Stepping out of campus is such an exhilarating feeling, and it is acquiring an addictive element to it each weekend that we spend on campus grounds. This was to be the last outing that Fred and Rose could take us on before they left for their journey to Egypt, and we were just anticipating as to what we would see in Malibu.

Fred and Rose stopped by this Jewish franchise diner, and the first thought that popped into my mind was that classic scene from Pulp Fiction, when John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson are talking in the diner with the red plush cushions, and a hold-up happens!

I just ordered a simple cappuchino, just like Preeya and Kaixian did. It was frothy - just like it should be - and certainly welcome on a lazy Saturday morning, in a classic American diner.

Along the scenic drive to Malibu, our eyes traced the yawning, mountainous landscape of California's numerous majestic valleys - it resembled some potential Survivor setting, which was what came to mind given my eternal obsession with everything Survivor-ish.

At some point, it even looked like where Lost could have been filmed. Ok, I should just not spout more lines betraying my closet couch potato persona. According to the Fifth Amendment, I have the right against self-incrimination, and therefore I shall exercise my Miranda rights.

In case you were wondering why the invocation of the Constitution, that precious document is a current focus of one of the courses I'm taking right here in UCLA. Miranda rights have been immortalised in the phrases spouted on TV that are uttered with the dispassionate and cold tone, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court..." How intriguing to observe the extent of influence the document has in everyday entertainment!

And to think that I once assumed it to be a given right respected by police forces in developed countries. As if to disprove the assumption even more concretely, the professor remarked that the police in Britain can use both one's silence and one's words as evidence for incrimination.

Arriving at the Hindu temple at Malibu, we felt a certain sense of propriety descend upon the place, and I found myself even more conscious of the fact that I had to be respectful of the sanctity of the temple, the practices, the people visiting, the devotees offering their prayers, the priests offering blessings. Employing self-perception theory, I believe that I must have felt compelled to behave more sensitively to the situation because this place represented a metaphor for something close to home, something "untouched" by the less-than-savoury aspects of life in California.

Santa Monica was indeed pretty, yet it offered no glimpses of the crazy waves that California is well-known for. That was until our feet touched the sands of Malibu Beach, where we were greeted on a chilly day to crashing waves, thick-skinned surfers in their Speedos or Spandex, and frigid waters that actually sent Preeya into hysterical yelps. I, on the other hand, was just too happy to be able to feel the warm, soft sand at my feet as I dug them in, and the smell of the sea rushing up with every crescendo. It felt as if no matter where I ventured, the beach would find me.

Fred drove us to a diner near the beach, one that he had been talking about for quite a while. Neptune's Net reminded Kaixian and I of the fish-and-chips eateries right beside the harbours of Australia, especially Fremantle where smoked sardines and chilli mussels were accompanied by a cool glass of Semillon Sauvignon Blanc or two. We were just estatic to be able to taste seafood again, and we became acquainted with something delicious called crabcakes.

I have to learn how to make crabcakes. Surely you must agree!

Truth be told, Malibu's coastline accommodation is a sheer work of disfigured trash posing as uninspired architecture. Not only does the exterior look like it could be used for the next Hollywood movie involving Communist-era Eastern European buildings, the accessibility problem (houses right next to the Pacific Coast Highway) and terrible location with regard to sound pollution lead us to scratch our heads and wonder why anyone could even want to live near the beach.

Back to Santa Monica and the pier with the amusement park. I initially imagined that this was exactly where Ryan and Marissa of The O.C. had taken that ferris wheel ride, but apparently this wasn't it.

Just a few observations that are worth mentioning, before the kookiness of this place called California start compelling me to address the stirring dissonance within my mind that some individuals can't possibly be that irritating.

Dinner at Rieber was superb by any standards - if there were any to begin with - tonight, for we were treated (at a cost of US$8.25) to dory fish with tangy sauce and spaghetti with meatballs. We probably were the most passionate patrons of the fish counter as we went back for unabashed seconds, thirds and fourths. One must understand that seafood here is as common as any Hollywood-made Chinese movie with a villian not played by Jet Li.

Even the tomato basil soup didn't raise suspicions of culinary skill, and that earned Rieber a decisive three points to take them to a comfortable second place in the rankings. While De Neve clearly held her ground this week with the ever-dependable pasta, the name-changing chicken slabs and lasagna, Covell did not manage to capture any points as of yet due to a rather non-tantalising menu all week. Hedrick played it safe with his two-trick pony of a sushi bar this week, leaving them at a cosy second place.

The dessert - chocolate brownie - probably clinched it for Preeya tonight, for she completely embraced her unusual, oh-my-gawd-this-is-sooo-good side for about a good thirty seconds before the plate was licked clean.

Friday is approaching, and with it the much-awaited weekend. Tomorrow is Anatomy's night, and I just can't wait to kick back and enjoy, after what has seemed to be a rather hectic week.

Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert have been informing me of the latest campaign gaffes by Palin, McCain and company, and it's only three weeks to the elections! I'm thrilled at the fact that we're right smack in the centre of the malestrom of American politics as the nation decides its own future - kind of, if one could wish away the ingrained doctrines, fossilised special interest group linkages, bureaucratic legacies and organisational constraints of administrations past.

Aside from the obvious cynicism that Jon and Steven have never failed to remind us of every single weeknight as we gingerly tread towards Indecision 2008, I'm nevertheless anticipating the outcome of this sometimes-ugly contest between two men of entirely different styles and personalities. Why? So that America need not watch the mud-slinging tactics and sometimes downright vicious personal attacks being made against the candidates that have perpetuated and exacerbated prejudice and partisanship - which will, if left untreated, render American faultlines even clearer than before. As a pundit had remarked, the person who seeks victory must remind himself that he cannot pursue it simply at any cost: he will have to heal the rift that he sought to exploit to galvanise his core support groups when he assumes the presidency.

Three weeks separate the American public between the old era of profilgate spending, callous foreign policy and devastating economic problems, and the new era of hope and change - or so they all seem to think. Ironically, a man expected to play it safe in the wake of the exit of one of Britain's most prolific prime ministers has emerged as the trumpeted agent of change: Gordon Brown, finally showing some promise that he may be able to step out of Blair's shadow.

On November 4, someone will triumph. Long after November 4, we will then know whether the American people or the age-old partisanship of Washington has triumphed.

Five weeks separate that momentous day in American politics and the end of the quarter, and time shall expediently be spent.

A solitary week of anticipation, possibly wandering through the bright lights of glitzy casinos and mesmerising razzle-and-dazzle spectacles at the Bellagio and the MGM, before another week of pure, innocent delight with Disney's beloved and timeless creations of decades past.

And it will have arrived - the shrinking freeways and boulevards, the towering palm trees reduced to dandelions far down beneath, slicing the clouds with precision and purpose; the dry air permeating, the occasional grunt and creaking of chairs as bodies shift in search of temporary comfort before the next ache sets in, and the dim luminescence of yellow illuminating the lone reader as she lackadaisically pores through the pages while others lie around her in peaceful slumber.

Anticipating it requires purely an exercise at visualisation.

Anticipating that we will be holding each other again - that demands of me more than simple imagination. It is not merely visual - it is intense, electrifying, energising. And it keeps me going even though its demands are relentless, because I know for certain she has been holding up strongly against its demands as well, and that assures me that it is worth every ounce of effort.

Soon, my dearest.

Outside Our Enclave

2008-09-30T02:20:00.009+08:00

To all who think we are living it up in LA and not paying adequate attention to our academic work, this is irrefutable proof!

Kaixian's dad's friend, Fred, and his wife, Rose, brought us around on Saturday to see the sights outside our tiny enclave of UCLA, and the first stop was Chinatown - extremely visible given the sheer amount of red paint, Oriental font and deliberate usage of tiled roofs even for the gas station pumps (which is utterly ridiculous, if you ask me).

Even China doesn't have lanterns hanging from street to street all the time.

Sun Yat Sen's memorial sculpture - apparently, the Chinese community in LA just celebrated its 70th anniversary, which spans close to perhaps two or three generations of Chinese Americans. A common topic of conversation among us these days is how detached the current youth of Chinese Americans is from their root culture and heritage. Everything about them save their physical appearance shouts "American", and if parents do not consciously provide their children with cultural education and knowledge about traditional customs and practices, these future generations will only cling onto the American variant.

Furthermore, given the ascendance, proliferation and popularisation of American culture, it seems unlikely that Asian-Americans would resist the temptation to associate themselves with a dominant culture that allows them to circumvent their minority status and maintain more inclusive relationships with native-born Americans. Yet we believe that retaining one's heritage and assimilating into a foreign one are not mutually exclusive goals, for we as cosmopolitan individuals in an increasingly globalised world should be able to feel proud of being members of one culture and ambassadors of another. Only then can cultural diversity, and not cultural uniformity, be entrenched.

Then we realise for ourselves how blessed we are to be in Singapore, to be able to speak our mother tongue, to discover an identity for ourselves that encompasses more than just being part of a nation-state. Nationalism is a construct, and while some may argue that ethnicity may be as well, the traditions and customs that we practise in Singapore, including the language that we speak - all these aspects reinforce an identity that we can fall back on for comfort and familiarity. And it is such a loss that Asian Americans who shun their original identity just to blend in.

We went to eat dim sum, and it was nothing short of fantastic!

We also managed to visit one of the largest Buddhist temples in LA and offer our prayers. Kaixian was extremely contented after the visit, and Preeya is looking forward to visiting the Hindu temple in Malibu. Just being able to find spiritual comfort in religion, especially in a foreign land, is highly reassuring. I felt there and then the true essence of what they call "transcending boundaries" - finding deep resonance with one's religion no matter where one may reside.

Drove over to Beverly Hills, home of the rich and the famous, the scandal-ridden and the tabloid-hoggers.

Beverly Hills is pretty and posh, but there's really nothing too fantastic about it. To me, it's like deconstructing the Paragon on Orchard Road and placing the boutiques side-by-side on the road such that it stretches from Far East to Cineleisure. Not impressed.

The scenery is impressive indeed, as we cruise down the freeways.

Silver Lake - finally, I get to see the actual place that Death Cab was singing about in one of my favourite tracks, Tiny Vessels!

I spent two weeks in Silver Lake The California sun cascading down my face

The La Brea tar pits, where one can witness the bubbling of methane and carbon dioxide from below, emitted from the decomposition of fossils millions of years ago. Animals wandered too close to the pits and then became stuck; predators saw the animals who were stuck and wandered too close and then they became stuck, and so on.

Plus we were walking along the pavement when we bypassed a couple walking their dogs. The man was a tad pudgy but of considerable height and build, greyish hair and a greyish beard. I jokingly remarked to Preeya and Kaixian that the man reminded me of William Petersen from CSI, or Grissom.

It was him.

Then the gasping begun with the girls, to which I was rather nonchalant about, me not being an ardent fan of CSI, though there was that tinge of star-struck-ness tingling somewhere in my gut.

Grand Avenue Festival was pretty boring, save for a performance by the L.A. Philharmonic String Quartet, saxaphone and double bass. They adapted Stravinsky's Rite of Spring into a more modern composition, which was rather nice indeed. Still, I find Stravinsky's usage of fast and slow parts of his piece rather jarring and uncomfortable - which is what made Rite of Spring so disturbing and controversial when it first was revealed.

Had dinner with some of the NUS students who had also arrived in UCLA for the quarter, and it was pretty comforting just being able to engage in conversation free from drawling accents.

A fulfilling and reassuring weekend spent, and we're satisfied indeed.

Two weeks have gone by, with six more to go for the presidential election on November 4. After that, another five before I meet up with Mingwei and Joyce for Disneyland in Anaheim. Then after that, I'm home-bound - to my family, my dear friends.

And of course, to her warm and soft embrace, for which I crave and yearn every single moment that I am here.

Oishi

2008-09-23T12:59:00.010+08:00

Tempura udon - a life-saver in the land of high-cholesterol, calorie-clogged burgers, fries, steaks and tacos. Preeya can almost see the angels descending and the spotlight shining down on earth.

We decided to visit Downtown LA today, and although we didn't cover as much as I initially wanted to, at least we managed to see the Walt Disney Concert Hall, the interior of which seemed to be of a temporarily high priority for one of us as she had to visit the bathroom urgently.

The Japanese American museum was closed today - what a shame, because I'm positively sure it would have fascinated them. Still, I'm insistent that they come back another day to view the exhibits, because it's important that people know about this so that they can learn from the mistakes of the past and realise for themselves the fragility of security and liberty.

Of course, the major highlight of our expedition today was Little Tokyo, where we plunged into a smorgasbord of Japanese cuisine and culture, beginning with steaming bowls of udon, donburi and ramen. The miso soup was surprisingly mild, just like the Japanese would have done it.

Kaixian's pork ramen...

Preeya masterfully striking what can only be described as a seasoned hand model's poise; her donburi tasted exactly like that in Singapore!

Preeya was dead-set on taking a photo of the Japanese cashier because - in her own words - "she's so adorable, I want to pack her up and bring her home". She said that the woman was what she envisioned Sayuri of Memoirs of a Geisha to grow into when she turned old.

We were all extremely contented that we managed to chalk up yet another day whereby we didn't resort to fatty, Western foods for our meals. I suggested that we should have a quota system: only 10 meals from now till the end of our stay in LA that involve burgers, pizzas or fries. Also, a challenge to see who can go for the longest period of time without trying a single burger, pizza or fry.

We even tried mochi ice-cream, and it was tasteful and welcome on such a blazingly hot day as today. Sauntering through the district, enjoying the ice-cream, surveying sushi being transported via conveyor belts in the restaurants, observing the paper umbrellas, kimonos, Hello Kitty and Domo dolls on the shelves - we immersed ourselves in an alternate yet strangely familiar and comfortable world for just part of the afternoon, wanting to escape from the sometimes scary environment that we have plunged into, if only for a while.

Why scary, you ask? One of the reasons is this:

This is a clear example of how NOT to do fusion food.

Though the ladies apparently love it!

The transportation system in LA is, to put it succintly enough so as to avoid mischaracterisation, crap. Some areas are entirely inaccessible by rail, and so the bus is the only method of public transportation. Even worse, convenience stores stocking food items may be plentiful, but those stocking essential household items such as those found in IKEA or IMM are located at some remote corner of the sprawling metropolis, forcing us to have to walk for blocks before we could finally find a place to purchase my bed linen.

I've already moved into my new campus apartment, and settled in with my other roommates, Satoru and Diego. They have been extremely accommodating and pleasant, so I foresee that my stay here till December 12th will not be too troublesome. Cooking might be a problem because there are no utensils, so we might have to buy them, though it hardly makes sense to purchase them since I will only be here in LA till December. As for meals, the Bruin (that's what they call UCLA-affiliated material) outlets and the Westwood Village eateries are pretty decent, so I'm not too worried.

First week in Los Angeles, thirteen more to go. We're headed for Universal Studios soon, with Chinatown and dim sum this weekend, and San Fran the week after. Busy, we will be; but busying ourselves shall keep us preoccupied and not too focused on counting down to the time we fly back home.

For I miss her more than ever, and to miss her even more would be seemingly unbearable. Yet I shall bear it, for she is worth every sensation of aching.

Sand Beneath One's Feet

2008-09-21T07:19:00.017+08:00

No, this is not a commercial for the car, which has nothing to do with MOCA. It just looks well-positioned.

Venturing into Little Tokyo in Downtown LA, the Japanese American Museum caught my attention and so I went in, pleasantly discovering that there was free admission. Once I managed to find the exhibits inside the building, I realised that there was a lot of material regarding the internment of Japanese Americans during and after the Second World War, after Japanese forces had infamously bombed Pearl Harbour.

Much of the material was presented in an unbiased manner, given that they rightfully revealed the injustices and prejudicial attitudes displayed by members of the US government under Roosevelt and later Eisenhower, two men whose decisions eventually led to the order to discriminate against Japanese American communities in America by relocating them, seizing their assets, holding them in detention without trial and so on.

The most insidious aspect of the entire event was the fact that the government had approved the construction of so-called detention centres and holding areas to house these Japanese Americans indefinitely - convenient euphemisms for concentration camps. While the museum clearly showed that most of the Japanese Americans housed in the camps managed to live life rather normally by engaging in activities, games and work to keep themselves occupied, the fact that they had to contend with nasty conditions (since the workmanship of the building infrastructure was sloppy) such as the dust from the desert, or the icy winds that slipped through the cracks in the building floors and walls made it unnecessarily uncomfortable.

Even more unconscionably, the internment of these Japanese Americans was plainly persecution at work, since the government did not seem to have any intention to discern between the guilty and the innocent. Instead, they opted for a catch-and-ask-questions-later approach, imprisoning people and assuming their loyalty was to the Japanese emperor and therefore indicative of their willingness to die for him in the war against America.

What terrified me as I walked around the exhibits was not the fact that the Japanese Americans actually managed to keep their lives despite being in concentration camps, but that they were made to think that they might never return to their homes, their property, their families and lead the lives they sought to make for themselves when they ventured to America, the supposed land of freedom. While apologists for the decision to intern these Japanese Americans may say that concentration camps run by Americans would never have degenerated into those run by Nazi Germany, that argument can be demolished simply by identifying its hindsight bias. If Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib were allowed to happen in the recent decade, then why not in the 1940s and 1950s, when media coverage was so much less, when people questioned less of government and allowed it greater scope for freedom to do whatever it wanted in the name of security?

The Japanese Americans who endured the experience tried to sound positive by saying that while they knew how precious freedom was in the world (and that they had found it in America), they were paying quite a price for it as they became the target of discrimination. As the museum exhibits mentioned, this incident would reveal just how fragile freedom actually was - that the rights of American citizens could be so frivolously and callously discarded on grounds of such primordial attributes such as race, religion and ethnicity.

I left the museum feeling absolutely disgusted by the fact that Japanese Americans who signed up for the US Army to fight the war against Nazi Germany and its Axis partners had to live with the fact that while they were putting their lives on the line for America, somewhere else their families were being housed in a concentration camp, enduring the indignity of it all. How brave they must have been, but they should not have been forced to take such an insult.

Anyone who still believes that freedom as an ideal can somehow be innate, or fundamentally ingrained in society or the individual, is a fool. There will always be people willing to subject freedom to its knees for the sake of their own objectives, and it is in society's interest and responsibility of citizens that they do not allow their passions to dictate their actions and persecute the convenient scapegoats. Freedom is a highly-valued concept, but the American administration and those who harboured intentions to discriminate all Japanese Americans simply on the basis of their nationality certainly failed to display their courage to uphold the very ideal they said they were fighting for.

Met up with Preeya and Kaixian in UCLA itself, and also with a German student, Paul, and a Chilean student, Gunther (who has a German name only because his parents wanted to continue reflecting the German blood in him, passed down by his great-grandfather - though he doesn't have a German accent). We headed for our first stop: the place immortalised by Savage Garden's song - Santa Monica!

Look at the vast expanse between the shore and the pier!

I'm speechless - Santa Monica takes the cake for being just gorgeously peaceful, untouched, vast and beautiful. Even the beachfront property has that coastal Mediterranean feel to it! Though it's nothing compared to the Interlaken scenery in Switzerland, the beaches here are incomparable to anywhere else, except maybe Thailand.

Venice Beach is also extremely pretty, though the tourist-infested walkways do turn me off quite a bit. They actually have people who sell drugs here openly, while I suspect that anyone selling what they call "incense" is really using euphemisms. Preeya bought an Obama tee, while Kaixian and I couldn't seem to find any McCain/Palin ones.

That's Royce Hall, if I'm not mistaken. UCLA is very much like NUS in a sense that you will have killer calves by the end of the quarter. The number of steps and the distance between buildings means that you'll be huffing and puffing all the way from one class to the next. I already foresee sprinting on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and I'll be hoping to do Usain Bolt proud.

More star-spotting today as I manage to catch the amazing Vanessa Williams - discovered that she was the first black Miss America! And of course, I have her music album of years ago, and I absolutely adore Wihelmina Slater-Meade in all her diabolical glory.

Before Rotten Tomatoes came along, I regarded this man's word as the gospel truth in terms of what movies were actually worth my time. Roger Ebert, you still have my respect, and always will.

The hills are alive with the sound of music...Julie Andrews, sing! Sing for me! (two fully intended allusions to two different musicals, if you can spot them)

The just-as-important purpose of this shot is also showcasing the Hollywood sign at the back, not just our faces.

A cheery Biden, a towering Obama, a stumpy McCain and a glamorous Palin. I seriously want a Palin tee.

Kaixian mentioned something that struck me as true: while Americans may not be any nicer than Europeans, and though European culture may be more attractive overall, the one thing that differentiates the former from the latter is that at least in LA, we don't feel as though we stand out so much because of the amazing diversity of this place! We blend in easily and thus we don't feel as though we are observing on the outside, and thus we can at least get some perspective on how Americans interact with one another.

Diversity and Randomness

2008-09-19T13:00:00.012+08:00

At the beginning, there were only two. They spent hours in the bathroom, touching up in clothes that sat on the finest line between glamorous and cheap, prowling around at night and returning only in the wee hours of the morning.

Then two more arrived. Initially, it seemed that these two might prove a much-needed counterweight to the first two, but when one of them was caught dolling herself up while on her bed, these expectations just crumbled.

Then one more arrived just this afternoon. At least she doesn't seem to be the sort to lay her undergarments around, though this can only be affirmed in the days to come.

Being the only guy in a 6-person mixed dorm room at the hostel is no joke. I'd like to apologise beforehand about airing the dirty laundry of these fellow roommates, but their habits are getting on my nerves. They leave their dropped hair (the result of obsessive-compulsive combing and primping) all over the basin and charge their electrical appliances in the bathroom (have they heard that water is an extremely good conductor of electricity? I believe that fact was established decades ago). However, I think I can endure this till this Sunday, when I move into my campus apartment at UCLA.

Which reminds me of my dad's hastiness at requesting for an all-male dorm room while we were staying in Berlin - I had thought it was because he was uncomfortable with the presence of scantily-clad girls prancing around in boy shorts. After witnessing one guy in bed with one of the girls (fully-clothed), I can see that sloppiness is further promoted by the presence of the other sex. This morning, I found another guy in the same bed with the girl. Different guy, butt-naked, same girl. No comment.

All hostel-related laundry aside, I decided to visit Downtown LA today, making my way to El Pueblo, the historic site of Mexican culture in Los Angeles. The facade of most of the preserved buildings was really attractive and authentic, reminding me of the buildings that I had been gawking at in Europe, especially in the stone villages near the Swiss town of Locarno. While it was extremely tourist-oriented (which blocked the view of the buildings), I still managed to get a sense of the natural friendliness and activity of the Latino community in LA.

The burrito for lunch was simply too huge to fully consume! I must learn to order less next time. Passing by authentic Mexican restaurants and spotting a glass whose rim was salted in the corner of my eye, I couldn't help but scan the prices of the margaritas being sold - the costs were enough to deter me for now. Plus the fact that it's always better to enjoy drinks with the right company!

Some serious walking was done today as I managed to see almost all the prominent buildings in Downtown, including the famous Walt Disney Theatre (which provided the backdrop for the latest Volkswagen Touran commercial by Seal and Heidi), home of the LA Philharmonic Orchestra. How much I wish she were here with me to enjoy a concert by the orchestra together - that I can see her listen to one of the world's greatest Philharmonic bands is reward in itself.

The cathedral here looks extremely polished and modern, drawing controversy the way Singaporeans get stirred up and bothered by mega-rich churches such as City Harvest, which tend to spend a lot of money to construct ever-grander megaplexes to house their followers during mass. However, this particular cathedral actually also doubles as a memorial for the victims of the Rwandan genocide, promoting peace and reconciliation between the victimised and the perpetrators, the Hutus and the Tutsis, their history and the present - because the future of Rwanda and its citizens depends on how successful rehabilitation and reconcilation on a national and regional scale are.

I just don't get contemporary art - visiting the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) was such a bewilderingly frustrating experience because I couldn't get any idea as to why the artist even made their pieces to be put on display. I fully support the proliferation of ideas, that they should not be forced to conform to distinct prerequisites before they are considered for galleries (like SAM does), but I just can't help but think that there is a very fine line between self-obsession and true talent, and only one warrants admiration and praise and even justifies pride or arrogance by the artist. The other one just deserves to be canned.

Yet there were a select few that indeed seemed intriguing by themselves without delving into too convoluted a message.

This picture I found it just hilarious - the birth of the O.K.

Hence, in my personal opinion, classical art renders that line clearer to see, while contemporary art strives to blur that line and leave it all to subjectivity.

I mean, this could be art.

The L.A. Times building that stands impressively in marble.

This building might seem rather random and perhaps a pretentious attempt at architecture, but those open windows of this office building are actually slanted at different angles depending on the outside temperature! The panels will constantly reorientate themselves in order to save energy.

Ronald Reagan - the actor who became one of America's greatest presidents in modern history. After reading d' Souza's book, how could I not pay homage to the Great Communicator? Funnily enough, I'm thinking about the Great Orator Obama himself as I type this, and I wonder whether the latter has the substance to stand head-to-head with Reagan, especially when Obama is so concerned about managing his public image instead of talking about his policy plans.

Best band ever. Period.

Igor Stravinsky - his Rite of Spring that she introduced me to certainly struck a raw nerve within me, unsettling and disturbing, even for a moment.

Sprawled Out

2008-09-18T13:32:00.019+08:00

The second day beckons as I stroll down Sunset Boulevard - the sprawling metropolis with its buildings spaced generously far apart certainly infuses a laid-back feeling to the entire place. Perhaps this is more European-esque urban planning than anything else, though the main difference is that European cities have curved streets, while LA is obsessively grid-like.

Taking someone's advice, I visited the Amoeba Music store and was taken aback by the amount of vintage material they have over there - from vinyl records to cassette tapes, used CDs sold at low prices to memorabilia of bands old and new, this is literally the treasure trove for music lovers of any genre, though they have a giant section for rock (their classification of certain artistes under rock is suspect). Next to the store is the CNN building.

One of LA's mega-malls on Hollywood Boulevard, replete with Bugis-like fountains, restaurants, eateries, boutique shops (Coach, Polo Ralph Lauren, Victoria's Secret) and pretentious architecture...

...as evinced by this elephant perched on a pedestal etched with what seems like hieroglyphics - deliberate fusion of Hindu and Egyptian influences, or a hijacking of exotic cultures for pure attention-grabbing purposes? You decide.

Took a guided tour of Sid Grauman's Chinese Theatre (which was occupied the day before by the premiere of Eagle Eye) and was shown the interior: the largest wide-screen theatre in the United States today. Apparently, Sid Grauman imported Shanghainese lanterns, marble (for the octagonal pillars), wax figures dating back decades ago among other eclectic items. I was just irked by the need to play cheesy Oriental instrumental pieces outside the temple, with the toilet signs in English but in Oriental font - while attempting to be respectful (perhaps?) of Chinese culture, is rather corny and phony.

Robin Williams' slab right outside the Chinese theatre, with his famous "Carpe Diem" quote from Dead Poets' Society inscribed there. Among other luminaries that grace the slabs outside the theatre: from Marilyn Monroe to Samuel L. Jackson, James Dean to Brad Pitt. I managed to spot Michael Caine's (he was the butler in the recent Batman movies, among other films) and Christopher Walken's slabs!

Of course, how could I miss Harrison Ford's piece?

Even the three young starlets of Harry Potter fame grace Grauman's theatre front, displaying the contemporary aspect of this exhibition. Some selected members of the cast of Ocean's Thirteen also managed to get their palms in the concrete: Brad Pitt and George Clooney.

Sandra Bullock - my very first favourite female actress, capturing my attention in Speed and While You Were Sleeping, then in the hilarious Miss Congeniality with all that snorting and gangliness. And of course, The Lake House with Keanu Reeves. She hasn't lost her touch at all, and she still has that quirky yet graceful disposition about her all these years that we find so comfortingly familiar. Timeless, she is.

This technique is known as shadow-posturing (as I have termed it), something I've found to be rather useful as it is difficult to take pictures of myself with the Nikon D60.

Visited one of LA's contemporary art exhibitions located just around the corner from the hostel, and came across this exhibit, which reminded me so much of the sculptures I saw in Oslo, Norway!

Until it turned rather grotesque with the little men spearing the big man with toothpicks. Another even featured two adults (a couple) holding the baby between them with just their teeth - looks a lot like cannibalism. Disturbing!

The view from Runyon Canyon: huge houses of the mega-wealthy perched at the outskirts of the metropolitan centre of LA, in clear demarcation of their elite status from the rest of California.

This reminds me so much of Wall.E - the abandoned, lost city that is the result of mankind's destructive actions and wilful ignorance. The "fog" is actually pollution, not the nice, misty kind that decorates European landscapes.
Dog-lovers and their pets frequent the Canyon as a perfect place to do some serious exercise as they brisk-walk, jog or run up and down the paths on the slopes...

...or just some quiet, me-time.

This couple stopped me on the streets as I was walking down Hollywood Boulevard with my D60 in hand - they sportingly posed for a candid shot, which made me smile at their enthusiasm and cheeriness. There are friendly LA people after all!

Star-spotting

2008-09-18T00:28:00.009+08:00

Saying farewell - even temporarily - was always going to be tough, but it had to be done somehow.

Travelling by myself this time felt pretty intimidating without my dad around (since he was part of our European voyage the year before), but his confidence in me certainly helped to convince me that I can do it!

Transit in Narita, Tokyo - my first time stepping foot on Japanese soil!

Where packaging and presentation are highly valued - look at the mini-pastries!

Finally, Los Angeles! The palm trees dot the landscape ubiquitously, lending the city a laid-back, vast landscape with yawning spaces and the absence of any claustrophobic feeling, unlike metropolitan cities like New York, Tokyo and Singapore.

Of course, the grid-like structure of LA that is so famous: I actually mistook the houses for parked cars from the plane's view from above, since they were so neatly arranged! Boulevards stretch for miles - if you think Champs Elysees is long, LA's roads seem to be incomparably limitless as they stretch into the horizon.

Union Station - impressive architecture both on the outside and the inside.

Spotted the famous Hollywood sign as I was strolling down Hollywood Boulevard towards my hostel.
Kodak Theatre - the staging venue for some of the past American Idol finales!

The very first star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame that made me stop and stare: the one and only Ella Fitzgerald!

And her incomparable counterpart, Louis Armstrong.

The great Houdini. Enough said.

The Heroes craze continues with the much-anticipated third volume, Villians.

I was walking past the Grauman Chinese Theatre when someone asked me what was happening over there, what with the red carpet, posters of the upcoming movie, Eagle Eye, furnishing the front of the Theatre. Only then did I realise that the premiere of the movie was about to happen right before my eyes! Before that, I had assumed it was simply some random event that happens in LA all the time.

The media positioning for the best shots of the stars before they arrive...

Each time a limo drove up to the front of the theatre, the anticipation of some random celebrity stepping out would build and usually trigger off a scream or two, until they realise that it's just another guest invited to the premiere.

That's Michelle Monaghan in the black dress and neatly-tucked hair! She starred opposite Tom Cruise in MI:III and opposite Patrick Dempsey in the romantic comedy Made of Honor.

My first taste of what it feels like to be pseudo-paparazzi: Shia Lebeouf with the raised hand in the background as he greets fans on the other side of the road - he ran across the street to sign some autographs, sending fans in a frenzy and compelling this long-haired guy to step in to prevent people who were threatening to climb over the security barrier. Shia was the star of Transformers and co-starred opposite Harrison Ford in the latest Indiana Jones sequel.

Shia returning to the red carpet - can you spot him?

Jimmy Kimmel filming his live talk show with this cooking segment being held outside the recording theatre.

So that's LA so far - Shia Lebeouf and Michelle Monaghan, check.

Hollywood-esque feeling of disbelief, check.

Cheap thrill of being paparazzi-ish, check.

Looking professional with a Nikon D60 even though nobody knows I'm using auto-mode for now, check.

The Bait Was Cast Long Before The Die Was

2008-09-08T00:00:00.003+08:00

Uncomfortably close for comfort? He did warn you.

Future of Russian external relations

1. The decision of US Vice-President Cheney to visit Georgia on 4 September 2008 was a powerful, symbolic move that promises to further inflame existing relations between the US and Russia. With oil prices demonstrating volatility and potential to spike in recent months, the perspective of both sides towards each other will continue to be narrowed in terms of resource competition and energy security. The immediate side-effects of their rivalry will be felt by the EU as it struggles to develop a coherent framework in interacting with Russia, while smaller ex-satellite states like Georgia and Ukraine will be hard-pressed to pursue an independent track for fear of becoming staging grounds for proxy battles.

2. The hawks within the Bush administration have perceived the latest moves by Russia as indicative of the continuation of Putin's foreign policy – nostalgic for Russia's great power status in Europe – under newly-appointed president Dmitri Medvedev. Any illusions held previously that Medvedev's entrance would usher in a new era of constructive diplomacy were brutishly shattered with Russian troops forcefully invading Georgia, signalling that Putin's influence still remained the primary determinant of Russian foreign policy. As such, the US is determined to send a strong signal to Putin, reminding him that while he may be able to trick the Europeans into cognitive dissonance with Medvedev as the new, friendlier face of Russia when dealing with the EU, the US will not be fooled into dismissing this violation of national sovereignty as symptomatic of the negotiation process arising from the transfer of power from Putin to Medvedev that will “eventually” be sorted out.

3. Sanctions might be the convenient, diplomatically correct approach to deter Russia should it be perceived as infringing on American interests, but the true linchpin of American strategy to reduce Russia's leverage on its neighbours – especially those in the Caucasus that have become geopolitically useful allies because they lie on the periphery of Russian territory and thus serve as conduits for Caspian oil and gas to be transported to the West – is effective control of alternative pipeline routes such as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipelines, both of which involve Georgia as the primary middleman.

4. It is unlikely that the US foreign policy stance towards pipeline politics will considerably change in the near future, given that the intention to acquire Caspian oil and gas was already evident during the Clinton administration in the 1990s. Clinton had pursued a bold but precarious strategy that involved supplying Georgia with technical expertise and infrastructural assistance to build the BTC pipeline, thereby preempting any Russian attempts to rebuild its influence through abusing its monopoly of energy resources. It was bold because the construction of new pipelines through Azerbaijan and Georgia were intended "to break Russia's monopoly of control over the transportation of oil from the region," Sheila Heslin of the National Security Council bluntly told a Senate investigating committee in 1997. No effort was made to disguise the fact that the US was intent to continue playing hardball by literally starving Russia of any chance to rebuild itself post-Cold War. It is little wonder that Putin entered the scene with such misgivings – the US showed little willingness to extricate itself from the Cold War mentality, exporting its encirclement strategy to the domain of energy security.

5. Yet this strategy was precarious because it was contingent on Georgia's ability to deflect Russian pressure to reassert itself, and that ability was circumscribed significantly more by how hard Russia wanted to push. Clinton decided that the best approach to bolster Georgian confidence would be to arm its military forces – a move that in retrospect seems extremely unwise. From 1998 to 2000 alone, Georgia was awarded $302 million in U.S. military and economic aid – more than any other Caspian country – and top U.S. military officials started making regular trips to its capital, Tbilisi, to demonstrate support for then-president Eduard Shevardnadze. This protocol towards boosting US-Georgian ties continued under the Bush administration with the training of troops to protect existing pipelines, the promise of NATO membership and unwavering US support for Saakashvili. The Georgians had seriously miscalculated and through some reckless, pretentious ambition of theirs, decided to invade South Ossetia on 7 August 2008, handing the Russians the perfect pretext on a silver platter to reassert its geopolitical dominance.

6. The initial utility of boosting Georgian military infrastructure and robustness has been proven to be rather feckless, and this concern is reflected in the promise of US$1b of aid on 4 September 2008 in purely humanitarian and economic assistance. Wracked by the devastation wrought by Russian firepower; its military capabilities nullified almost too easily that it has cast doubt on how effective US military aid and training actually is in deterring Russian military might; breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia that have become emboldened by this misadventure on the part of a Georgia that has been strongly cautioned against second-guessing Russian designs in its near abroad – all point to the unavoidable conclusion that this crisis cannot be solved by more political brinkmanship that would threaten to plunge Georgia in even greater domestic turmoil.

7. The EU may have issued threats to exclude Russia from various international forums and institutions such as the G8, but it has continued to struggle with competing priorities of its member states. Deep rifts within the EU have robbed the institution of its coherence in its foreign policy stance towards Russia, resulting in mere rhetoric being issued by member states with little concrete disciplinary or deterrent action to back their harsh condemnations. This has left the initiative of action to be taken up by the US, which has hurt the EU's own diplomatic efforts to engage Russia on a less confrontational tone. Furthermore, several key member states have energy interests in Russia itself, and therefore are less willing to be seen as offending the latter. The EU's difficulty in achieving coherence in its foreign policy is deeply rooted in institutional procedures and traditions, and thus it can be expected that the EU will continue to play a secondary role in resolving the current crisis.

8. Russia will be expected to leverage the EU's dependency on itself against the US to further maintain the status quo that allows it to concretise its control over energy distribution from the Caspian basin. The US will find it difficult to override the Europeans' considerations that the immediate effects of any deterioration of US-Russia relations will be felt by the EU itself. Furthermore, the degree to which the US can secure its own foreign policy interests in energy security is heavily dependent on the EU's on-the-ground effectiveness in co-opting the fragile nation-states in Russia's near abroad (such as Georgia) through the promise of enlargement. While the US' better option is to cede the initiative of bargaining and negotiation to the EU, Russia's constant provocation of US leaders via pointed attacks – either physical or verbal – on pro-US statesmen of the fragile nation-states in the Caucasus and Central Asia has effectively lured the Americans to take the bait time and again. The Russians thus have predicted accurately that they can continue to count on the US' inability to suppress the urge to escalate tensions and allow their European counterparts to engage Russia on a more conciliatory tone, hence promoting stagnation of the crisis that benefits Russia itself.

Painting a Portrait

2008-09-02T19:58:00.012+08:00

Will you vote for the revolutionary or the rebel?

Overview

The American presidential campaign seemed to be leaning in favour of Sen. Barack Obama after the thunderous reception given by Democratic Party luminaries and supporters at the convention in Denver. Sen. John McCain's thrust as the Republican maverick that dared to defy the establishment's strong positions on key issues was threatening to fall flat in the face of Obamania and its seductively simple mantra of "change". Yet McCain's shock selection of Governor Sarah Palin has - at the very least - reinjected buzz about the Republican ticket, an infusion of energy that has suggested that the Republicans may have the potential to challenge Obama's monopoly on talk about "change".

Why Palin?

Gender as a variable provides the opportunity for McCain to make an extremely cynical and calculated political move. Out of the five candidates that McCain was considering (Pawlenty, Romney, Lieberman, Palin and Tom Ridge) for his running mate, Palin was the only female. Obviously, McCain is counting on those Clinton supporters to spurn Obama and vote for him instead, given that Obama had chosen Joseph Biden as his running mate, failing to even seriously consider Hillary.

Fundamentally, the Republican machinery is banking on the after-effects of the Democrats' own efforts in playing up the fact that a woman may actually become president. The precedent of a woman being able to generate so much political momentum and interest that the prospect of a female president actually became possible was set by an ambitious Hillary Clinton on her campaign trail, and she almost made history before Obama blitzed past her. Picking Palin also serves to resurrect painful divisions within the Democratic ranks as pro-Clinton supporters continue to be reminded of exactly how close Hillary was to becoming the party nominee, and her speech at the convention may be characterised as "noble", or even martyr-esque. Embittered Hillary supporters may decide to back Palin if their paramount objective is to see women's issues being addressed. A cursory glance at McCain, Obama and Biden reveals the simple conclusion: women's issues are nowhere near the top of their agenda.

Track record

Palin's experience as a governor, while too limited to extrapolate and predict how well she would do if elected into office, is by no means impressive. She had quit the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in January 2004 that she had chaired from 2003 to 2004 over what she had termed the "lack of ethics" of fellow Republican members, following up with formal complaints against the state Republican chairman that eventually ended up with the latter resigning and paying a record US$12,000 fine for conflict-of-interest issues. She was the one who stopped the "Bridge to Nowhere", but lest someone accuse me of oversimplifying the issue, let us review the facts.

She had seemingly understood the Alaskan voters' pain at others calling their place "nowhere" when she was running for governor, which has exposed her to charges of hypocrisy as she has found it useful to adopt the "Bridge to Nowhere" slogan as proof of her courage to stand up against special interests and politicians seeking to profit from earmarks. The state, however, kept the money originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, something Palin had conveniently failed to point out while delivering her first speech as presumptive Republican vice-presidential nominee.

Yet while people are focusing so much on the fact that she basically flip-flopped on the very issue she rode on to become elected as a governor, the more salient point to be made here is less obvious to the general public: she dared to stand up against profiteering politicians and bureaucrats. Alaskans are nursing their injured pride that Palin has betrayed a cause she once called her own, that Palin looks reluctant to return and defend the interests of the state she is supposed to be serving.

Yet one main reason why politicians can still get away with corruption is because they can count on their constituencies to think narrowly and lobby in terms of protecting their own "interests" against other states for a share of the national budget. What clearly evades Palin's detractors is that she has braved criticism and stigmatisation from her colleagues in the establishment, risking even support from her own political base in Alaska to make a point: special interests can become deceptively conflated with "state interests", and you may find yourself defending the wrong one. She dared to separate the two at this instance, while others only sought to preserve their share of the spoils.

Obama

For Obama, the challenge is to keep the media spotlight trained onto him while the Republicans attempt to stir things up with Palin's shock nomination. He knows that it is extremely important to keep the momentum from the Denver convention going so as to consolidate his support early to prevent Clinton voters from seceding to the Republican camp. The recent controversy surrounding Palin's pregnant daughter has cast doubt on the quality of McCain's vetting procedures, but Obama has warned that reporters should "back off these kinds of stories".

While it is certainly commendable that Obama has forcefully spoken up about the limits of the media and the unsavoury politicisation of family matters, his remark also comes at a time when news is trickling through the cracks, concerning his half-brother George, who lives on US$1 a month in Nairobi. Andrew Breitbart was one of the very few who carried the story in the American media, and the abject lack of willingness of other journalists to shed more light on the issue has convinced me that the media is consciously intending to portray Obama as one who can do no wrong. Their justification for painting such a pretty picture: America needs a revolution in politics, and only Obama can do it. Ever watched "Man of the Year"?

People will criticise that I am judging Obama as to why he has not extended a helping hand to his own half-brother in Nairobi, because to do so would be involving his family members. Yet isn't that the way Americans operate in terms of picking their candidates? Obama's charismatic appeal is considerably boosted by his image as a family man, and Michelle Obama's speech at the convention clearly displayed the Obama political machinery's intentions to paint that portrait of the man of the moment. Is Obama afraid that Palin's portrait may be painted as favourable despite the controversy surrounding her now, and thus contribute to a more intimate understanding of the woman?

That Palin returned to her job only three days after giving birth to her special-needs child may be spun as her not getting her priorities right. How can you expect Palin to govern the country if she doesn't even know how to take care of her own family? Yet the fact that she has steadfastly practised what she has been preaching about pro-life not only speaks of her strong convictions, but also that she is human like everyone else.

Agent of change

My point is this: regardless of how much either side is going to spin it (and I don't think I need to tell you that they won't miss a single opportunity to do so), any amount of publicity for Palin will only help in painting a more intimate portrait of her. She fits nicely with McCain's "maverick" status, adding to the cohesiveness of the campaign message that these two will not hesitate to challenge the status quo and risk going against public opinion or confronting demagoguery within their own party.

She has yet to be tested as to whether she can stand up against the system of patronage and corruption that has plagued American politics as effectively as she has done in her own state, but her track record shows that at least she has the potential to usher perhaps what Obama promises to be a new era of fresh politics. It may only be a perception, but in American politics, perception is everything. Obama knows it, and that will keep him on his toes now that Palin has arrived.

In Obama's own rhetoric, she stands for "change".

Reagan: His Ideas

2008-07-03T22:34:00.007+08:00

A faded picture to remember him by, that which does not do the Great Communicator justice, but which is what he would have wanted.

To be perfectly honest, I do not know much about the American presidency and its occupants, and regrettably enough there are only a select few modules at my university that actually focus on the U.S. as a sole topic. Having being born only half a decade before the spectacular implosion of the Soviet Union, as a kid then I did not have strong recollections of Bush Senior the 41st, even though the Gulf War was raging during that period. And if those people - who sought to demonise Bill Clinton and characterise the entirety of his presidency as a sham and unworthy of praise - wanted to achieve such a simplistic stereotype that could be packaged and sold for easy consumption via the media, then it must be admitted on my part that the only thing I remember about the Clinton presidency was the Lewinsky scandal and the calls for impeachment that clamoured and tolled as frequently as the church bells.

The sheer torrent of publicity and media time dedicated to the entire affair served as an introductory look into the especial characteristics of American politics: the GOP stumbling and grasping around in the darkness, unable to live up to the unmatcheable legacy of Reagan's two consecutive terms from 1980-1988, disappointed by Newt Gingrich's inability to match rhetoric with tangible action, concerned about the polarisation and extremism of the positions that the right had to take up; Clinton seemed to be focusing on economics (having been attributed with the quote "It's the economy, stupid") but failing miserably at foreign policy. Yet the most glaring attribute of American politics at that time was the degree of emphasis placed on personality, particularly the character of the presidential nominee.

It should not be surprising at all that Americans focus more on personality than true substance these days, given the history of presidents that have graced the stage at one time or another. Sheer intellectual strength, meticulousness to detail, expertise in wheel-dealing are no longer primary attributes or even dependable signs of great things to come, or telling in any way of the effectiveness of the president in carrying out his proposed agenda. Nixon and Carter were seen as men of intellect, yet their presidencies were marred by Watergate and the Iranian hostage crisis respectively. The latter has even dedicated much of his time and effort in the years after his presidency to resolving the Middle East crisis, having penned a book (Peace, Not Apartheid) that has been on the receiving end of salvoes - Carter is deemed to have committed the sin of suggesting that moral equivalence exists between the Israelis and the murderous suicide bombers in Palestine and the Gaza Strip. Having left behind an inglorious imprint upon the annals of history, Carter seeks to erase the memory of the American public of him as a misguided, weak and indecisive leader, and in place of that the perception of Carter as a rational, tough negotiator. Only history will tell whether he can redeem himself, or that he has rediscovered that misguidedness that characterised his term.

Having polished off Dinesh D' Souza's biography of Ronald Reagan: How An Ordinary Man Became An Extraordinary Leader only hours ago on the cold marble floor of my apartment, I was struck by many aspects of his effort at recounting the events that characterised Reagan's presidency, but more crucially how Reagan himself had responded so uncharacteristically to each of those problems. Reagan seemed to be determined to shape events as they unfolded, and not let those crises run him ragged. Of course, that determination to achieve what he had espoused as his agenda empowered a man that was underestimated for the most part of his presidency to end a war, nudge a superpower towards implosion, perpetuate the circumstances favourable to the spread of democracy and freedom, and launch America into an age of prosperity that was lost to them during the 1970s and the early 1980s. By all expectations imposed upon him by others, Reagan surpassed them, much to his critics' chagrin.

Reagan's managerial style was inscrutable and an enigma to the intellectual establishment at that time, and perhaps even more so today as Americans attempt to search for that similar concoction of determination, personality and capability in their next president. Many pundits, political scientists and historians are extremely reluctant to accord any credit to Reagan's own talents in terms of managing the most challenging and toughest job in the country, in sidestepping the bureaucratic infighting and internecine warfare within Congress and the halls of the White House, in being able to eke out a better deal through negotiations than any policy-maker ever could hope to achieve. Case in point: Gorbachev, whom Reagan himself ignored all conventional "wisdom" at that time - that the Soviet Union was a monolithic structure that was inpenetrable, immutable and that its leaders were equally uncompromising - and sought to establish rapport with. Eventually, Reagan managed beyond all expectations to convince the Soviet Union to agree to mutual nuclear arms reductions and eventually roll back its own commitments in Central and Eastern Europe, among other places in Southeast Asia, Latin America and Africa.

Reading about Reagan, his remarks and quotes, and his moral principles reminded me of Ayn Rand's own philosophy, laid bare in Atlas Shrugged. Reagan believed that most Americans were better off when he left the presidency than when he first stepped into the White House, and that was due not to the economic policies that he had pushed through Congress, but to the hard work and determination of the American people to earn their own living with their bare hands. Criticisms of the Reagan era are resonant even today - because they are the same arguments employed by those who seek to reward need above talent: it was an age of materialism, the corruption of moral values, the widening rich-poor gap, the erasure of welfare programs that betrays the uncaring, elitist mindset of the administration. Individualism was castigated as a sin in American society, a psyche that was the corollary of capitalism and its elevation of self-interest as the prime motivation of men. One must remember that in the 1980s, the liberals and intellectuals tended to err on the side of caution - since being labelled as an unconventional thinker still carries with it the stigma - by perceiving the Soviet Union as healthy and everlasting, since it had already done so for the past three decades. This establishment also tended to view the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as an indicator of the empire's growing confidence and ambition in its ideology, its style of governance and way of life that it sought to project overseas. What they failed to consider - or consciously ignored - was that the invasion revealed the insecurity being felt by the Kremlin, or the nomenklatura, at home, and thus the invasion would deflect attention of its internal critics to external conflict. A tried-and-tested trick by nations throughout history, it initially seems puzzling as to why the liberals would not have spotted it and thus sided with Reagan's analysis.

The air of enchantment with communism then, the hope that communism with a human face would surface and thereby deal a crushing blow to advocates of capitalism and the American way of life - these were kept alive throughout the decade preceding the Soviet Union's demise by the liberals as they sought to discredit the material wealth and prosperity generated by Reagan's economic policies, which the latter had adopted in sheer disregard of Keynesian and supply-side recommendations. Author Kevin Phillips called the 1980s a "second Glided Age". It seems unsurprising that the further one is from Russia, the lesser the degree of discreditation of communism. Central and Eastern European satellite states such as Romania and Hungary had already experienced communism firsthand and thus its peoples were intimately apprised of the fallacies of that ideology as it was distorted from theory into practice. It was distorted because that was the only way it could work in reality, and Reagan understood that as well as Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek did. Further off in Western Europe, Communist parties managed to cling onto some scrap of legitimacy as Eurocommunism continued to have a grip on the intellectual establishment there. Thus, the liberals in America across the Atlantic would certainly be much less convinced of the ugly truth about communism. And so they advanced their argument that communism would offer a more humane way of life, a more socially responsible mechanism of wealth distribution than capitalist systems ever would accommodate.

Reagan understood that the Soviet system was unsustainable due to the fact that the centralisation of economics will inevitably lead to the centralisation of politics. A totalitarianistic hand on where, to whom and how much resources will be allocated necessitates value judgements based on arbitrary whims of individuals, encouraging them to reward special interests and disregard efficiency as the main criteria for profit. A system that rewards a bum as much as it rewards a labourer is bound to destroy any form of incentive to innovate or work. Once common men and women realise that rewards are being distributed according to need rather than success, and begin to corrupt their own standards of morality - by seeking to demonstrate one's neediness as more extreme than the next - in order to survive, one can be certain that the path to self-destruction has been paved.

These people who leech are only counting upon the moral rectitude of their fellow countrymen who are unable to tolerate this corruption, and will continue to work even harder to maintain their material wealth because that is the only channel through which these virtuous men and women know they can live: through sheer hard work and determination. Their wealth is the tangible manifestation of the capability of the human intellect, and these individuals only seek to honour it because it enriches the individual, not society. Their motive is to persuade and inspire others to follow their example, to recognise that material wealth is a goal worthy of pursuit, and that to live for oneself means to utilise one's faculties fully in order to enrich oneself. Have we not heard enough about the charge made by liberals that wealth is a sin? That one should be shamed into giving away the wealth that one produced by his or her own hands to the faceless mass that is called society? We, the men of the mind, should live to serve those who are incapable or are unwilling to put their minds and arms to work? We, who have created wealth do not need it as much as others, and thus shall henceforth allow others - who have never exerted a muscle - to enjoy the fruits of our labour?

If so, then men of commonsense should cease to labour for the undeserving. In order to avoid such a dastardly conclusion for men to reach, Reagan decided to adopt measures that curbed the paternalistic tendencies of big government by abolishing welfare policies. One of the most profound yet simple utterances can be found in the book, "The best social program is a job." Only two lines down, another priceless quote expounded that the purpose of welfare "should be to eliminate...the need for its own existence." The success of welfare programs, Reagan remarked, should be measured by the degree to which it encouraged self-reliance. This was reminiscent of the theory of decommodification espoused by Gosta Esping-Andersen - he argues that individuals in a market economy are commodified, their talents are marketed and sold like goods. Decommodification is the weaning of the dependence of the individual off the market, and the degree to which it occurs is contingent on how much freedom the individual enjoys in choosing whether to have a job or not, such that his living standards, well-being and potential job prospects are not being threatened. Thus, even if a company's executive accedes to demands from his workers for a four-day week, yet implicitly threatens to fire those who accept the deal, then it does not constitute decommodification. While Esping-Andersen's theory is one-sided in a sense that it only measures self-reliance from the market, Reagan's principle of self-reliance from welfare programs seems to encapsulate the balance necessary to preserve time-honoured traditions of hard work and perseverance that are at the core of American values.

The concept of Great Society was touched upon in the book, and D' Souza mentioned that Reagan, though unopposed to helping the disadvantaged and poor, was extremely reluctant to utilise government as a tool to be wielded by intellectuals "to organise society" as they deem fit. Perhaps it struck Reagan as hard as it did to me that adoption of such a plan would only result in the expansion of bureaucratic apparatus, and government programmes are extremely difficult to abolish once established due to the "public choice" theory. It is telling that while the American people have the power to directly elect their representatives in Congress, the general consensus of recent years is that the government simply does not listen enough to the public. The problem of legitimacy of rule is evident. Reagan had asked the American public to decide whether some intellectual in a faraway land should govern them, or that the government should trust the people to govern themselves. This type of rhetoric is strikingly similar to the current malaise plaguing the European project - just substitute the intellectual with the Eurocrat, and the public with the French, the Dutch, the Spaniards, the Italians and so on.

I can only attribute this to the increasing degree to which elected politicians find themselves influenced by special interest and lobby groups with which they share links of patronage. Political candidates spend so much money campaigning, drawing donors of sometimes dubious backgrounds to sponsor them, then when elected are subjected to subtle forms of blackmail. kurt over at his site has explored the various links that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has accumulated so far, and it is not pretty. No wonder political apathy is setting in, and if those pundits would acknowledge the truth about Obama and ask tough questions about his connections, Americans would be even more cynical about the manner in which politics is being played out. Yet they are so desperate for Obama's entrance and his promise for change that it is blinding them to these charges. Denial and selectivism dominate mainstream media such that once again, pundits are encouraging false, heightened expectations that Obama is only too happy to promise to live up to. The public will believe what they want to believe, and a few years down the road will discover for themselves the flaws of their judgement - except that they will not blame themselves but Obama himself. The pundits, trust me, will be the first to lead the dolchstosselegende.

The American public has lost faith in the capability of intellectuals to organise society as they deem fit, and perhaps we should not be looking at who is to be blamed, but what is to be blamed. The problem is systemic rather than specifically attributable to certain individuals as though they are more likely to be corruptible than others. The system of patronage extends its far-reaching tentacles and dominates proceedings, forcing those operating within it to play by its rules of wheeling and dealing, and summarily ejects those unwilling to accept them. Certainly, there are instances of individuals who vow to play by their own rules, stick to their principles - such as Obama is marketing himself to be - and usher in a political revolution like Reagan did. Yet there are a significant number of politicians who pride themselves upon their sheer ability to wheel and deal, and they know that their connections can prove very valuable to those who have the clout to sign off on pork-laden bills, among other concessions. Loyalty is a tradeable commodity within the system, and most find it politically expedient to engage in it. The end result is that elected representatives pay much more attention to these clusters of "intellectuals" than their constituencies, and society's resources are organised for their own benefit.

Reagan revolutionised American politics by forcing the Democratic Party to reform itself, by infusing and re-energising the GOP with optimism and pride. Under Reagan, the Republicans successfully remodelled themselves as the party of patriotism, restoring the pride of the military and allowing Americans to regain their faith in their nation at a time when communism and the Soviet Union's domination of the world seemed inevitable. The age of prosperity that emerged under the presidency at that time also convinced the public that the Republicans were sincere and also capable of getting the nation out of the economic rut while keeping government small.

"Compassionate conservatism" - a term mostly used in recent years by liberals to criticise Bush after he had adopted it as one of his guiding principles - can be traced back to Reagan's own philosophical understanding that coincided so neatly with Hayek's and Rand's own liberal ideas about government and liberty, infused with the man's own unique style of governance that never made any American doubt his sincerity and steadfastness. Doug Wead had co-authored the book The Courage of a Conservative with Reagan's Secretary of Interior James G. Watt in 1982, and in it he dedicated five chapters to the theme of compassionate conservatism.

Revolutionising a system is inherently tougher than revolutionising a party, but in America where the two-party system exists both count for one and the same. Now the Democratic establishment is fundamentally as out-of-touch, misguided and uninspired as the Republicans, except that the former is being buoyed by the charismatic power of Obama alone. Anyone who considers personality a reliable indicator of substance, as I mentioned at the beginning of the post, is a fool, or more likely, an intellectual happily playing the part of a fool. Bush's effect on the Democrats has been to earn the GOP exponentially more critics in the eight-year period that he has been governing since his entry. The critiques have only become more damning, more despondent, more ready to discredit everything that he has done, and ultimately quicker to spell the end of Republican rule.

Yet D' Souza, only one of a few to acknowledge Reagan's impact on domestic politics, recognised it and penned his thoughts down in 1997 - eight long years after the Great Communicator himself had humbly stepped down from the presidency. Will Bush's legacy be posthumously recognised as having a revolutionary effect as well? I shall seek an answer in the second part.

III: Beasts of Burden

2008-07-01T09:57:00.006+08:00

The third part of this series focuses on the operations of Shell and the lexicon of lessons to be learned from its interactions with the government and the citizen.

In the second part of this series of articles, I had expounded upon the fallacious assumption - dressed up as the corollary of pure rational thought - that consumers would prefer free, unfettered competition between energy alternatives and the current oil/gas options. Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer laid out the truth of the matter to those who still are unable to recognise for themselves the sheer profitability of oil - the price of which has continued to climb to $140 and above as we speak - over alternative energy arrangements [emphases added]:

If one day a renewable proves to be a true competitor of oil and gas we would be prepared to invest a considerable amount in it. We do not want to be a small player because we would eventually lose out. But large investments are only worthwhile if the price/performance ratio vis-à-vis the market is sound. Renewables are still too expensive and there is really no point investing in large-scale production of something that is too expensive for consumers.
We are and will remain an ordinary company and so we have to meet all the normal business criteria. We’re not taking part in a popularity contest.

Thus, simple logic amounting to lower profitability may be adequate to explain Shell's decision to pull out of London Array, the biggest offshore wind farm in the world. Only days after recording first-quarter profits of four billion pounds, the announcement that Shell would no longer partake in investment in the project had arrived as a particularly rude shock to those who have been envisioning the possibility of cleaner, greener energy alternatives to cope with the rising oil price. Of course, the first salvoes were directed at Shell for being "dishonest" and "irresponsible". No surprise there. Yet one must delve deeper, beyond the surface arguments, to understand why such accusations were made.

No, I am not an apologist for oil companies, and neither am I a boisterous proponent of Shell's apparently green credentials. Still, I truly wonder in what way Shell was being "dishonest" - has it ever vowed as a private company to be primarily responsible for the successful transition of preferences of a distant country's citizens from oil to wind energy? Since when has it been logical to blame a multinational company for betraying promises that were conjured up by the British public? Note that if the British public were actually consulted in the decision to allow Shell to operate in Britain, then the British public would have a legitimate stake in Shell's operations in the country and demand that Shell honour its commitments: to provide an affordable and consistent supply of oil to match domestic demand. Even so, I doubt that one of those commitments would have encompassed sustainability or green energy.

"Irresponsible" to whom? Shell's decison-making process has to be understood through the eyes of its management, which has to be primarily to its shareholders. As van der Veer remarked, Shell has no intention of participating in a popularity contest, because it recognises the sheer fickle nature of public opinion that fluctuates between extremes as it is readily manipulated by communications structures controlled by the media, lobby groups and the government. Public opinion tends to alter or calibrate the standards with which it judges how effectively or favourably government, private companies or other institutions operate - most likely, how well that entity serves the individual's own interest or the interests of an institution he or she works in. Yes, we have talked about companies such as Chevron and BP noticing the increasing willingness of consumers to reward more environmentally-friendly companies by preferring them over their competitors. Yet if oil prices continue to exact punishing effects on people and their lifelihoods, the public may decide to fall back on old criteria: which oil company can provide cheap and accessible oil to fulfil short-term needs and sustain current living standards and patterns of consumption in the First World. There is an even greater possibility for Third World publics to forsake green options due to their relatively impoverished status. How does one worry about the future when one's immediate chances of survival are threatened?

Thus, one should not foist the burden of blame and shame solely on Shell. Yes, it is detrimental to the credibility of Shell's claims of desiring to be more environmentally friendly, and it has certainly missed a golden opportunity to improve its PR position, as well as to gain profits from being one of the first to enter the market for supplying wind power in Britain. That is only one side of the story. Consider the rising costs of investment in constructing the necessary infrastructure for the wind farm, and that the rate of increase may eventually outpace the rate of increase of oil prices. Shell has tried to rope in other companies to share in this investment, logically to buffer against huge losses and spread the risk around:

Since Shell and its partners E.on and DONG Energy set up the joint venture five years ago, the costs of building offshore wind farms has jumped by roughly 50 per cent...Shell has already begun sounding out other companies, including Centrica, to see if they are interested in its stake. A spokesman for the British Wind Energy Association said Shell's move was a "hard-headed business decision. This is simply not as lucrative as oil and gas". Dr Paul Golby, head of E.on UK, claimed the project's economics were now "marginal at best".

Who else should share the burden? As a vindicated rebuff to proponents of less government, more individual freedom of agency to choose between alternatives without price-distorting mechanisms set up by government, a significant number of people in Britain are now pointing their fingers accusatorily at their own government:

Steve Webb, Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, believed Shell's decision "blows a huge hole" in the government's rhetoric about renewable energy.
Britain was already near the bottom of the European league table on green energy, and now a major investor had decided that other countries offered a better environment for wind power, he said. "If we are to meet our internationally agreed goals on renewable energy, the government needs a radical rethink ... Only yesterday the Brown government faced its biggest ever rebellion over its refusal to back new incentives for small-scale renewable generators. Now a flagship wind farm has been undermined by the withdrawal of a major international investor."
[...] The oil company was pursuing wind projects in the US rather than Britain due to the economies of scale and because planning permission was easier to obtain, a spokeswoman said.

Governments in liberal market economies such as those in Britain are considerably empowered to a greater degree than the federal government in the U.S., Germany or the regional authorities in Spain. Consider the two-party system, first-past-the-post electoral advantages that empowers the government in terms of centralisation of power; the unwritten constitution that allows the government much flexibility in refining its contents. The U.K. government has the capability to dictate the rules of operation for private companies within its territory, to introduce regulatory standards, taxes and subsidies to encourage capital coordination of demand and supply. While this capability has been considerably blunted by the multinational and transnational companies, compare the relative ease of introducing regulation to that in Germany.

The coordinated market economy of Germany greatly limits the agency of the federal government and Bundestag to approve new regulations and policies by enforcing institutional procedures that consult the various state governments and take into account their opinions. As such, the implementational and adaptational costs are distributed more equitably between local and federal governments in a reflection of the "pay-and-say" principle of multi-level governance: if you want us to foot the costs, we want to have a say in its negotiations as well. Thus, the central government is incentivised to craft policies that are agreeable with the green preferences of citizens living in these local provinces, ensuring that companies are motivated to adopt green practices and sustainable policies via taxes and subsidies. It retains the circumscribed arena of action of the state, since if inadequate incentives are given to these companies, the latter will pass on the cost increases to consumers, who will then likely punish their government.

What is thus needed in Britain to encourage multinational companies to invest in infrastructure on British soil is reform of its price mechanisms, as well as the willingness of government to own up to its responsibility to its citizens - of serving and protecting their interests:

[...] the government was also under attack from opponents who saw the move as a body-blow to UK renewable energy policies. They called for more incentives to encourage wind developments.
Caroline Lucas, Green MEP for the south-east of England, said ministers should urgently reform their approach to clean power schemes and add so-called feed-in tariffs to its energy bill to encourage homeowners to join the fight against climate change. Under the tariffs, those generating electricity from renewable sources would be paid generously for any surplus power they feed to the grid.

Furthermore, Shell's greater willingness to invest in the U.S. rather than across the Atlantic serves as evidence that the company is willing to invest in renewables, but at its own pace. The state governments in the U.S. enjoy a special degree of autonomy compared to those in Germany, and several governments such as that in California have chosen to adopt large-scale reforms in order to kickstart similar reforms elsewhere. Shell Hydrogen LLC has recently opened California's first hydrogen refuelling station in West Los Angeles, which is a major advancement in terms of adopting green energy alternatives. Thus, we cannot simply discount Shell's motives for investing in renewables on the sole criteria of pace of transition. Another factor that we have observed in this case study also proves imperative in the final conclusion: government willingness to introduce incentives to absorb the costs of transition.

Presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama has sounded out his plans to levy a $15b tax on oil company profit, noting that it would be possible to retain the economic incentive of these companies to continue producing oil, given the huge profits being raked in thus far. While the economic viability of this proposal has yet to be criticised beyond the one-liner sound bites, one needs to consider the need to balance such taxes with appropriate subsidies to urge these companies to further invest in technology that would allow them to regain or sustain that level of profitability, as well as wean their dependency off oil as their sole source of profits. Treat it as advocating diversification to reduce the risk of huge economic losses should one find itself incapable of squeezing out production to meet current demand: Exxon-Mobil is already discovering for itself the consequences of such a narrow business approach.

More to come in part IV as we delve deeper into Total's operations in Myanmar, Sudan and China - three of the more inscrutable locales on earth, and whether it is possible to gain an understanding of how Total will function in Iraq when nobody's looking.

II: Skirting the Issue on the Dance Floor

2008-06-25T18:27:00.007+08:00

The second part of this series will continue to elaborate on the possible environmental impact - both potentially good or bad - of the operations of two of the big four oil companies now set to return to Iraq - BP and Exxon-Mobil.

Transparency and honesty are two major traits that the public seek to identify whenever they sniff out some smell of a contract being discussed between an external, usually transnational or multinational, company and their own government. With an active citizenry, coupled with a fairly democratic political culture of civil activism, the public can certainly act as the gatekeeper of the country's natural resources, safeguarding the sovereignty of its livelihood. The question that we have to ask is, given the history of these oil companies and the way they have been managed, is it likely that they will conduct their operations as judiciously and carefully overseas in Iraq as those in their home countries?

For BP, the Prudhoe Bay incident and the ensuing charges that accused the corporation of "greenwashing" - that is, attempting to paint itself as environmentally-friendly while maintaining environmentally-degrading practices - certainly contribute to the scepticism surrounding the recent PR revamp by BP, and these concerns are understandable. A cursory look into its history at Prudhoe Bay evinces a significant modicum of doubt as to whether BP truly has changed its principles of extracting oil sustainably and with minimum risk of leaving behind corrosive footprints on the fragile landscape of Alaska.

Firstly, the effects of oil spills at sea have been a familiar sight on primetime news, but these tangible consequences are only immediate and superficial. Consider the pollution and toxification of ice and snow, basically eroding the robustness of the food chain by rendering the natural habitat of birds, fishes, and micro-organisms extremely harzardous to live in (the oil spill also affected caribou herd grounds). This predictably forces these species to temporarily migrate elsewhere to search for substitute food, and therefore raise the concentration of predators in other areas. The same amount of food and rate of replenishment, coupled with an exponential increase in predators - however temporary - will upset the ecological balance of not only Alaskan territory but habitats outside of the U.S. as well.

Despoiling the landscape of Alaska for the sake of oil drilling continues unabated as the Bush administration vets proposal after proposal in what seems like a very short-sighted attempt to meet domestic consumption. If this is Bush's legacy, then it is a sorry one. Cynicism set aside, the lax government regulations are partly to blame for the lack of enforcement of operational standards in Alaska. Without any form of penalisation by the state, oil companies have even less motivation to clear up their messes. Obviously, pipeline bursts and leaks caused by corrosion and accidents (such as a hunter's missed shot) do cause huge losses for the oil companies involved, but one needs to reconsider the accompanying costs to the environment. These costs - as aforementioned - are long-term and take years to recoup. Oil spills may be easier to clear up than other environmental disasters that have lingering effects, but that doesn't imply for an instant that companies won't try to get away with avoiding the problem until it becomes too large to ignore, such as in Prudhoe Bay.

Taking a page out of Collapse, Jared Diamond's masterpiece, the devastation of Alaskan wildlife and their natural surroundings must have been difficult for the minute populations living in that area. True, there may only have been five people living at Prudhoe Bay in 2000 (according to a census), but these individuals choose to live there primarily because of the mostly untouched scenery of Alaskan territory, akin to the people living in Montana that Diamond interviewed for his book. Alaska, like Montana, is currently being mined for its raw materials, and the latter has had local community groups galvanising together to push for protection of the environment as exploitation and extraction processes continue. What Montana has in terms of grassroots support by its residents - farmers in their 50s and upwards, who choose to keep their unprofitable farmland due to their love of the way of life - and a few wealthy people (who have used their own funds to enforce barriers to limit the amount of environmental damage done by outsiders), Alaska cannot hope to have.

That is the blank cheque Washington has sought to claim from its most prized natural reserve. BP has thus far started the BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. programme, which seeks to fund educational efforts to educate Alaskan citizens about the potential that community action has in terms of saving their environment. While it is laudable indeed that BP is on the right path towards sustainable and comprehensive development, it remains to be seen whether this commitment is matched by BP management's own willingness to be transparent and own up to the true costs of disasters such as that in Prudhoe Bay - that is, funding the clean-up efforts that will certainly exceed the gross underestimations calculated before. The world is watching, and wondering if BP will avoid repeating the same mistakes in Iraq - or think it can get away with it again.

Similar doubts have been cast on Exxon-Mobil's response to the Valdez oil spill, an accident that has tarnished the reputation of the oil company due to several factors: one, the pace of the response in owning up to the actual cost of the oil spill, both short-term and long-term; two, the refusal to admit that environmental degradation will continue to despoil the Alaskan coast for a long time to come, exceeding the time period that Exxon is supposed to be liable for. What's even worse is the web of money trails linking Exxon-Mobil to various "dissuasion groups", which may be a more politically correct euphemism for lobbyist organisations posing as legitimate scientific groups preying on the general public's unquestioning attitude towards scientific institutions. Exxon-Mobil has allegedly been funding these groups as they churn out publications that advocate what seems like a simplistic formula of "less government, more trust in human nature".

To quote from one of these publications, the report on climate change states that all subsidies, taxes and basically price-distorting mechanisms in general should be entirely removed such that each technology (petrol-guzzling SUVs, incandescent light bulbs) is allowed to compete on a level playing field. Furthermore, without such "protectionist" measures existing, the impetus for entrepreneurship and innovation to produce new technologies that will more effectively address the needs of the people will be increased. While it may seem convincing that the advancement of technology is inevitable and will continue to generate better solutions to combat environmental degradation, even the underlying assumption that these technologies have created more benefits than costs is suspect. Also, this approach assumes too much: that people will have perfect knowledge and are able to discern for themselves which product is more environmentally-friendly; that people are willing to pay the extra monetary cost for a green product instead of resorting to cheaper, cruder, dirtier substitutes. If one is mired in poverty, which is a more rational, realistic option?

While this document seeks to emancipate poor peoples in Third World countries, the strategies involved seem to cater to Third World peoples with First World mindsets, capabilities and preferences. How prevalent that breed of thought is among the peoples of Africa, I do not pretend to know. Yet it seems that what the document advocates is a recipe for certain disaster: governments should protect individual property rights such that these individuals are better equipped to adapt to changing circumstances by choosing and adopting more effective technologies. Yet the word "effective" can be judged according to arbitrary standards, if you ask the slash-and-burn farmer in Indonesia. To adapt to a decrease in arable land due to intensified farming and shorter fallow time, the farmer uses the slash-and-burn method more frequently to increase the effectiveness of how well he can provide for his family. Does he consider whether it is more effective in mitigating the costs of his method while earning his income? The answer should be obvious.

While some indigenous populations have certainly devised ingenious, innovative methods of sustainable cultivation and extraction of natural, renewable resources from their environment (such as the Papua New Guineans documented by Diamond), we cannot assume that every individual will successfully devise similar strategies. More often than not, Third World societies aspiring to reach First World standards of consumption tend to reach standards of environmental impact per capita as well. Thus, if a particular resource is depleting at a rate greater than it is being renewed, individuals are likely to revert to selfish behaviour and attempt to exploit the resource faster to gain benefits. The mindset is a zero-sum one.

One should not go so far as to completely discredit the strategies suggested by such dissuasion groups, but their main stand is fatally flawed: they believe that we should devote most of our resources in simply adapting to changing circumstances, rather than devote a significant amount to actually mitigating these circumstances such that adaptational costs can be preempted or minimised in the future. While humans have proved extremely adaptable, one can sense that it is an essentially Herculean task to convince First World populations to willingly lower their living standards to adapt to the scenario whereby depleted resources require lowered rates of extraction - "Why should I compromise with a lower-grade vehicle when I've earned my SUV with my hard work?". Worse, how do you convince Third World populations to stop aspiring to First World standards of consumption - "Why should those rich people get to enjoy wealth and prosperity at the price of our welfare?". Eventually, these pseudo-scientific groups will be compelled to adopt the ends to justify the means: strengthening the state apparatus to enforce the equalisation of living standards.

Exxon-Mobil, like BP, has not convinced most of us that it is truly for tackling environmental degradation and its long-term costs. Are Shell and Total any better?

We'll find out in part III.

I: Homecoming, 36 Years Later

2008-06-23T20:27:00.005+08:00

In case you haven't heard, the Iraq Petroleum Company is back in brisk business.

The Oil Ministry in Iraq is in the final stages of negotiations that would award no-bid contracts exclusively to the four oil companies that were evicted in the aftermath of the nationalisation projects of Saddam's time. BP, Exxon-Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Total were all pioneer members of the IPC - then known as the Turkish Petroleum Company, TPC - in 1925. This succession of agreements would result in the return of these companies back into Iraq, with the aim of resuscitating the oil refineries that constituted the foundations of most of the fragile assumptions that planners of the Iraqi invasion rested their hopes upon. And as the price of oil continues to inch upwards unabated, debates are becoming ever more populated with oil-centric perspectives: will Iraqi oil finally begin to pay for the War on Terror itself; is this simply the beginning of an era of exploitation by the major oil companies to suck the remaining oil deposits dry while sustaining the world's energy consumption; is this what Halliburton failed to get away with, and now the money and contracts are simply landing into different hands of the same motive?

It is easy to be disillusioned at this turn of events - indeed, news articles and commentaries have been churned out as if waiting in the shadows for their five minutes of provocative fame, now unleashed and perfectly poised to capture the groundswell of disgruntlement sweeping through the public. Having watched George Clooney's Syriana only a few days ago, one can safely say that the argument of exploitative, profit-hungry oil companies colluding with power-hungry leaders, having gained the expressed support of higher-ups in the government through assassination ploys and foreign policy manoeuvring, has proven very effective and convincing such that most people would take it at face value and begin finger-pointing almost right away.

Before I begin, let me warn those who expect this to be another run-of-the-mill, convoluted, spittle-spewing tirade of hatred aiming at the discreditation and wholesale denigration of oil companies and their despicable motives of exploiting Third World countries dry: I do not see the need to pander to stereotypical ideas, and certainly I do not see the need to further add oil to the raging fire, for that would only strengthen the myths I seek to debunk.

First off, what struck me about the article in the Tribune was that the reportage was being framed almost exclusively to assuage the escalating fears of the general public - who have been increasingly feeling the pinch as oil prices head skywards - and the industries who depend on oil to run their operations. Thus, the main focus drilled home the important concern that was presumptively on everyone's minds: production, and the rate of expansion:

It is not only one of the few countries where oil reserves are up for grabs, but also one of the few that is viewed within the industry as having considerable potential to rapidly increase production.
David Fyfe, a Middle East analyst at the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based group that monitors oil production for the developed countries, said he believed that Iraq's output could increase to about 3 million barrels a day from its current 2.5 million, though it would probably take longer than the six months the Oil Ministry estimated.

Fyfe's organization estimated that repair work on existing fields could bring Iraq's output up to roughly four million barrels per day within several years. After new fields are tapped, Iraq is expected to reach a plateau of about six million barrels per day, Fyfe said, which could suppress current world oil prices.

A realist would most likely chide me for focusing on anything else. Production, after all, is what will save us from rocketing oil prices. As demand inexorably and inevitably rises, what is needed is to follow basic economics and increase supply exponentially in order to suppress prices and render oil affordable again. Short-term concerns saturate the colloquial conversations in road-side cafes, in waiting queues at the supermarket, at the workplace and at home. After all, why bother about the future when in the long-run, we'll all be dead, anyway? That was the nonchalant response of the realists in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, embracing the strategy of self-preservation to the extreme degree, so desperately wanting to earn the privilege of being the last to starve. We must be "realistic" and focus on existing needs to be resolved, the consequences of our actions can be resolved in the future. Why talk about principles when they are clearly outmoded and will no longer serve humans in their quest for survival?

Certain principles and code of values are what societies live by, and the most successful of civilisations emerge victorious if they manage to forge the best compromise of old and new principles to live by. Societies make decisions as to whether to cling on to tradition-honoured principles that their ancestors held, whether to abandon them as those codes of conduct have become counterproductive to adopt in light of changing circumstances, and whether to adopt new principles that allow humans to objectively conduct retrospective criticism of their past behaviour and make changes in how they live in order to increase the chances of success of survival by perhaps a few generations, if history is merciful.

The realists of Ayn Rand's novel seek to convince society that principles are simply too rigid to equip individuals with the necessary tools for survival in an age of declining production and affluence, that the time has come to renounce the very codes of conduct that created the wealth being enjoyed in the present. These malicious panic-mongerers seek to denounce profit as the main culprit of the world's problems of poverty, because private companies have taken all the money and hoarded it for themselves. They propose a vicious, purely perverse mechanism by which entrepreneurs, pioneers and inventors shall be penalised and punished for their attempts at maximising profit; instead, they will reward people on a basis of need. The principle of hard work, of relying on one's intellect and will to earn one's own living, is abolished for the sake of equality of ever-lowering standards of the physical, followed by the moral and spiritual.

You must be wondering what I'm getting at. Let me explain: firstly, there is one principle that has proven absolutely essential to humankind's survival and continued existence on this earth: sustainability of resources. Yet this principle is still being deprioritised in general reportage: production alone will not get us anywhere other than to buy us time. The way I see it, the $140 price of one oil barrel is indicative of a scenario that we would inevitably reach in a few years' time even if there wasn't any form of OPEC-induced limit on supply today. The limits placed on supply only served to illustrate what would surely happen in one or two decades from now, when technologies hit the wall and no more oil can be extracted from the ground, when deposits worldwide are sucked dry. We should be focusing on how to ease transition to alternative energy sources, weaning our dependence on oil. And yet people are worrying about production and whether it can match accelerating demand from many Third World countries, whose people are aspiring to First World living standards and environmental impact per capita.

Where is the talk of sustainability and consumption rates? The general assumption everyone is banking on is that while Iraq's oilfields are potentially capable of matching world demand, there will always be some oilfield elsewhere in the world that we can tap into in the future, when supply starts to stem again. Endure through the period of rising prices and eventually, we will be able to maintain our rate of consumption to sustain our lifestyle. That is, while most people do realise that once the oilfields are exhausted, they do not bother themselves with the difficult questions of what would happen to Iraq once their natural resources run low. Consumers will adopt the typical behaviour of shifting their attention - and purchasing power - to those new oilfields that can be exploited. After all, they are paying the money, so why would they care about how the oil is being extracted, and whether it is sustainable?

That mindset is the scourge that will contribute to the accelerated depletion of the world's remaining oil deposits. Lest it be forgotten, oil is considered a non-renewable resource: it takes thousands and millions of years for oil to be formed under the earth. We should review our rate of consumption and adopt new principles of living sustainably in order to ensure that future generations - our generation of sons, daughters, nephews and nieces - will not be crushed under the burden of having to suffer for the environmental degradation our generation wrought in our time.

Abandon the principle of treating consumption as the only measure of status, affluence and well-being: it is the most tangible, magnificent manner and testament of our capability, our intellect, our power to create; yet what good would it be if we could only hope to possess it for a lifetime, only to be painfully reminded of our past glory when we are starving and struggling? We can enhance our well-being by helping to preserve sustainable practices that will contribute to the ability of future generations to successfully cope with the costs of transition and adaptation. Creating ever-larger cars and complexes isn't going to be of much help except perhaps boost your own sense of ego when environmental degradation coupled with climate change impacts living standards in adverse ways. Our criteria for standard of living must shift to accommodate factors such as air and water quality, degree of sustainable development of local resources, degree of capability in mitigating the costs of emittances of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. In short, how well we can minimise the effects of harmful trends of consumption afflicted by our predecessors while moving forward in technological advancement and innovation. My best guess is that human progress will be measured by this yardstick in the decades to come.

One particular fact that many people seem to have conveniently ignored while accusing oil companies, amongst many offenders in big business, is that these private companies are responsible for their shareholders. One must be aghast at the need to remind people that private companies exist for the sake of profit, for otherwise what else could be the motive that drives men to innovate, to work hard? People talk as if these companies were obligated to respond solely to the needs of society. The starting point of negotiations with oil companies lies in the need to recognise that the company is responsible to its shareholders first and foremost, and then persuade them to adopt more socially responsible practices by promising to reward their reforms with profit. It does not help the existing debate by railing against big business, demonising every corporate outfit and profit-making entity as selfish, greedy and inhumane. Responsibility to society has to be cultivated. Even governments have to be taught that.

Should we be worried about corporate social responsibility in the case of the big four, soon to find themselves back in Iraqi oilfields? Have they been cultivating socially responsible practices to ensure that resources are being exploited sustainably? Have they been rewarded by the public for doing so, and has the public been discerning enough to actually care about such matters other than their right to consume?

The contracts, the two oil company officials said, are a continuation of work the companies had been conducting here to assist the Oil Ministry under two-year-old memorandums of understanding. The companies provided free advice and training to the Iraqis. This relationship with the ministry, said company officials and an American diplomat, was a reason the contracts were not opened to competitive bidding.
A total of 46 companies, including the leading oil companies of China, India and Russia, had memorandums of understanding with the Oil Ministry, yet were not awarded contracts.

Having reviewed the environmental data charting the key indicators of each company's activities in terms of emissions, flaring, among others, all four companies seem to regard the issue of environmental impact very seriously. This is evinced by the general impression given by the company's presentation of its constant efforts to seek out alternative energy sources, address energy security in the future by improving on extraction methods, and attempting to minimise the impact on the landscape as it extracts the oil from ever-deeper basins underground. Shell uses the criteria of "External Perception of environmental performance" as a key indicator of how well it does in terms of social responsibility, noting that the gap between itself and the nearest competitor in terms of external publics' perceptions has only widened as of 2007. This is becoming increasingly common as companies now find it worth the time and investment to actually adopt environmentally-friendly practices. Innovating cleaner technologies and methods of extraction, processing and refining provides the incentive for companies to reap cost savings earlier than its competitors, thereby creating the impetus for these companies to jump on the bandwagon.

Public interest in environmental issues has exponentially increased in recent years, and shareholders have noted the positive effects of adopting environmentally-friendly policies in the form of greater frequency of success in negotiating projects with foreign governments, less domestic protests and the willingness of consumers to identify socially responsible companies and patronise their products over their competitors. It is now profitable to be environmentally-friendly, which is why it is no surprise that BP, Total and Exxon-Mobil have placed so much emphasis on sustainable development, subjecting themselves to regulatory checks by independent bodies and reputation management by public opinion surveyors such as Ipsos MORI (Shell and BP are registered members). In this aspect, instead of the scenario whereby each oil company seeks to earn its green credentials by selecting regulatory bodies to observe and scrutinise its operations, the fact that two largest oil firms chose to challenge the other head-on by picking the same regulator proves that there is credibility in the claims made by these companies. Hopefully, this trend of challenging each other by offering to subject itself to scrutiny and transparency will continue to spread throughout the industry.

More in part II.

Nein, noch einmal!

2008-06-14T09:45:00.004+08:00

Once again, European governments, administrations, business groups, bureaucrats and everyone else with a stake in the future of the continent anticipated with bated breath the decision of their people with regard to the revised Lisbon Treaty. If one recalls correctly, this was the treaty that was rejected via referenda in two of the founding members of the EU: France and Holland. Negotiations have been conducted, endless nights spent discussing and ironing out the details, definitions and ambiguities of the document. And yet unease predominates, suspicions permeate and the outcome is as uncertain as before.

Ambiguity is a tricky issue: those who value it seek flexibility, the freedom to choose a country's path as it navigates its way through Europe's complex tapestry of economics, politics and culture. As negative inducements are still more persuasive than positive benefits - due to the recent memory of the Second World War and the deeply-embedded wariness held between peoples - these governments seek freedom from absolute conformity, in order to ensure that it does not promise to sacrifice or subjugate sovereignty to the supranational entity that is the EU. Bureaucrats attempting to sell the idea of the EU as a sui generis organisation necessary for the development of capabilities to resolve transnational issues such as migration, crime and environmental degradation tend to emphasise the respect accorded by the EU to the separate governments regarding the freedom to implement reforms only when they believe their country is ready for it.

Ambiguity to the common European man or woman is, however, profoundly scary. If power is defined arbitrarily by un-elected bureaucrats sitting in Brussels - so goes the stereotypical demonisation of the Eurocrats - then flexibility translates into the uncontrollable volition of these men to dictate policies and directives that the country must implement or face penalisation. Ambiguity allows those who sign off on policies to avoid responsibility or pass on the blame to someone else in the hierarchy, and nobody can truly be held accountable. That is what the individual voter fears, and thus he or she demands that every single detail be ironed out such that the limits of how much bargaining power the EU and the government have relative to each other are circumscribed in black and white, as in a written constitution of sorts. One can understand why if the EU pushes for reform in the agricultural sector in order to pressure France and other countries to meet the Common Agricultural Policy targets, the farmers will surely demand how much compensation they are going to get, what happens to their farms, what the government is going to do to help them cope with the transition, what safety nets are in place and so on.

Unfortunately, the human capacity for attention is really rather short. The fact that the revised Lisbon Treaty is still lengthy tends to put people off, and so a majority of Europeans do not bother going through the meticulously defined conditions and prerequisites listed in the document. As mentioned in the article, people who do have the leaflet - which summarises the main objectives of the Treaty - are not reading it either. Some express disdain for the Eurocrats, calling them "crooks" - not surprising considering the common sentiment shared by most people that the EU political elite are just too insulated from the everyday worries of the man on the street. Technicalities are too troublesome to go through for most, and even though the bureaucrats have given the people what they implicitly demanded - that is, more details, the people now feign ignorance, admit to their laziness and cling onto convenient but outdated stereotypes.

Who is to blame? That is the game to be played out in bureaucracies and administrations continent-wide as the Irish have rejected the treaty by a convincing margin. Eurocrats are scrambling for contingencies that will render the Treaty more palatable for the Europeans, combating the relentless tirade of media outlets that will once again succumb to the temptations of doom-saying and panic-mongering, foretelling the end of the European dream. It is an uphill task, to be sure, especially when the trend to punish the EU for the failures that governments cannot remedy within their own countries continues.

Lest it be forgotten amidst the placard-waving, rhetoric-spewing of enthusiastic government officials in liaison with the EU officials, the predilection of governments in the 1980s and 1990s, especially in times of domestic crises, was to absolve themselves of responsibility by pushing all the blame to the unseen, elite bureaucrats of the supranational entity. Unelected, devoid of accountability, out of touch with the masses and craving for a neo-imperial Europe to rule over - that stereotype was exploited, manipulated for easy consumption and disseminated through domestic media outlets among other communicative channels, and it stuck. It has stuck so well that right now, people hold the conviction that the benefits reaped during the past two decades have been solely the credit of their own governments or themselves, and not the EU.

Lost are the acknowledgement and the socialisational experience of vesting one's economic and political interests in the multiple processes of Europeanisation, and governments have to retrospectively consider the repercussions of what past administrations have done to damage the credibility of the EU, and thus attempt to reverse the slide towards simplification of ideological opposition to it. The EU itself, under pressure from its member states, has reformed itself via the various treaties to be more democratically accountable, thereby giving governments a stake in its development. Yet much more has to be done in rectifying the huge chasm between the citizens and the EU - governments seem to have adopted the role of disciplinarian rather than facilitator in fostering ties between the EU and the common European.

Of course, the disciplinarian function of governments involves them basically arguing along the lines of "We know better than you do", thereby seeking to persuade citizens to volitionally accept the EU and to trust the government on protecting the interests of the citizenry as a whole. Sure, governments have portrayed themselves as the most powerful guardian of interests, with sovereignty as its weapon of choice. Yet how many instances has it been that the very same sectors which require readjustment or revamping to suit EU prerequisites are being heavily protected, due to its multiple links within a web of patronage that supports the political elite? While the ideational appeal of a united Europe may truly be burgeoning, and that its values being promoted are edging towards greater confluence with the core values held by individual citizens in Europe, not all decision-making by governments and peoples is solely governed by the invisible forces of socialisation via inculcated norms and embedded principles. Most of it still boils down to the essence of cost-benefit analysis that measures how profitable it is to adhere to these norms.

But campaigners for a no vote mobilized under the efficient leadership of Declan Ganley, a businessman who argued that the treaty took power away from Ireland.

Ganley, who formed the group Libertas to campaign against the treaty, said that the vote would force the Irish prime minister, Brian Cowen, to renegotiate the treaty and secure a "better deal."

"We want a Europe that is more democratic, and that if there is to be a president and a foreign affairs minister, they should be elected," he said in an interview.

While the confluence of people's economic and political interests and those of the political elite is convenient, it is becoming less so as economic woes, accentuated by rising oil prices, are compelling citizens to raise their expectations of their governments in negotiating ever-increasing security and basically, protection from the efforts of newly admitted EU members to catch up to the core states in terms of First World living standards. However, extending security guarantees will only serve to increase insecurity for these new member states, and thereby poison perceptions of the EU in countries such as Croatia, Slovenia and Montenegro, who still view Europe as a project worth investing their capital in. It is not a long-term solution to resolving the paranoia that people feel, having enjoyed a privileged status and unwilling to give it up to anyone else. It is also unlikely that it will be sustainable, given the democratisation of the EU's internal structures of decision-making and institutions such as the European Parliament, Council and Commission. These new members will be vociferously fighting against the efforts of older members to circumscribe the limited amount of resources available to the entire Union.

Hence, this competition between governments to out-bid one another in striking "better" deals with the EU will surely encourage the latter to accommodate these interests and result in widespread disillusionment with the supranational entity. What I propose is that European citizens should instead seek to establish parallel relationships with EU institutions, since they seem not to trust their own governments to protect their interests well enough. No rule in the legal systems throughout Europe has explicitly outlawed any attempt to bypass the government and communicate with the EU institutions. These ties may manifest themselves via either competitive regionalism - whereby the linkages between the sub-national regions and the EU are competing with links between the government and the EU (that is, attempting to circumvent) - or cooperative regionalism, which implies a complementary relationship between the EU, government and sub-national regions (the model put forth by Tanja Borzel).

In this scenario, citizens such as those in Ireland may create their own activist groups that seek to compete or coordinate their actions with already-existing pro-EU elements such as the major political parties and business groups, both of which inspire not faith but deep suspicions as to whether they value economic and political profit over the interests of citizens. These groups may then choose to organise themselves under a single grouping to enhance negotiating power and therefore seek to influence the decision-making processes within the EU institutions, thereby guaranteeing a stake in Europe's future. The EU must also convey the message that it is ready to open such alternative channels to citizens, thereby in a sense eroding the monopoly of negotiating power of governments. However, while this may seem unpalatable to governments in the short-term, they should realise that enhancing the complementarity and coherence of positions at which the people and the EU stand not only ensures that the democratic principle is being upheld vigorously (thus gaining ideational credibility for the EU in instilling its values), but also that the government can now count on the people to accept proposals and directives more easily, since they have already discussed and ironed out most of the contentious aspects. Lessened will be the fear and paranoia that exists today, tinged with the uncertainty that all that governments and business groups have worked for so long will be upset by one country, or one significant voting bloc.

Again, it must be stressed that this is easier said than done, since governments are liable to view benefits in the short-term, and value political expediency more than unforeseen, non-guaranteed long-term gains. They may view with utmost disdain efforts of the EU to erode the monopoly of bargaining power of governments even as they give citizens more say in the policies to be implemented. Less likely is the possibility that governments will allow any form of criticism aimed at their ability to protect the interests of the citizenry, because that is the essential raison d'etre of the state! Imagine what would happen if the government declared itself poorer at representing the people than the various interest groups existing at that time - that is plain irrationality that we should not realistically expect of governments.

Thus, we must keep in mind that these interest groups, aside from business ones, must be accommodated and persuaded by the EU of a stake in the future, one that does not exclusively cater only to those most agreeable with EU policies and directives, but also to those willing to challenge the viability and sustainability of those policies. Also, these measures aimed at democratisation of EU institutions should take into account the need to nurture the role of governments as facilitators, not disciplinarians, in the processes of Europeanisation. Lest it be mistaken, this transition is as hard for governments as it is for the peoples. Sovereignty of the government has been fiercely defended against the EU's seeming encroachment, yet the people do not seem to be convinced that this sovereignty is being exercised to effectively maximise their interests. The fact that the Irish still believe that their government can do the job of negotiating indicates that governments still do play a key role, and the public identify with it, thereby legitimising it. The Irish government and other pro-EU advocates should now seek to encourage the establishment of these groups on the street, negotiate with them alongside the EU, and therefore improve coherence of their position with respect to each other. The government should not squander this opportunity to prove itself as a worthy defender and negotiator of interests of the people to the people, as well as a trusted agent of facilitation to both the EU and its own domestic interest groups.

The Fickleness of War

2008-06-11T09:00:00.004+08:00

He's quiet now. Endlich.

Verhoeven's Black Book can only be described as an epic tour de force retelling the factual experiences of a once-popular Jewish singer who watches her family and friends being slaughtered in front of her eyes in 1944, during the time of the Nazi occupation of Holland. She barely escapes, joining the Dutch Resistance forces and goes undercover by seducing an SS officer. Sounds like Lust/Caution, doesn't it?

The latter had erotica plastered all over the posters, trailers and whatever merchandise was associated with it - therein lies the powerful appeal of witnessing a dance with death, toeing the line between triumph and despair. There is something undeniably attractive about testing the limits of one's courage, determination and willpower - it is a subconscious desire to let others know and recognise that one is prepared to die for one's ideals, interests with nothing to lose. Do the female protagonists/seductresses enjoy such a task - sleeping with the enemy as his heart beats under the slender hand she places on his naked chest, his throat within biting distance from her heaving breaths, the muscular arms that have pulled triggers and levers of execution, now caressing her trembling body with the vulgarity of religious desecration?

*SPOILER*

What is the sin that Ellis (Carice van Houten) the singer accumulates when she decides to sleep with Muntze, the SS Hauptstammfuhrer? We tend to berate the films of today as cliched whenever the slight whiff of unlikely romance turns up ever so predictably and in such an uninspired fashion. Yet it does not seem predictable that Ellis would fall in love with Muntze - not unless she could employ psychological denial amidst the anguished wails of tortured men being dragged into dungeon cells, the execution orders signed by SS officers lying on her desk every morning, the diabolical plans hatched in the dragon's lair of Franken's office with the sole aim of slaughtering innocent after innocent.

And yet her innocence forced her to reason that not everyone implicated within the Nazi outfit was culpable of the bloodshed, not even the murder of her own family before her very eyes. William Golding, who wrote Lord of the Flies, would have pointed at that scene of carnage and triumphantly exclaimed "Aha! The loss of innocence!" Yet that is surely premature, for her innocence is preserved in fragility, emerging from her desire to find something redeemable in Muntze in order to save him from certain hell. Muntze held something familiar to Ellis' heart - that of rebellion against the entity that arrogantly demands that its judgement is faultless and must be obeyed. All must conform and none shall desist. For Muntze, that was Hilter and his SS thugs such as Franken. For Ellis, it was the Resistance movement.

Ellis' affinity to Muntze stemmed from something more fundamental: the man possessed the intellect to look beyond the labels, something even the Resistance's leader Gerben did not acknowledge until the Black Book was revealed. And most people would choose not to know because labelling is simply too easy to live one's life. A label carries with it prejudices and stereotypical judgements that are packaged, distilled to the crudest essence and bottled for consumption. The label of a Resistance fighter to Hans, and his culpability in the engineering of a plan to kill the wealthiest of Jews would vanish. While the film did not go further as to show the reaction of the Dutch public to the revelation of Hans' involvement in the crime, I'm sure a significant proportion of them would choose to ignore those facts and not believe that a hero like Hans was capable of such unadulterated malevolence.

The label of a Nazi to Muntze conveniently sidesteps the complicated powerplays within the confines of the SS bureaucracy between the factions of Muntze and Franken; the struggle of one man - who shared at least part of the desire of the Resistance to minimise bloodshed - to make his voice audible above the panic-mongering cacophony stirred up by power-hungry, sadistic men fixated on milking the victims of the war till the pips squeaked. Observe the calls to off Muntze once he was captured on the streets right after the war, or the disbelief of Gerben and the rest when Ellis requested that Muntze be rescued as well.

The label of a collaborator to Ellis/Rachel Stein is the key enabler that facilitates the Dutch public to seek vengeance after the war in a frenzied attempt to de-Nazify and deliver justice to the occupation's victims. If the true figures for collaboration actually were revealed - they wouldn't be, since governments and citizens once under occupation would not honestly own up to helping their enemies to repress their fellow countrymen - then one can appreciate the absurdity and blinding hypocrisy of most of these people, so ready to condemn the "collaborators". As someone remarked in the film, it is easy to choose to collaborate when the alternative is a bullet through your head. In their small and un-noticeable ways, people acquiesced, ignored and turned a blind eye or two when the Nazis were committing atrocities right next door.

I do not blame them, since it is unfair to judge those who have endured what I have not experienced. Yet is it too much to ask them not to judge individuals such as Ellis, who have basically done the same only to survive? The means must be as moral as the ends, you say? That creed means nothing in war, when men have decided that judgement must be made at the end of the barrel of a gun. How can one choose the means that give his or her adversaries the distinct advantage of bypassing those self-attributed limits of morality? Is that not suicide? Should Ellis have killed Muntze when she had the chance, or Franken, or van Gein instead of keeping them ever closer to infiltrate the inner circle? Should she have chosen to die instead of collaborating - what good would that do? Would her death have inspired the Dutch to come out of their acquiescence, to rebel and join the Resistance, to champion her as a martyr who died for Holland?

No. She would be dismissed as either an unfortunate casualty of the Nazi occupation, a fool who risked her life for nothing - who did she think she was, one woman trying to stop the SS? - or a collaborator who finally was undone by someone able to substitute her as a middleman. The greatest sin of Rachel Stein as judged by the people was not fitting snugly into the label of anything concrete.

She was a Jew - the Dutch felt they needed to protect them, yet they could not bring themselves to believe the people they wanted to save could be so deceptive. It probably horrified them even further at the thought that the Nazis, for all their propagandistic rhetoric, could have been right about Jews.

She was a Resistance fighter, yet she slept with Muntze the "enemy". Hans secretly harboured hatred towards Rachel not because she had chosen to bed Muntze (that would be too superficial) but because she had seemingly escaped death despite the many close calls. He perceived Rachel as a fellow collaborator and deduced via rational thought that one collaborator would only benefit from the demise of another when the war was over. And so he decided to off Rachel for personal gain, and as a testament that he could play the game of deception so much better than Rachel. Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer. He scorned Rachel's "promiscuity" right till the end, to his last dying breath, and yet he judged her value as a human being on that same basis.

This film certainly helps to dispel the comfortable stereotypes of war. There is no absolute dichotomy between good and evil; people - however virtuous - tend to straddle this line if they wish to survive; for the oppressor to successfully oppress, the oppressed must agree to play the victim. No institution is ideologically monolithic, not even the infamous Nazi apparatus. War is the present arbiter, but only for societies is the result clear. Individuals affected by war have to endure a constant struggle to define for themselves what they have sacrificed in order to survive. Individuals who can persuade others that they have not sacrificed too much of their morality/identity/integrity (arbitrarily defined) can band together, but they seek out to demonise those who do not meet their exacting standards in order to reaffirm what they are not.

As such, Muntze and Rachel fell victim to the fickle judgement of Kautner and Hans. Kautner sought a personal vendetta against Muntze, who almost succeeded in picking the right side to support even before the war was over. Kautner's sadistic triumph in ordering the execution of Muntze betrays his true motive: not to punish the ex-SS officer for disobeying the military command, but to flaunt the fact that he was better at straddling the line between good and evil.

Rachel's decision to basically kill Hans at the end is justified because she has chosen to embrace retributive justice for all the innocent lives lost for the greedy profiteering schemes of Hans, Franken and van Gein. Why should she not have the right to seek vengeance against those who so readily condemned her for her sacrifice? If not for her, criminals like Hans would escape true judgement from the law. Society needs heroes like Rachel and Muntze as constant reminders of the value of integrity and staying true to one's moral creed, yet disposes of them as fickle as circumstances change.

Conditional Transparency

2008-05-06T13:34:00.005+08:00

Only the guy who isn't rowing has time to rock the boat.

An apt quote from French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre to describe the state that Myanmar is in right as we speak, reeling from one of the most devastating cyclones ever to strike this once-prosperous "rice bowl" of Southeast Asia. The situation is becoming increasingly dire as thousands of poor Myanmarese seek basic amenities such as food and shelter, and the flooding of the deltas implies that crops - already so meagre given the pathetic subsidies granted by the junta - have been ruined, harvests wiped out.

The diplomatically isolated junta finally decided to allow international aid groups and the UN to coordinate relief aid to cope with the aftermath of the disaster, an unprecedented move given the fact that the military has chosen to embrace its pariah standing rather willingly, relying on funding from China and Singapore to prop up the ailing regime. However, the lack of proper communications infrastructure and transportation routes will mean that relief aid cannot be delivered as fast as possible to the hardest-hit areas. I cannot even begin to imagine what the lack of vaccines from water-borne diseases such as cholera will do to the starving, homeless people of Myanmar.

The generals have taken a backseat approach to all of this, right from the moment before the cyclone struck (the state-run media failed to issue warnings that the cyclone was approaching) till now, apparently happy to let the international aid groups do the work for them. Now, in Southeast Asia, the relationship between state and citizen does not seek to emulate the Western concept of the social contract. Here, the citizen is obligated to serve the state, not the other way around. Yet governments in the region have been sensitised to the needs of their populations, knowing that without their implicit approval or acquiescence, the government cannot rule. Also, the key to domestic resilience is ensuring that the country's workforce is productive, taken care of and satisfied - the result is domestic legitimation of the regime.

Myanmar's generals do not seem particularly concerned about their population, mainly because it has found it useful to rely on external funding to sustain the regime, without relying on the population's productivity (which in turn leads to redistribution of economic power from the state to the people, thus this may empower them to lobby for political power) to continue insulating themselves from the prospect of revolution and civil activism. The failure of the government to address the fundamental needs of its citizens has degenerated to such a low level of depravity, yet the ideology of pragmatism dominates. As long as I don't have to feed my people, as long as I keep them near death so that they have to rely on the junta, as long as they are desperate and submissive, then the regime will never be threatened.

The US has decided to commit $250,000 to relief efforts despite its foreign policy stance towards Myanmar, and promised that more will come, but that it feared that the junta would reject the aid. This is certainly indicative of the US' own concern about the humanitarian crisis, and its vested interests in limiting the scale of destruction that might easily result in significant levels of migration from Myanmar, thereby inflicting costs on its neighbours, particularly Thailand. The latter has already begun to send aid to Myanmar to cope with the crisis for this very reason, while India has also sent two naval ships with stockpiles of supplies.

Now, the contradiction is this: why have the generals so willingly reported the actual death toll rather than masking it, given that they control the media outlets? Knowing that the failure of the government to effectively handle the crisis by warning the people and implementing some form of contingency emergency plan would be broadcasted, the generals still decided to come clean despite the political costs to the referendum to be held very soon. The truth is simple: if they chose to maintain the policy of silence and prioritise regime security over individual security of the thousands of dislocated Myanmarese, foreign aid would have been less than forthcoming, which would have resulted in swathes of Myanmarese dying from thirst, hunger or disease. They chose to be transparent, exploiting the altruistic nature of foreign aid groups and depending on them to repair the damage, and thereby preserving regime stability.

Thus, do not be fooled into thinking that transparency displayed by the junta was a shift towards liberalisation of state control of power, or democratisation of the subtlest form. Behind that decision lay the doctrine of pragmatism - choose to follow the rules when it suits our interests, but do not hesitate to override them when they come into conflict with our goals. One can wonder how long the junta can survive while maintaining this foreign policy stance, but it has served them for decades - the motivations that lie behind the decisions of China, Singapore, Thailand and India, among other players, lie entrenched in the common interest to keep Myanmar stabilised.

That the US actually offered aid is surprising enough, but it is also indicative that Bush and his administration have somewhat learned from their experience with North Korea. Adopting a policy of zero tolerance and communication, rejecting the proposal to send foreign aid to NK, but most importantly: having to rely on China to use its privileged position vis-a-vis NK to leverage for concessions at the six-party talks - all these experiences have socialised the US into the detrimental costs of containment, and the potential to build dependency and leverage within Myanmar by competing with China in providing humanitarian assistance. The US certainly seeks to wean Myanmar away from China's orbit and develop a more conducive environment within the country in accepting the potentially momentous event of elections in 2010.

How much China has committed itself to helping Myanmar tide through this crisis is still very much under wraps, as no specific information has been given. What is clear, though, is that China will not hesitate to emphasise the contrast between its own aid to Myanmar and those by the US, raising suspicions of the latter in attempting to influence civil society elements to adopt a more proactive stance vis-a-vis the junta. Whether Myanmar rejects or accepts US aid is thus very much dependent on the effectiveness of Chinese persuasions on the junta.

ASEAN, of course, has pledged to help out Myanmar as a neighbour and fellow member of the regional organisation, despite criticising it for its repression of the Saffron Revolution in 2007. Myanmar is poised to continue exploiting the goodwill of regional and extra-regional actors, all of which have interests in mitigating the consequences of this disaster. We should be unconditional in giving humanitarian aid because it is about saving the lives of our fellow human beings, that I do not contest for a second. Yet do we stop and ask: is it sustainable?

Change

2008-04-23T00:58:00.005+08:00

"Oh my, Snowy! Cover your eyes - you don't want to see what the Chinese did!"

I love Tintin. The Dalai Lama loved it so much that he bestowed the International Campaign for Tibet's Light of Truth award on the ficticious character. If only Herge could have updated his timeless series with a new perspective on Tibet of recent weeks, I can only imagine Tintin winning more accolades this year.

We have had debates in forums and the newspapers about what the US presidential elections have symbolised for us, citizens of this city-state. We speak of Obamania and "change" as the magical, operative word that will perhaps provide a non-partisan, ideological tool to breach the fortresses of conservatism, guarded zealously by the staunchest, most pragmatic technocrats on this island. Even the dour Brits are getting excited over the elections, so much so that it seems like the entire world is truly connected as proxy citizens of the US. A common refrain goes, "Are we having elections or are the Americans having them?"

I do not doubt for a split second that US leadership changes will constitute one of the major challenges to Singapore's own foreign policy and world outlook. Will the new president be as committed to preserving stability in Southeast Asia? While the mood of isolationism seduces from Iraq, the fear of China exerting hegemony over Asia is a salient reminder of the realities at hand. My answer is that the US will not risk such an outcome and will thus remain committed to this region.

Will he/she be sensitive to regional contexts when promoting the WoT? More importantly, will the WoT's significance fade into the background as leaders debate about semantics while ignoring the real threats emanating from all quarters? What are the expectations of the new president of Singaporean commitment to the WoT?

But let us not deviate from the true purpose of this entry. It seems that Obama's rhetoric of "change" has indeed sparked off general interest and even managed to circumvent embedded cynicism within populations with regard to politics in their own countries. Perhaps individuals see it as a chance to ride on the momentum of revolutionary ideas to inspire civil society to vote those who they believe will remake the new world order. Yet America is hardly the untainted beacon of inspiration and hope that it was just a few years ago, and leaders everywhere will be on guard against the dangers of associating themselves too closely with Obama's ideology of change. Ideas can be very powerful things.

That is why I predict that Obamania is more of a touch-and-go trend, while 2008 will be preoccupied with another momentous event that will redefine the boundaries and potential of global civil activism more than Obama could have dreamed of. That event is Tibet.

I can sense the mood in the air, because it is the same air Singaporeans, Tibetans, the Chinese, the Europeans, Indonesians breathe. The air is tinged with anger, with calls for change, with purpose. But let us not get too dramatic here, shall we? I shall direct your attention now to this:

The Communist Party has started a political education drive in Tibet's restive capital, Lhasa, vowing a long campaign to attack pro-independence sentiment and support for the Dalai Lama.

[...] In a bid to reinforce control in Lhasa, party authorities have begun an education drive focused on officials and party members, the official Tibet Daily reported Monday.

The campaign to "fight separatism, protect stability and promote development" would focus on "unifying the thinking and cohesive strength of officials and the masses, deepening the struggle against separatism and counter-attacking the separatist plots of the Dalai clique," the paper said.

You know it's weird when you see "struggle against separatism" instead of the usual "struggle for separatism". Now, one would be perfectly obtuse to ignore the fact that this is a very blatant attempt at social conditioning via "political education" by the Communist Party. Social conditioning in China's parlance involves not only the intellectual part, but also the trusted tool of violence. The only reason they are even initiating this drive with such altruistic goals of "stability" and "development" is to distract people from the truth: they sure as heck aren't leaving it to domesticated schoolteachers and their wooden rulers to ensure that Tibetans are silenced in the future.

It is indeed an optimistic observation that the Chinese are resorting to promoting development as a method of placating the Tibetans, which means that the former assume that deliverance of economic guarantees will bring about political legitimacy. That would certainly work wonders as it has done in Singapore, but that is also because the government didn't order massacres against our forefathers. Will decades of bloodshed and genocidal activity be compensated with "development"?

Methinks the Chinese are smoking some serious drugs.

Why optimistic, you ask? The government in Beijing will realise, sooner or later, that money can't buy you legitimacy that easily. The gradual shift towards recognising the dire political and PR costs that Tibet has engendered for China has started, and that also indicates that China knows it cannot risk ignoring the issue any longer. Without Tibetans placated/silenced, the government's control over perceptions shaped outside China will only be eroded away.

Over the weekend, Beijing slightly eased its usually strict ban on protest to allow angry citizens to denounce the Dalai Lama and urge boycotts of businesses accused of supporting him, especially the French supermarket giant Carrefour.

And what did ~~the French~~ a Frenchman have to say?

Bernard Arnault, the chairman of LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton, the French luxury goods group, which has been the target of boycott calls, said last week that France should stop trying to teach China lessons.

"I understand why the Chinese population could be affected by the attacks against its country," Arnault said in an interview with Le Figaro. "It may be shocking to see what's happening in Tibet, but it's equally shocking to see China being attacked."

It may be shocking, Mr Arnault? Why, do you personally judge massacres on the scale of nuclear holocausts? Is it even equally shocking to see China being attacked? On what grounds, may I ask?

Sorry, too many questions there. Let me recollect myself.

I begin to understand and empathise with Mr Arnault, who is above all, a businessman, a member of the international free market. Of course, governments and firms who boycott and criticise China must be entirely irrational, because everybody knows China is the upcoming economic superpower, and instead of severing ties, one should capitalise on the opportunities available to forge links with her.

Perhaps he is so afraid that France will be associated with the US for "trying to teach China lessons" that he sounded out his concerns. Apparently, the French population should acquiesce in China's dirty work because the economic benefits gained by French companies such as Carrefour would more than compensate for the critical moral deficit businessmen like Mr Arnault are suffering from. Mr Arnault is only trying to spread the guilt around, no?

Ironically, China is currently teaching the French a lesson in politics: interfere with my business at home and your business goes home. Clearly, Mr Arnault is a fast learner.

The fact that protests have emerged everywhere as the Olympic torch makes it way around ~~the world~~ cities where anti-Chinese activity might happen is an amazing phenomenon, an indicator that perhaps what some have envisioned as a global civil society, or global values, actually exist. It is an idealist claim that we are above all members of humanity rather than citizens of our nation-states. Yet 2008 has thus far shown societies the power of ideas, of communication that transcends boundaries, censorship barriers and vacuums. As a superpower, China has yet to learn the true costs and constraints that its newly-found status has brought along. The US has been the convenient scapegoat for decades, sometimes deservingly so, other times the target of Other-isation campaigns of governments wishing to deflect attention from domestic woes. Is it any surprise anti-American sentiment has become such a galvanising force if not for its superior utility as a politically expedient mechanism?

I have no sympathy for the Chinese government. The Olympics can be boycotted. The torch can be snuffed out. I am not willing to watch lives being snuffed out for the sake of business, for the sake of economics. As a pragmatist, I can hardly foresee the coordinated boycotting of China as an economic partner by countries, especially my own. Yet while governments are constrained in their policy-making to maintain good business and trade ties with China, they can show their displeasure by other means. Relations can be business-like, but nobody said they had to be friendly. While it might be unrealistic to expect our government officials to snub Chinese counterparts at summits, there are multiple loopholes within existing political and economic structures to frustrate the Chinese as they seek acceptance and integration into the world community.

Tibet today, Sudan tomorrow.

Now this is the "change" we should be looking at.

Blacklisted Bugs

2008-01-13T23:19:00.001+08:00

Civil courtesy or civil liberty?

Upon browsing the voluminous edition of the papers in the afternoon, I came across an article addressing the issue of littering in our country. Obviously, the well-meaning editors of the publication find the topic important enough to put a front-page spread heading the section of commentaries. Neither the jarring absence of political commentaries that make their way to the front page nor the constant occupation of such minor and tepid facets of the standard of living which take the places of the former, comforts me to any degree as to where the local intellectual climate is going.

Still, I decided to humour the people who penned this report, since they had put in their time and effort to research, compile and edit their materials at hand. Bascially, some Singaporeans are complaining that a few amongst them are getting more and more pampered, blatantly littering without fear of being caught and penalised, since they believe that taxpayers’ money is being used to pay the cleaning services. Thus, civil courtesy seems to be deteriorating as individuals grow more disaffected in maintaining their clean surroundings. Already, though Singaporeans as a whole are known to have more manners than perhaps the stereotypical Chinese who comes from the mainland, we still have a long way to go in terms of fulfilling the requirements of a ‘caring society’.

Truly alarming about the report is the realisation that what some people are ready to accept to rid society of this litterbug malaise. Draconian laws, measures akin to that adopted by a police-state, CCTVs at void decks so that ‘Big Brother is watching’. Sure, harsher penalties might very well deter would-be offenders from littering so brazenly at public places, but imagine this: Jonathan Toh, writing to the Straits Times, suggests that repeat offenders should be blacklisted - thus having lower priority when applying for government jobs, university and polytechnic places and vehicle COEs. He also enthusiastically adds that these culprits should be denied the chance to purchase NDP tickets, SAFRA and NTUC membership.

Why, how ingenious! That must surely be the most effective deterrence system ever, because who would ever dare litter for fear of being put into place by the government? Littering potentially becomes as serious and life-threatening (since what Jonathan’s suggestions seem to be aiming at is the economic and social well-being of the individual - and we know how central economic well-being is to each of us, especially in Singapore when we are being socialised into the mindset) as other crimes such as robbery, theft and murder. After that, the slope will just get more slippery. In fact, littering will become a very convenient scapegoat of an excuse to blacklist individuals for reasons other than fouling up their environment, if we are not careful and vigilant enough as citizens of this country.

It must be obvious to the common man that if littering were to carry such a devastating lexicon of consequences that may or may not be delineated by the law of the land, such an arbitary power given to the courts to decide for themselves in which areas of the offender’s life to reduce his chances of success would be easily abused and terribly unfair to the individual who does not and can not know what consequences his actions will engender. Monetary penalties carry with them the power of reducing the individual’s freedom of choice to pursue several goals: a serious fine might result in him or her having to prioritise some areas of immediate expenditure over less urgent areas of expenditure. He might have to think about the risk of not being able to buy that new car if he is caught littering again, but even if he is caught, he is compelled to postpone his purchase and instead address his more urgent need to pay his rent on his house.

Basically, if he loses money, he still has the option of being able to prioritise some goals over others, and those lower on the hierarchy of wants can still be pursued, but they will take longer than expected. That is the deterrence which will act actively on the would-be offender’s mind. What Jonathan Toh is advocating is, however, very much different and extreme.

In Toh’s litter-free utopia, the powers-that-be have the authority to take away the offender’s options in life. If he is deprived of a spot in a local university, and he does not have the financial resources to support himself overseas, he is basically being relegated to a lower educational potential. Blacklisted people who find themselves denied the chances of employment with respect to their level of educational attainment will not only feel discontentment that it is now the government and not the market that accords them with the value of their work that they think they deserve. Take away his rice bowl and his options become very, very limited indeed. It is not a one-time burden on his priorities at that particular moment in time; it is a chronic burden that will weigh him down for years.

Arbitrary power exercised in this manner can be abused very easily, and eliminating the scope of freedom for the individual by attacking the very goals that the offender values rather than the capacity to fulfil those goals is a move that spells the start of a long, slow decline in the Rule of Law. We shall have to ask ourselves, or at least Jonathan Toh needs to ask himself, this question: which is more important - the preservation of law or civil courtesy? I dare not imply that these are mutually exclusive goals, but adopting Toh’s methodology will ensure that we achieve the latter at a very, very high price on our civil liberties.

MP Charles Chong quips that perhaps CCTV cameras should be installed to deter litterbugs, which seems like a fair argument since the measure has been successful in limiting the number of break-ins in the residential areas, and has decreased the burden placed on the neighbourhood police. However, the means tend to serve ends greater than the ones stated beforehand. CCTVs at void decks and places where littering may occur - which can mean any physical public space - would allow Big Brother to monitor and view the movements and activities of individuals very closely and effectively. The beginnings of a police-state lie here: surveilance becomes the most effective tool in ensuring auto-regulation and self-censorship.

To their credit, the authors of the article state that they recognise these beginnings of an authoritarian streak. Yet they continue to add that perhaps this is necessary until Singaporeans become more courteous. Unless we are willing to set concrete objectives to meet - and I don’t envy anyone with that task when it comes to courtesy (!) - and achieve a respectable level of civil courtesy, the ‘until’ will never come as long as the powers-that-be find it increasingly comfortable and advantageous to maintain or even strengthen these surveilance measures. Who will decide for us that we are courteous enough so that we don’t need the authorities peering over our shoulders all the time? Judging from the paranoid, paternalistic tendencies that have crystallised as a constant feature of domestic politics, most likely it won’t be us.

Soma So Good

2007-12-25T21:04:00.000+08:00

A gram a day keeps the subversive thoughts away.

Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited describe a utopian future whereby individuals undergo homogenisation and embrace acquiescence of an authority reminiscent of 'compassionate totalitarianism'. In his novel Brave New World, Huxley's literary musings reveal the acceptance of the undeniable appeal of Gramscian hegemony. Power over the societal consciousness must be sustained by consent and coercion. Hegemony of thought, of ideas - the source of innovation as well as subversion - being crucial to maintenance of the dominant discourse, the ruling authority seeks to convince and condition individuals to accept their position in the scientific caste system.

Having studied a little about classical Hindu political thought, the semblance of Huxley's scientific caste system resonates with the material regarding the Hindu caste system of the brahmanas, kshatrias, vyshas, shudras and the harijans. The key to social stability and to religious enlightenment is the sustenance of the caste system - the centrality of which all other religious tenets of Hinduism revolve around. Just as Mustapha Mond, the World Controller, explains to John, the Savage, as to the reason why it is unwise to simply reproduce Alphas, since they are the most advanced in terms of intellect. Other castes such as the Betas, Deltas and Gammas are injected with debilitating drugs and alcohol, deliberately engineering groups with limited intellect. This is very much like the limitations imposed in the classical Hindu state: individuals are only allowed to pursue education relevant to the role expected of their respective caste. Social mobility is strictly forbidden, and conformity strengthens the Hindu state and religion as a whole.

Know your place in society and in life, stick to it, and perhaps be rewarded with karma in a future life. Yet in Huxley's novel, there is no consummerate reference to any notion of an afterlife, though there is Ford. It seems very much like a godless society, with vague and subtle undercurrents of Communism, homogenisation and dehumanisation of individuals. As far as the novel is concerned, it is evident that Huxley detests Communism. And yet he painted a future coinciding with what he predicted would be the triumph of Communism in practice. Was it a warning to his contemporaries when he was writing it, inspired by a deep sense of fear that the dystopian fantasies of Hilter and Stalin would eventually engulf the world? If so - and I believe Huxley was certainly brilliant enough of a man to suggest this - then he was way ahead of his time.

V from V For Vendetta remarked that while politicians use lies to conceal the truth, artists employ lies to tell the truth. Aldous Huxley was attempting to send a subtle warning to his contemporaries through his work of fiction about the possible degeneration of society and regression back to totalitarianism, oppression and fear. He also correctly interpreted George Orwell's 1984 as a stage whereby tools of oppression and violence are forcefully employed to enforce subordination and crude power over all. These regimes of force have zero credibility and legitimacy, and sooner or later will succumb to revolution fueled by passion and unpredictable backlash from these disgruntled avenues.

No matter the brilliance of the novel, Brave New World Revisited as a sequel does raise even more important issues such as over-population, over-organisation and subconscious persuasion via the use of mind-altering drugs to improve the suggestibility of individuals to government policies. However, when he speaks of the problem being helping those with lower IQs in developing countries and impoverished regions, he sees a conflict with the goals of humanity's progress: helping them would retain the less-than-perfect genes that would hamper the evolution of mankind, and cross-breeding would spread these genes, in effect causing the degeneration of IQ of societies over time. To be fair to Huxley, he does mention that this is an ethical dilemma that is to be discussed and deliberated upon by governments over time, and not a snap decision.

Are we forgetting to distinguish the cause and effect here? Huxley seems to ignore the fact that IQ decline and birth defects result from the physical impoverishment and malnutrition of mothers. Scientific evidence points to the possibility of underdevelopment of the intellectual and physical deficiencies of humans if they receive less than adequate nutrition. Huxley's solution involves the minimisation of breeding of peoples in these intellectually-deficient societies - toying with eugenics, in short. We aren't that unfamiliar with governments who have shown no queasiness, or qualms about being accused of favouring elitism and the intellectual class: case in point, Lee Kuan Yew's Graduate Mothers' Scheme. In the 1980s, he was convinced that graduate women would give birth to smarter children, hence he introduced subsidies to incentivise graduate women to have babies, while penalising women from lower classes for reproducing. Ethical?

I think it is an attempt to absolve government of its responsibilities to its electorate, and blatantly so. The people decide to convene a government for the sole purpose of ensuring the protection of life, liberty and property - a minimalist role with respect to the private sphere. Shouldn't the government be gearing solutions towards improving the lives of those wallowing in poverty, to ensure that people have enough to eat, to nourish their bodies and minds (literally) and ensure the progression of society at the minimal expense of those who are less fortunate? I don't agree with Huxley's assessment that it is an ethical dilemma at all: there should be no question as to whether governments should help the disadvantaged.

In a previous post, I had mentioned decadence as a reason as to why societies tend to luxuriate in their successes and past triumphs, slowly allowing their strength to be sapped - they forget what they were fighting for, and eventually become socialised into believing that prosperity is for eternity. Insulated from failure, from the possibility of learning from historical experience and avoiding repeating those mistakes that led the nation down that broken path of apocalypse, each individual loses all perspective of the past, becomes an abstract object, an empty vessel with a simple desire: to be filled up, satisfied, satiated. Progress is taken for granted, and gone is the desire to consciously contribute to the advancement of gains for society, let alone mankind. It all boils down to the individual: whether he/she has the proper incentive to strive for the betterment of society with the belief that the benefits will trickle down to one's immediate family, relatives and friends.

Huxley's rendition of government concerned with the task of maintaining the watertight hegemonic discourse from fracturing involves the provision of earthly pleasures to occupy the human mind and distract it from concerns of society, social betterment and politics. In short, to condition the individual to be comfortable with decadence. This is done in the form of soma and hypnopaedia. In what seems like a perverse reversal, Huxley's world is one where family is perceived with a stigma: to sever obligations of the individual to any other entity apart from the nation.

What is the relevance of mind-altering drugs that increase suggestibility of the human mind? Huxley may seem to have a rather pessimistic perception of reality, but he is not guilty of underestimating the resilience of democracies to the temptations of decadence and totalitarianism. The countervailing force that can be depended upon to guard against such evils originates from civil society, and the hard question to be asked in this time and age - indeed, a timeless question - is: is civil society becoming ever more apathetic? Disenchanted and disillusioned with the state of the nation, believing that there is no chance they can stop Rome from burning - that is the beginning of the end for society, for mankind.

For all that we stand for, civil society needs to flourish, to guard against the propagandistic intrusions of those who would seek to control chaos and maintain comformity at the expense of the individual. Over-population is a problem that is bound to be aggravated in the future, but genocide is not the solution. Degenerating average IQs of societies is a symptom of the abject failure of peoples and governments to recognise that there is actually a problem in the first place, and to do something about it. Eugenics is not the solution. Over-organisation as an inevitable approach to the conundrum of over-population assumes that democracies will willingly devolve greater power to government at the expense of their own liberties. Truth be told, given the accelerating burgeoning nature of technology and the pervasiveness of media and ideas, individuals are empowered with information, thus being less likely to believe in the 'truth' of dominant hegemonic discourses. Individuals are socialised over time and are more sensitive to the world-making efforts of special interest groups and lobbies in government. Over-organisation can be avoided if partial responsibility for the functioning of society is taken up by civil society, by the individual himself.

Huxley's foreboding tale, though perhaps skewed at times, speaks ominously of the risks we run when we are not aware of the creeping apathy that threatens to hijack the social consciousness and turn society into a tool to be exploited by government, by aspiring World Controllers and special interest groups (see Transnationalism).

The Greater Good

2007-12-20T13:20:00.000+08:00

Who would want to play with Gammas? They wear that dreadful green.

After perusing kurt's post regarding transnationalism, technology and adaptive code, I responded and began engaging with him in a discourse that delved into the intricacies of adaptive technologies, algorithms, and about management of transnationalism. Here are a few segments of our exchange of ideas, and I am much indebted to kurt for enlightening me on the less-obvious areas of expertise which he is more knowledgeable in.

[My responses are in the main body of the post, while kurt's are blockquoted in blue]

On adaptive code, kurt offered some gems (I'm afraid I have to admit that I know next to nothing about such technologies, and am only starting to be acquainted with them) :

Current market systems are based on a number of interactions between large scale institutions (cartels, trading blocks, and consortiums) that have a limited proactive outlook (they wish to make a profit) and a highly backwards looking one (keep things stable to ensure that profit). Individual investors are left without the knowledge of those trading blocks, by and large, but it is interesting that they do follow an inherent rule-system that is 'non-obvious'. One of the first interesting experiments in adaptive computing through genetic algorithms was a stock price analysis system in which the system was given historical data and then allowed to create variants of itself to try and tackle different internal variations in their systems. Those that succeeded, by and large, were kept, the losers removed and then those winners multiplied and then allowed to exchange internal code variants. The system is ingenious as it removes human based bias from the analysis and, instead, moves it to the data input realm and then measures how the systems adapt and evolve towards more correct solutions. The internal 'code' of these systems is unintelligible to the normal programmer and many have artifacts that are, apparently, contradictory, internally, to getting a desired outcome. Yet, remove those 'superfluous' internal components and the resulting code does not track as well as the parent! There are now some investor funds that have *zero* human analysis input and the only changes are in giving adaptive code a chance to play without money in sandboxes to generate up new variants that track things better. It speaks well of human ingenuity to create things that we do not understand but still work, and it also speaks very poorly of our current understanding of human based interactions that we do so poorly at something like market prediction.

[...] When applied to a market place and given all the expected known input, plus some that may be extraneous, an adaptive algorithm that tracks markets can be created... it is obviously finding underlying patterns and rules that can be modeled and yet how and why that happens is non-obvious. A lot of the block trading is, of course, done by rule-based computing, and they all have similar views although strong variations within those views. Some of the smaller trading blocks have actually shifted over to this concept, not totally but in smaller scale areas, and we are now seeing a market driven by algorithms trying to figure out each other's way of doing things and adapting to them to gain advantage.... humans do have input to this system: small trading groups changed algorithm behavior when they were added in, although not down to the level of 'investment clubs' - there appears to be a 'noise level' involved also.

[...] The fully automated market systems have run likewise, now, for over 5 years and have similar internal anomolies: we don't know what sections of code actually *do* for the overall function of the program and yet if you remove or change those in a 'sandbox' of non-live cash and yet real market data, they perform less well than their parent stock. These systems create an internal set of rules that have adapted them to the input and output environment plus to survive the selection process and they have created a way to adapt to those things they are measuring and measured 'against'. They are creating internal tools and systems to survive analyzing the human driven market and yield best performance based on the market past history and its variables, their own ability to measure those things, their ability to predict future market trends and then survive to create a generations of progeny with changes that may or may not be more robust than the parent stock.

[...] How the software adapts to that input we do not know as the major movers are not addrssed as entities but as part of the environment of the overall market: they are environmental and to be adapted to. That they *are* adapted to is beyond a doubt, years of market returns demonstrate that. How the software does it? We can't really say, even when the code is before us to be analyzed... we are not the program living in its environment and having a selective pressure on us. This code meets the needs of that pressure. All of what we are that drives the market are adaptation pressures to that software type. Just like with indidivual humans, we can say that the broad class of humans have certain characteristics, but how each individual human does what he or she does, is not easily analyzed.

[...] In adapting to the changing market environment (and as this is evolutionary code, those running such allow new generations to spawn and are tested against current generations and market data, with new software added to the final and surviving mix) if that environment changes then the software mix changes: it is not static and evolves to meet the changing market. Our adaptation to these tools is taken into account by the tools and *they* adapt to our adaptation. This will never be a majority of the market as what 'sane' individual will trust even a significant portion of their savings to software that we really have no idea as to how it works? Humans will place much trust in machines and software, but on code that adapts, evolves, changes with money involved? This is driving the larger investment houses, however, to try and understand what they are doing, how it can be modeled and how their environmental impact on the market is predictable. Think of it: if mere evolutionary software can characterize your activity and make predictions on it, then your organization has gotten predictable. To some organizations this offers 'stability', but to others, especially 'hedge funds' and such, this has got to be extremely worrying as their market impact is based on being unique in their observations to catch the overall market unawares to their activity. Having even a small segment that can adapt to that and predict it in the way the market moves in response to a hedge-fund or other organization/fund type like that? And one segment of that is a true, scientific 'black box': how it works is unknown save for what it takes in and what it yields out. Even the folks running it don't know what the software 'really' does beyond what it 'apparently' does.

[...] On the adaptive code, Stephen Jay Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory posits that the genomes of animals contain much in the way of 'junk code' that serves as partial back-ups for well running parts of the genome and as sources of future variability. While within a year after his death that had to drop by the wayside as we found much in the way of utility in such parts of the genome of humans, in computer code these code reservoirs may serve just that purpose. Thus, even though it may have little active or useful role to play in the running code it may serve great utility for allowing code to be more adaptable for future generations of descendants. There is also the concept that the actual hardware the code runs on has, itself, timing systems that are inherent in the speed of code execution so that 'non functioning' portions may serve as timing delay mechanisms for one reason or another... the wonder of adaptive code is that it is not internally self-deterministic but is representative of surviving the human set conditions which are unknown to the code itself. By surviving it can thrive and attempt to continue to survive even as its progeny has variation to compete better than its parent(s). It is an extremely fascinating area of work, because what we have are a large group of known ideas and structures that, when allowed to work on their own, yield things we can't figure out. The reason we decompile these code systems is to try and understand those gaps in our understanding so we can get a better idea how to craft decent computer coding structures. What we think we know is challenged by the outcomes of these systems and that points to us as having missed something in our thinking process: as creator we can now be baffled by our creations.

Basically, algorithms programmed to record and identify the implicit norms of behaviour made by individuals in the economy. As Anthony Giddens - a constructivist - had envisioned, agent-structure duality exists and is a continuous dialectic. The algorithm encapsulates the complexities of the dialectic and influences the behaviour of agents working within the system, but as human beings, we employ our own intellect, gut instinct and reasoning that alters the norms of the algorithm. To a great degree, humans are less of empty vessels and abstract units, and more of the elements that render us human: our passions, ambitions and fears.

And still though we may have gotten better at market prediction, we can't figure out the forces behind the dynamics. From a constructivist's point of view, it seems that we have to delve deeper into the intricacies of influences that condition and socialise the individual's psyche, response behaviour and perspective. That sounds more like pyschology than anything else, but elements such as culture and philosophy might be better placed to analyse and understand why algorithms work - the basis being non-obvious factors of which their significance may be greatly underestimated or underrated.

On technology:

Regarding the much-trumpeted 'trickle-down' effect of technology, another popular meme circulating in several circles of discussion: technology becomes the decisive factor in widening the gap between those who can afford it and those who cannot. Even the virtual communities aforementioned in your post are luxuries of individuals who are better off in countries. I acknowledge the doubled-edged sword that technology represents, but obviously more needs to be done in terms of enhancing the accessibility and affordability of technology that will empower individuals. Needless to say, significant barriers to this objective of social justice are being constructed and reinforced by the Transnational Left dabbling in free-trade capitalism and neoliberalism.

Most of the game-oriented virtual communities require monthly fees as upkeep costs for participation, though smaller competitors have populated the market with free access to their online communities - a trend that is bound to intensify as technological ideas proliferate with increasing ease across borders. Having experimented with a particular game a few years back, I was taken aback with how much time I was spending trading, negotiating and earning profits from buying commodities and selling them at a more opportune time. And I could easily sense the presence of cartels that had already begun to take root and get more and more comfortable - with no form of enforcement possible. The only possible remedies taken by the hosts of the game involved resetting prices in the economy, or altering the supply of materials being 'dropped' in the game. Even so, with the consistency in surveilance by cartels, it only took a matter of hours before prices stabilised, if only to the benefit of these cartels. However, those who had experienced being forced to pay higher prices were socialised into being more wary of these monopolistic practices and thus were less likely to release their materials after a price reset.

Individuals who are well-accustomed with the workings of capitalist economies inside out definitely fare better in accumulating wealth within virtual worlds (not referring to myself), and these virtual communities serve as microcosmic playgrounds from which some ideas of enforcement of norms and principles as agreed between willing participants may be discussed, experimented at little real cost and perhaps rendered workable. Perhaps the socialisation that comes with being part of such virtual communities will allow individuals to be more sensitive to real-world problems of chronic underdevelopment, poverty and crime.

Of course, this would set as a precondition that individuals take such virtual socialisation experiences seriously, even though the initial intention on their part was to escape the seriousness of reality. Also, transnational communities such as these run the risk of being 'monopolised' by only those who can afford it, such that only special interests are served. This is exactly the ideal which the Transnational Left is striving to duplicate on the global scale; this is why I emphasise on focusing on rendering accessibility to such transnational communities easier for everyone - to ensure that counter-hegemonic blocs will prevent special interest lobbies from dominating the agenda and exploiting transnationalism, hijacking the movement and using it for its destructive, utopian ends.

One of the successes of the Transnational Left is convincing that the communities which it has inspired and spawned are 'global' in scope, when in fact they serve the vested interests of a particular few in each country. An exclusive club with exclusive objectives.

The asymmetrical effect of technology on this, beyond having things like cheap cell phones in the hands of Kalihari bushmen, is two fold: the cost of individualized manufacturing is now following the Moore's Law cycle, though at about a decade or two behind, and those devices allowing individualized creation break the societal concept of restricting individuals based on their use of materials. The first and second generation of precision, computer driven home lathing systems, along with routers for wood, are the basis for replacing the bits with metal working bits and doing that with metal. Also the microtechnology and the 'lab on a chip' concept, plus precision output devices using commodity parts (like using cells in inkjet devices) will change the way we view the creation and utization of everything from such things as automatic weapons (with a home system and precision lathe and casting you are down to the cost of raw materials, equipment and time) all the way up to custom pharmaceuticals and organic cellular substrates. Our concept of government to 'restrict our vices' to ourselves is coming to an end in a hard and fast way because the original parts manufacturing is cheap. A village that can get a modern, $200 PC with solar cells is set up to now have its own precision forge and drafting system, with lathing, and add on pharmaceutical and organic cell substrate creation. The cost factor is not a 'divide increase' paradigm, but a 'lower the bar to lowest possible income' one. This is also, by the exact same technology, a Von Neumann concept: you now have the parts to create an entire *new* device from scratch. While large scale manufacturing will play its part, stopping that from replicating will be impossible as it is all technology driven via data. The Open Source movement now includes OS Robotics and OS Manufacturing for these new tools and devices. The economic shift of this sort of work in this pre-gen era are already apparent: low cost handheld devices in rural India now allow farmers to trade commodities with each other at global market prices adjusted to transport efficiencies. Yes, trading livestock for wheat is done at Chicago Board of Trade prices... which, prior to the 1990's, was impossible to even think about. Local economic factors now play a part in global decisions, and global result reflect into local economies directly: no intermediaries save those doing the local trading seeking a 'fair price'. Consider the blacksmith in a village during the anti-Soviet Mujahaddin era, in which an AK-47, brand new,made from local parts, was $200-250. Now replace the man, the forge, the hand tools, with a sub-$20,000 device that utilizes free drafting templates, precision cast analysis, precision machining and can clunk out 3-5 of those a day based on raw materials. Yes the one man's job goes away... but the output increases as well as quality.... the skill base disappears. Do that for precision pharma products with known chemical structure and reagents. Currently I am utilizing a medication that is very costly due to abuse of it by the richer portion of the US population, which restricts output and has increased overhead due to 'controls'. The actual cost of materials and compounds for a drug that has been known for over 25 years is miniscule, as is the manufacturing process. The overhead is the driving cost and that is governmental overhead, almost entirely due the restricted drug category it is in. Now, if for a sub-$1000 investment and a few tens of dollars in chemicals and existing compounds I an *make* that for a net cost of pennies per pill.... now imagine that for cocaine, for heroine, for LSD, for any known pharma product that has molecular description. That is not the far future, and devices like that for creating chemical labs on a chip are already in first gen production for sensors. An entire directed chemical lab on a microchip. Add in an FPGA and multiple compound inputs and I now have a fully adaptable, small scale chemical lab for personalized production of pharmaceuticals. Any drug that is 'patented' has a chemical analysis and structure as part of that... intellectual property theft? or utilizing technology to create a new basis for personalized precision drug making?

For precision pharma products, there needs to be enforcement of measures to protect indigenous knowledge in developing countries. One problem why big pharma companies have been able to sue and outmanoeuvre these low-cost producers is due to the race in devleoped countries to patent everything and anything, then lobbying to extend patent periods in order to protect their profits while local populations in the afflicted countries are unable to benefit from the low-cost substitutes. Stricter restrictions need to be enforced such that the patent will be granted only if a new drug has a significantly greater effect than a predecessor. This is only one of several approaches that need to be undertaken to minimise the blatant impunity with which special interests have been hoarding technology and innovation to feed their pockets, in the process disincentivising innovation in developing countries and creating an atmosphere of auto-regulation and 'self-censorship'.

Issues of intellectual property theft have to be weighed against the urgency of social justice, the needs of local communities against the needs of the profilgate and wealthy.

On transnationalism, I posited the challenge of managing transnationalism instead of wholly rejecting it - we can wield it to our advantage of strengthening local communities, preserving identities and values while warding off brutal imposition of homogenisation and playing right into the hands of the Transnational Capitalists and Utopian-idealists.

The scourge that is Transnational Progressivism has been as evident and clear to me as ever, and your post simply elucidates it even clearer. Intellectuals such as Andrew Linklater have questioned why particularistic associations such as nation-states must exist in the international system when the ties that bind each individual to another are fraternalistic. Thomas Aquinas noted that we were, as humans, all governed under one natural law as dictated by God, and so we should embrace each other. Such optimism ingrained in the benign view of human nature is much desired for in this current apocalyptic age of multitudinous dangers that we live in in trepidation and perpetual fear, yet is unhelpful, even hampering our conceptualisation of the realities at hand.

The only problem with the utopian view that progress of humanity can only be measured when the obligation felt by the individual - as a result of pulls of loyalties stirred by particularistic associative elements such as race, ethnicity, ideology and nationalism - gives way to the obligation felt towards mankind is that it should be done as quickly as possible, with almost complete disregard for the intricacies of disparate cultures and identities. Too often does the mantra 'for the greater good' involve overgeneralisation and brutal homogenisation of identities such that the individual is quickly forgotten. Diversity falls prey to the 'race to the bottom' as the lowest common deoniminator is sought after as if it were an end in itself.

The lowest common denominator manifests itself in the worst excesses of 'free trade' capitalism as espoused by the neoliberal ideologues: where low costs are supposed to attract investment, protectionist measures coupled hypocritically with exposing domestic producers to ruthless competition from abroad have allowed for the exploitation of low-cost labour. Other countries see this and start a race to the bottom by squeezing their workers even more.

Too benign a view of human nature, too distrustful a view of government.

I think that one of the few things that we have seen over history is that when a society feels comfortable, it feels that strong draw of the individual to self-satisfaction. That is 'decadence' as describing the end of the Roman Empire, and fits pretty well with the general idea of individualism when it loosens its ties to society as a whole. When under direct attack or when desperate need for survival, society flourishes... when that eases off society expands, grows and then reaches some internal limits as individualism comes forward. That atomization either causes decay or stagnation (as witness multile ruling Elites in China throughout history). America without a frontier is heading down that path: without a real and visceral challenge to who we are, we become atomized as a culture and the society slowly withers. That is becoming a major concern to me... winners rarely prosper forever onwards: they stop short, and begin to crumble. We 'won' the Cold War and look set to lose our culture and the peace because we don't feel compelled to pay attention to basics because we are too civilized... too decadent.

I'm in the midst of Huxley's Brave New World, and I believe 'decadence' is the word to describe how the totalitarian regime in Huxley's world manages its citizenry. The government provides the individual with a multitude of distractions and sinful indulgences such that he or she does not bother with any other problems. I recall a line in Lions for Lambs whereby Robert Redford tells his student: "Open your eyes. Rome is burning." Instead of circling the flames, one should attempt to fight them. Otherwise, whatever we live for will perish along with us.

Atomisation of the individual - is this the legacy of Communism that haunts the present and refuses to relax its grotesquely asphyxiating chokehold on the future?

I do agree that Communism is a main factor in the atomization of individuals to society: that arises from treatment of individuals as a 'mass' not as individuals. The Prisoner's re-phrase - "I am not a number, I am a free man!" - is a direct attack against the source of this dehumanization that wishes to yield humans down to units of something larger. That is detestable on the Left and the Right, and the dehumanizing factor of treating humans as 'economic beings' only is a bad trait both sides have picked up. I am more than the sum of my income and buying decisions, much, much more... and yet that is what the authoritarian views of Communism and 'free trade' Capitalism would have me be - an economic unit only. That is now a religious dogma instead of being a form of analysis only, and I am sickened by the easy dehumanization of individuals boiled down to 'lowest common denominators'. If we are just that, then we will have some lovely, adaptable systems that will take our place very soon now... luckily we are non-linear systems that not only have adaptability, ingenuity but drive towards certain goals. When those goals over-ride viewing humanity as individuals creating larger things about them known as society... we are on a downward spiral as a species if we attempt to change that into mass calculations *only*, because that is what makes us human.

I believe the problem lies not with transnationalism per se but how it is being managed, much like globalisation itself. It is a process, but to deny that transnational forces are wholly beyond the control of governments is a pathetic attempt to absolve oneself of responsibility to their electorates. Even more serious, to deny that transnational forces are being manipulated and exploited by a select few within these communities - special interest groups, corporate lobbies, idealist-socialists, criminal networks, terrorist organisations, drug cartels - is to willingly and consciously surrender sovereignty to these entities, who are only all too eager to gobble up the carrion.

I concur with your point about having to wield transnationalism as a tool, to manage it and strengthen the communities that we already have succeeded in creating and preserving. Never should we let the tool ride roughshod and erode what we have accomplished - when the means become an end in itself, transnationalism has no intrinsic value other than to equalise at the lowest common denominator. Though transnational communities should not be accepted as the basis for a world government, they should be perceived as the budding beginnings of transnational civil society.

These transnational forces could draw resources from disparate areas of expertise, intellectual banks of ideas and solutions, and channel these by utilising the proliferation of media to protest against the hijacking of transnationalism by the malevolent agents aforementioned. Bring public pressure from within and without, act as the unofficial Fourth Estate in exposing atrocities and failures in ensuring social justice throughout, socialising governments and peoples into investing themselves into a mutually-strengthening relationship between themselves as members of their respective communities and members of global civil society.

Of course, global civil society cannot possess pretensions to world government, and any move towards creating concretised laws of enforcement designed to punitively punish deviant behaviour should not be encouraged. Instead, global civil society harnesses transnationalism as the medium through which social norms and practices can be established between willing participants suited to their specific conditions and circumstances such that it benefits them, and not a covenant imposed upon them as though it were a one-size-fits-all approach (as has been done in terms of conditional assistance, modernisation, trade liberalisation dictated by the IMF, World Bank). We cannot afford to mismanage transnationalism the same way globalisation has continued to be mismanaged up till this day.

The most basic right is to FORM into such groups that HAVE differences in outlook. From that proceeds the right to protect such groups from others, as an organized structure. Transnationalism wishes to utilize group phenomena and exploit it to rule and, in that doing, slowly erase the meaning of being in a group via history and culture. Our current environment supports differences amongst groups to come to better ends via different ways of viewing the world. By homogenizing culture, humans become more atomic and have fewer differences amongst themselves and become replaceable objects to society. By emphasizing the differences we do get a bloodier interplay between cultures and societies, but better institutions are slowly created to secure those differences and promulgate them - the individual becomes the main contributing point to these things and a necessary mover of society.

I part ways with the Transnational Left and Right in their attempts to homogenize culture via economic enforcement and then the more brutal 'real' enforcement of the powers of the State. By seeing people as societal 'objects' and putting rights on the 'to be traded' table, we lose the meaning of the source of those rights being internal to each and every one of us. I would sooner trust adaptable software that is a black box as it adapts to human culture and society, rather than to have such new and bland culture imposed by humans just 'trying to make the world a better place' by removing all the nasty little bits that make us human.

Again, transnationalism as a process, if managed can possibly foster mutually strengthening institutions and regimes of behaviour that can 'secure those differences and promulgate them'. If left to its own devices, I agree with your conclusion that certain opportunistic groups will exploit it in order to crowd out, devalue and systematically eradicate opposing groups - destroying identity and individuality in due time. The seductive appeal of transnationalism capitalises on this basic right to form groups with deviations of outlook from those established by hegemonic discourses existing in the world today, spread either by governments, propaganda wings of crime and terrorist networks, or any other self-proclaimed authority. The fatal flaw in unmanaged transnationalism lies in the fact that you can count on these groups abusing such power and exploiting zero accountability to electorates, while proclaiming to work 'for the greater good' and 'humanity'. Of course, we can never tell which transnational entities have malevolent intentions, but that doesn't mean we should reject transnationalism altogether - we should seek to moderate its excesses (as displayed by the Transnational Left and Right) and impose our own informal system of checks and balances upon their actions. The only workable solution requires us to seek out methods to manage transnationalism and promote incentives that align the interests of local communities living in an increasingly globalised civil society. At no step in this process should we forget the intrinsic rights of the individual, and his or her irreplaceability in relation to the whole of global civil society.

It is deeply ironic that through the homogenisation of culture, lesser differences results in greater ease in liquidation; while accentuation of uniqueness may in the short-term stir conflict, in the long-term such the necessity to actively struggle and defend one's uniqueness is the key to ensuring its survivability and longevity.

I separate Transnationalism into two major parts: 1) Ideologically driven - Progressivism and Stateless Capitalism being the two main sections here, but this also includes Transnational Terrorism seeking to erode the Nation state foundations, and,

2) Functional Transnationalism - Structures that are not ideologically driven, but arise out of our ability and need to communicate, things like the internet, banking system, aircraft rules and regulations... purely functional aspects to allow international trade and commerce to happen.

While the neutral system types serve to help bring humanity together in a diverse way, the organizational structures (UN, WTO, and so on) become homogenizing and disassociative structures (while the terrorist become highly repressive and retrograde ones also seeking isolation to increase anomie and spread of their views). It is always interesting to hear the 'One Worlders' go on about how mankind will work to be one continuous state of being, and then put forth that these current homogonizing structures are just the thing for it. Humanity has, however, always kept local differences (often harshly) even when joining in larger groups and those associations take time to make. From the rise of the first City States to City State based Empires was hundreds of years, at least. From those to actual Nation states was hundreds if not thousands of years more to weld the first diverse set of City States into a more or less permanent National structure. The hundred fifty or so Principalities in the Germanies point out that problem from their first formulations after the fall of Rome to their final annealing in the late 19th century. That was at least 700 years if not more to accomplish and by the end of it Germany would be a Nation and the 'German Question' that had haunted Europe all of those centuries was finally brought to an end. Mind you they already had international trade going on for the last half or more of that, yet those functions would be interfered with by religious institutions and other Nations and that fractionated the Germanies over and over again. That is why, when looking at the Transnational neutral structures and hearing suggestions of some lovely ruling body or bodies I get distinctly cold shivers: the history of the Germanies points to a major problem with that, as does India, The Balkans, parts of South America and Pakistan. While Germany and India came to some good conclusion on these things, these other areas are set to crumble if an attempt is made to bring outside order to them by Transnational fiat. Iraq is proving to be the first point in the history of the Middle East where *not* doing that is being attempted. If Iraq can hold together and succeed for 20 years or so more, it will have demonstrated that outside help that does *not* impose order can help local cultures to create new order.... very much like that adaptive code. And like that it may not look like we expected it to, but it will be recognizable in its functions and outlooks. That is a vast learning process of societal liberty that will prove a crucible for our ideas about society, culture and individualism.

Indeed, we have come a long way in creating the conditions for local cultures to flourish, for identities to be preserved, and for individuals to exercise their fundamental right to freedom of speech and of difference in opinion and perspective. The Nation-state has become the most effective mechanism with which to protect these gains in progress, but ironically it has also become the shield behind which many autocratic rulers have hidden to defend their right to oppression, totalitarianism and regression. Ideological transnationalism seeks to unravel the orderliness in modern international relations, homogenise cultures and identities behind a duplicitous facade of idealism and cosmopolitanism. The Nation-state to the Transnational Left and Right is a hindrance to the attainment of their objective: to establish a world whereby peoples are defenseless against the exploitative methods - for wealth, domination and control. The lowest common denominator, the race to the bottom and the achievement of regression for the sake of equality at the lowest cost and shortest time - an effective concoction of venom potent enough to threaten the values which we hold dear.

For some, transnationalism of the functionalist strain provides an emancipatory potential: those local communities whose resources, individual rights and liberties have been ravaged and taken away by their tyrannous rulers who employ sovereignty as a defence against regime reform. For these peoples, transnationalism presents possible solutions to break the chokehold held by the regime, to be less subservient and dependent on its masters, instead utilising the proliferation of information, technology and ideas to their advantage. Empowerment of individuals at the expense of the state is key in reminding abusive or nonchalant, satiated and corrupt governments of their responsibility and accountability to their electorates. Cutting out the middle-man - more often than not, the Transnational Left and Right are culpable for this, complicit in its collaboration with the local government or authorities - will bestow upon those individuals who deserve to have their voice heard, to be respected for their differences in opinion, and to be accepted as unique, irreplaceable members of humanity, of global civil society.

Managing transnationalism will require each of us to appreciate the complexities of demands and needs of local communities: when the Nation-state is infringing upon their rights and actively acting against the preservation of identity, or when more power should be invested in promoting functionalist transnationalism, reinforcing the legitimacy and unchallenged authority of local governments in preventing homogenisation of cultures.

Wires and Lights?

2007-12-13T11:30:00.000+08:00

We will not walk in fear, one of another.

I have a soft spot for film noir, and though there's that voice at the back of my head lecturing about film noir being strictly classified as films with a protagonist-cum-narrator doing voice-overs in a subdued, chilly monotone as scenes of him/her are being played out, including the frequently employed dark-coloured, minimalist colour scheme as seen in Payback, I instinctively treat black-and-white films produced in the modern age as appealing as film noir.

With some spare time, while flipping through my DVDs I caught sight of Good Night and Good Luck and decided to give it a whirl. Someone in my class last semester had talked about watching it, and she seemed enthusiastic enough about it to give me a good vibe as to whether Clooney's attempt at portraying the momentous battle of ideas and words – between Edward R. Murrow at CBS and the junior Wisconsin senator, Joseph McCarthy – would be a worthwhile detour to make.

Since its cover hinted at mono-colour tones, it made the decision for me.

After watching the film, there were a few aspects that truly made me contemplate about the role of the media, the perpetual salience of ideas and their significance in shaping our perspectives of the world – hence, how we make sense of events around us and thus, react to them. In light of the enlightening virtues that this film sought to illuminate in its audience, I have decided to pen down a few of my musings and hopefully, explore the essence of what the film wanted to achieve.

A common refrain espoused by those in the media industry, especially those who fervently believe that the job of the media is to 'report the news, not make it'. Implicit in this simplistic belief is the underlying assumption that as humans, our subjectivities which are as inherent and real as those of charismatic galvanisers like Hitler, Stalin, Chiang Kai-Shek or Vaclav Havel, can somehow be magically insulated when we apply our intellect and analytical skills to our subject matter that we deal with each day. To borrow from the post-modernist school of thought, there is no such thing as objectivity, but rather a menagerie of subjectivities that compete with each other on a multitude of levels of meaning. The degree of subjectivity residing in our thoughts and ideas is not measured solely by its visibility, but also by the subtle inferences within the vernacular of which we use.

It does not mean that subjectivity as apparent as that expressed in Hitler's numerous speeches deserves more attention for correction and censorship than the multitudinous examples of subjectivities expressed by individuals as they write in the forums, columns and articles circulating in the media. In fact, the more surreptitious and innocuous-seeming the subjectivity, the greater the pernicious nature and the tougher to erase it from the minds of those it has embedded itself in.

Having said that, let us return to that refrain aforementioned – reporters and correspondents do the reporting on the field, and judging from the enormous risks that they face in volatile areas such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, their courage in venturing forth into unknown territory to gather information is commendable, and I take nothing away from them. Who else would do the reporting in their place? Though there may be lapses in their judgement in reporting facts – and there have been – enforcement of legal action against those whose integrity have been found questionable has proved effective.

However, editors of publications cannot entertain pretensions to the same claim: the crucial task of editing lies in their hands – what lands on the front page becomes the agenda of the day; how many pages it occupies determines to a significant extent as to its relative importance. In this world whereby globalisation has engineered the profusion of media coverage across territories, attention of the global community still focuses on what is most visible. Humanitarian crises in North Korea and Iran are given more coverage than those in Sudan and Africa, partly because media networks cannot get past government censors there. This analogy displays just how powerful editors are in determining the visibility, and by extension the prominence, of issues in civil society.

Edward R. Murrow's sheer bravery in challenging what McCarthy stood for exposes the crumbling edifice that is the mass media today: what happened to the Fourth Estate that the media was supposed to represent – an avenue which civil society could seek to utilise and channel its grievances to the government, to question the logic and necessity of policies and legislation, to foster and strengthen minds and perspectives against being lured into buying into the lazy, seductive logic of a dominant hegemonic discourse? How loyal is the media to civil society, or has it sold its morality to corporate and special interests within the state?

Murrow is right when he berates those who perceive the role of the media as simply to amuse, entertain and insulate – that will only result in the infantilisation of civil society, erode critical thinking and allow the festering of auto-regulatory practices among individuals such that they resort to self-censorship for fear of being prosecuted and blacklisted by those in power. Ideas are destroyed before they come to light, and the less frequent human capacities are flexed to generate them, the more degenerative the malaise becomes, till the greatest resource the state has at its disposal erodes to nothingness.

The importance of editorial integrity is a continuous theme throughout the film: to challenge the story if there is no corroborative evidence. Otherwise, facts and figures are merely pawns in a chess game where the editors are the kings and queens that determine what is fact and fiction. Murrow, despite knowing that his reputation would be attacked by McCarthy, and that sponsors would pull out for fear of being perceived as going against public opinion as engineered by McCarthy's witch-hunt, took on the junior senator and exposed him for attempting to exploit the fear existing in America with regard to Communism.

Propagandistic pronouncements against Communism served both internal and external purposes for McCarthy, and his success in generating support among Americans cannot mean simply that culpability belongs solely to him. As Murrow emphasised, he did not create fear, but opportunistically exploited it for his vested interests. Internally, perhaps McCarthy was making a power play in a bid to oust rivals – he was young, ambitious and possibly had high hopes for ascending the ranks of government. Externally, the US needed to be seen as actively combating Communism wherever it persisted or threatened to permeate into. Citizens chose to believe in McCarthy's scare-mongering tactics because it had always been easier to blame an 'Other' for societal ills, and for the pervasive, lingering sense of insecurity after the Soviet Union emerged as a potential counterweight to the mighty US.

If McCarthy had succeeded in his multiple attempts at convicting and persecuting individuals in the name of anti-Communism, he might have very easily been lured to utilise the momentum of public opinion to start targeting his political opponents and skeptics. Witch-hunts start out on a limited agenda, but almost always widen by embracing an ever-expanding definition of the 'Other' that serves its ever-narrowing objectives – it inspires a race to the bottom in the sense that each faction has no idea when exactly other factions may start accusing it of defecting to the enemy, and thus has every incentive to be ever-ready to point the finger at someone else in the absence of substantial evidence.

Need more evidence? Look no further than the turbulent events leading up to the independence of Singapore, where the People's Action Party had engaged in horse-trading with the British colonial authorities and the Tunku of Malaya then in the 1960s to carry out a witch-hunt against Communists. The PAP had no qualms about accusing its fiercest political rivals of being Communist front-men and sympathisers, persecuting them despite having absolutely no concrete evidence to back up their claims. Till this day, the legacy of anti-Communism still hangs over the heads of political opponents to the PAP like a Sword of Damocles, though in different forms as Communism has lost its ideological potency as an 'Other' in the modern era.

Ironically, McCarthyism and the tactics involved resembled the Soviet-inspired witch hunts against enemies of Communism throughout Eastern Europe, in the form of show trials.

The diffusion of power of the government – to employ the media for purposes that are aligned with the agenda of the day – was a problem then, and has persisted to this day. A junior senator from Wisconsin was able to intimidate the press and institutionalise within civil society a stifling atmosphere of fear, paranoia and auto-regulation. Galvanised by a seemingly apathetic public, the witch-hunt advocates of McCarthyism managed to create a regime of fear, establishing norms of social behaviour that would inevitably result in the alienation and individuation of individuals. It may not have been inaccurate or reckless to speculate that the US might possibly have been at risk of descending into fascism, besieged by such scare-mongering in the Cold War period, with regard to the Soviet Union's nuclear capabilities and the frightening success with which Communism still retained its intellectual legitimacy and seductive logic across the Atlantic during that time. Of course, it would be discredited as the century played itself out, but we have the advantage of retrospective analysis, while the majority of Americans did not in the 1950s.

Murrow's statement regarding the invidious intentions of the senator deserve repeating here: "If none of us ever read a book that was 'dangerous,' nor had a friend who was 'different,' or never joined an organization that advocated 'change,' we would all be just the kind of people Joe McCarthy wants."

The obligations of the media are even more disparate in the current age of turbulence. James Rosenau's post-internationalism provides an effective paradigm through which we may seek to understand the complexity of actorness and interests that shape the choices made in the mass media industry. Therein lies a clash of interests between shareholders, sponsors and the public. Though at times, their interests may coincide on several issues, more often than not the editors are the individuals that are torn between obligations to separate parties. Does the truth count for more than the bottom line?

When public apathy is assumed, politicians tend to believe that politics should be left solely to those in power/government. Thus, McCarthy thought he could win this contest of competitive credibility against Murrow because his logic of anti-Communism exploited the urgency of which the public was so eager for, to address the prevailing situation of less-than-reassuring security. However, when Murrow led CBS in its defiant stance against McCarthyism, it represented the tipping point for the public as they began to act upon their nagging doubts about the truth behind McCarthy's tirades. He gave the people a voice, and he understood that public opinion was essential to winning this contest of credibility. More importantly, he utilised the media as the platform from which he could keep the issue on the agenda even when newspapers and publications across the country would not dare to do the same, and even when Alcoa pulled out its funding.

When individuals come into contact with ideas and information, and are receptive to it, that is an act of empowerment. Murrow taught me, and hopefully us, of the importance of ideas that shape our perspectives. It is our ambitions, fears and prejudices that imbue meaning into ideas – if we allow others to define what we should believe in, if we allow them to dull our senses and propensities, then ideas become nothing more than empty vessels that ring hollow, tools of intellectual oppression exploited to manipulate and dictate our thoughts, delineate the limits of action and speech and ultimately consign us as blind followers of a flawed ideology. It is easier to conform than to challenge, but which matters more – your integrity or your reputation?

I do not pretend to know how difficult it must be for editors of publications anywhere in the world to constantly balance between retaining sponsorship as the proliferation of media burgeons and competition intensifies intermestically and still maintaining a considerable degree of integrity and obligation as the Fourth Estate, but as consumers of the media, don't we have the agency and collective power to demand that publishers and corporate interests listen to us instead of the other way round?

Gidden's structuration theory proposes that agents affect and are affected by the structures they operate in – thus, our actions are shaped by the norms and principles of our environment, but as we act upon our prejudices and predilections we reinforce, alter or reject those norms and principles. A duality exists in that we are not merely passive receptacles waiting to be spoonfed by the media – we can change it. A more pluralistic form of media needs to be promoted and reinforced, but that does not merely mean more alternatives, since consumers may mistake substitutes for substance. Is there a way to render media less beholden and susceptible to blackmail and retaliatory tactics by corporate interests and sponsors?

If we could trust government intervention, then perhaps governments can provide incentives to reward those in the media industry who advocate and practise diversification of sponsorship, promising to intervene to fund should any sponsor threaten to withdraw. In conditions of perfect competition, as soon as one sponsor withdraws, another should fill its place. In reality, this is not the case as CBS found out as soon as Alcoa pulled out. NGOs, armed with resources that can be harnessed beyond territorial borders, are empowered with the capabilities of promoting the idea of the media as the Fourth Estate by garnering funding for such companies in the event of a pull-out, thereby preventing corporate and special interests from having an effective veto over agenda-setting by the media for the public.

These are just some suggestions that I've come up with, but obviously there is much more material to be explored with regard to media, integrity and special interests. And so I shall delve deeper into these subjects and hopefully obtain a clearer perspective of such matters.

A quote of Murrow's is in order:

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box.

Good night, and good luck.

München

2007-11-18T16:02:00.000+08:00

Herzlich Willkommen in München! Endlich habe ich eine Post über München geschrieben. Oft unterhalten wir uns über unseren Urlaub in der Klasse, deshalb will ich hier von München erzählen.

I have finally decided to post about München, after about 5 months since we left that wondrous city, the heart of Germany as some would affectionately call it. In my German Language class, we spend a considerable proportion of our time discussing about our holidays and what we did - 'Was hast du gemacht?' - and therefore I've decided to pay a tribute to this charming place called München. (the paragraph above this one is not a complete translation of this paragraph, in case you are wondering)

You know who's big in Europe? Kylie Minogue, that's who - her posters are plastered everywhere across the continent. 'Die Stadt wird heiß' translates into 'the city will be hot' - a reference, obviously, to the new apparel brands.

Marienplatz (pronounced 'ma-e-yearn-plarzt') - the central town square from which most walking tours start. The thing about München is that it's a fusion of both modernity and history, even though it sustained heavy damage in the Second World War - cobblestones stretching across the plaza, beside glass-paned apparel stores.

Still wondering what the crowd was gazing at in amazement in the opening shot? It's the famous Glockenspiel!

The story goes: when the church was in the midst of construction, the Devil himself actually visited it and stood on this exact same spot. He observed that from where he stood, no light could actually be seen. Thus, he promised to fund the construction since he envisioned that this church would be dark, miserable and utterly conducive for the desecration of whatever piousness or religiosity that people would have. However, if he had bothered to step aside and ventured a few paces forward...

...upon returning to the fully constructed church, the Devil was so enraged that the priest who received his funding actually managed to trick the Devil himself - he stamped his foot in anger (leaving the footprint) and left, never to return!

Apparently, that's King Ludwig, whose apparent fascination with a prostitute's bosom led to his abdication. Lola Montez was of lowly status, but was given an honorary title because she married Ludwig. The locals became infuriated with the audacity of the king, inciting protestations that forced Ludwig to concede more and more till he had to abandon Lola (who died in the arms of a priest) and abdicate in the 1848 revolutions.

The holy grail! Das Hofbrauhaus - possibly the most talked-about locale for those crazy, beer-guzzling American backpackers, whose main objective while travelling across Europe is to seek out the cheapest beer and the wildest parties. Apparently, it opens at 11am and Bavarians stream in and out the whole day, consuming beer in great, great quantities. Their beer mugs are huge - one guy we met at Interlaken actually showed 2 of those to us! Did he buy them? He cheekily quipped that his friends snuck those out during one night.

Don't assume that all Germans love beer, or the same brew - that's one very serious misconception. Regional identities feature prominently in Germany, and Bavarians are better known for their beer-guzzling capabilities, Oktoberfest and the notorious Lederhosen! To use an analogy, every individual German likes a unique variant of brew. Hence, the reason behind federal parliaments, why North Germans can't fully understand Bavarians - not only the language but prejudices too - and why the nation is such a diverse hodgepodge of cultures, identities and personalities!

Biergarten - the beer gardens under which locals sit, talk and enjoy their daily mug!

Aerial view of the city.

I could luxuriate in the roadside cafes all day long in München - conscientiously scribbling musings, rifling through editorials, relishing literature and prose - all while sipping on coffee or beer, people-watching and just basking in the cool, comforting pace of things.

München - ich liebe dich!

To Persecute is Sin

2007-10-26T22:15:00.001+08:00

Bacchus would have been crucified in this age of ours.

Via adri's blog, I chanced upon NMP Thio Li-Ann's speech on homosexuality, speaking in favour of preserving S377A, which is the statute criminalising sex between homosexuals. Taking the easy way out, she reverts to the standard, tried-and-tested line of arguments concerning 'decadent Western values' as opposed to 'conservative' ones ingrained in our society (somehow entirely negating the fact that Singaporean society was once fundamentally a migrant one - there is nothing fundamental about the values that the government now champions to be 'natural' of our culture. Furthermore, she rampages on with her tirade against homosexuality, miserably failing to construct a persuasive, objective argument as her religious prejudices as a Christian seep through the facade.

The ‘liberal’ camp wants 377A repealed. They offer an ‘argument from consent’ –government should not police the private sexual behaviour of consenting adults. They opine this violates their liberty or ‘privacy’. They ask, ‘Why criminalize something which does not “harm” anyone; if homosexuals are “born that way”, isn’t it unkind to ‘discriminate’ against their sexual practices?

Obviously, she makes the effort to hyphenate 'privacy' to show that this is not a fundamental human right of individuals in society – does this mask a particular disdain for liberal ideas?

These flawed arguments are marinated with distracting fallacies which obscure what is at stake – repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties.

Evoking the ever-useful conspiracy theory of an organised, militant, fundamentalist liberal establishment that has somehow managed to pull together the necessary resources, manpower and ideological heft to launch a revolution of ideas and morals - all these in a state where the civil sphere is being monitored and policed with frustrating efficiency (self-contradictory, fallacious argument, no?).

“The common good” - assumption that what is good for the conservative establishment is good for society – now that is tyranny of the majority; such an argument made seemingly in the name of well-intentioned cosmopolitanism disguises the pretensions of those who would seek to justify the existing ideological hegemonic structure because it benefits the status quo of those whose ideas are privileged over the rest.

The ‘communitarian’ camp argues from ‘community values’ – these social conservatives want 377A retained, to protect public health, morality, decency and order. A Keep 377A online petition attracted over 15,000 signatures after a few days.

And a Repeal 377A petition attracted how many signatures? Were celebrities at Mediacorp impassioned enough to use their reputation and status to come up with a counter-move against the Repeal 377A video made by fellow counterparts such as Pam Oei, Beatrice Chia, Mark Richmond and Lim Kay Siu?

Like many, I applaud the government’s wisdom in keeping 377A which conserves what upholds the national interest. ‘Conservative’ here is not a dirty word connoting backwardness; environmental conservation protects our habitat; the moral ecology must be conserved to protect what is precious and sustains a dynamic, free and good society.

The national interest as defined by the interests of the ruling class, no? Is Ms Thio championing the primacy of state interests over societal interests? Why talk about national interest and sneak in notions of our 'moral sovereignty' being violated by external enemies? Even adopting the rationale of Ms Thio's baseless tirade, what seems to be a 'logical' conclusion is that the weakening of the moral institution equates to a violation of the government's sovereignty to establish its own moral code, which would eventually result in its failure to uphold territorial sovereignty. Thinly disguised, it is merely an attempt at bolstering the 'siege mentality', that we have to have 'the Other', identify and demonise it so as to galvanise our people and preserve our identity.

Equating conservatism and conservation? Conservatism is an ideology, and thus possesses less persuasive potential to be accepted as a public good – fortunately, for Thio, this ideology has been synthesised within the predominant ideology of elitism in Singapore. Possibly noting the spectacular success with which – ironically – the Left (which Ms Thio seems so eager to bash and crucify) has taken up the agenda of environmentalism and forced governments worldwide to treat it as an important issue, Ms Thio hijacks the intellectual arguments of environmentalism and uses it as a vehicle to assert her claim that conservatism is as natural and logical a cause as conservation. Heck, even environmentalism can be classified as an ideology, and is vulnerable to being criticised as a tool used by First World countries to place the burden of current environmental problems onto Third World countries.

The real question is not “if” but “should” we ever repeal 377A. It is not inevitable; it is not desirable to repeal it in any event. Not only is retaining s377A sound public policy, it is legally and constitutionally beyond reproach.

Crude determinism at work here – Ms Thio seems to be arguing that there can only be one form of approaching to tackling diversity: criminalising it; one form of action that homosexuals will take: engaging in unprotected sex; if so, then does that not exclude sodomy as an act of free will – then there is no basis for morality, is there? Thio brings up public morality, but insists on determinist outcomes. This is surely evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of her argument.

As law has a moral basis, we need to consider which morality to legislate. Neither the majority or minority is always right – but there are fundamental values beyond fashion and politics which serve the common good. Religious views are part of our common morality.

Conceptualising morality as absolute extremes rather than a spectrum encourages polarised debate, the type of which Thio engages in but professes to eschew.

Religion does provide guidelines as to what is considered moral or not, but shouldn't Singapore – professing to be a secular state – get its hands off dabbling with religious concepts of sin and morality? Religious views are part of common morality, but not the totality of it. What underpins morality in society should not be dictated by orthodox views of any particular religious community. It is the confluence, negotiation that produces a healthy moral code that is both accepted and accepting of views – between one religious community and another, and between religious and secular communities.

Incidentally, one does not have to be religious to consider homosexuality contrary to biological design and immoral; secular philosopher Immanuel Kant considered homosexuality “immoral acts against our animal nature” which did not preserve the species and dishonoured humanity.

One does not have to condemn homosexuality if one is religious – Thio makes the mistake of attempting to speak as if the religious establishment were one monolithic bloc. Is she surreptitiously attempting to sneak in her fundamentalist Christian views as a blanketing mechanism for the justification of criminalisation of homosexual acts? Is she seeking to establish and demand ideological hegemony within her own religious establishment?

Singapore is an independent state and we can decide the 377A issue ourselves; we have no need of foreign or neo-colonial moral imperialism in matters of fundamental morality.

If morality is so fundamental, why do people have different conceptions of it? Are these 'deviants' simply misguided, obtuse to the apparent obviousness of it? Funnily enough, while Thio speaks of moral imperialism and how to defend it, her spiel is eerily reminiscent of the stance of the evangelical Christian movement in the US. I would argue that the argument of rejecting the 'colonial mindset' is truly invalid – the British were the ones who first criminalised homosexuality.

What is at work here is the 'anti-colonial mindset', which perceives cultural globalisation as a tool of the 'imperialists' to propagate decadence. If it can be argued that the British 'conditioned' us to reject homosexuality, does that not prove that we adhere to the 'colonial mindset'? She renders her argument vulnerable to the charge of ethonocentrism – symptomatic of the colonial mindset.

Homosexual activists often try to infiltrate and hijack human rights initiatives to serve their political agenda, discrediting an otherwise noble cause to protect the weak and poor.

Ironically, she is just as guilty of this intellectual hijacking - of the environmentalist agenda. Of course, she never goes on the elucidate exactly who constitutes the 'weak and poor', and lopsidedly perceives through biased lens that any campaign by homosexual activists can be safely assumed to be of malevolent, power-hungry intent, while the down-trodden are supposedly unquestionably pure.

Ms Thio doesn't even bother concerning herself with the fact that the government assiduously treats the issue of poverty very seriously for fear of societal backlash, so the rights of the downtrodden are well-respected and addressed because of the potential political consequences. She talks as if the 'weak and poor' in Singapore are having a problem attempting to highlight their plight, while the selfish homosexual activists are crowding out public space for discussion.

Race is a fixed trait.

No, it isn't. Refer to Dan's response - race is a social construct.

Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder; there are numerous examples of former homosexuals successfully dealing with this.

She seems to ardently believe that the only way to resolve this 'identity disorder' is simply to reject homosexuality altogether, that the only chance for redemption and acceptance is to become an 'ex-gay'. What about homosexuals who aren't dealing well with societal pressure to conform to norms of heterosexuality? Does Thio not recognise the damaging potential of stigmatisation on homosexuals? Or that they 'deserve' it anyway, and should not be designated the right to be free from discrimination?

‘Sexual minorities’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are vague terms – covering anything from homosexuality, bestiality, incest, paedophilia – do all these minority sexual practices merit protection?

Third, 377A does not breach the article 12 guarantee of equality. While all human persons are of equal worth, not all human behaviour is equally worthy. We separate the actor from the act. In criminalizing acts, we consider the wrongfulness of the act, the harm caused and how it affects the good of society.

Thio employs the common technique of bunching up terms in order to insidiously suggest a correlation between them – for your information, Ms Thio, there is more empirical evidence of paedophilia, bestiality and incest commited by heterosexuals available in the media – so why can't Thio resist the temptation to equate them as crimes typical of homosexuals rather than of people in general?

But that is not what she is doing – she has unequivocally stated her opposition towards homosexuality as a 'disorder', not sodomy alone. Notice that she likes to use 'we' to mask her own personal opinions as socially acceptable notions. Or she could be harbouring pretensions: what is good for her is good for everyone.

Opposite-sex sodomy is harmful, but medical studies indicate that same-sex sodomy carries a higher price tag for society because of higher promiscuity and frequency levels. The New York Times reported that even informed homosexuals return to unsafe practices like bare-backing and bug-chasing after a health crisis wanes. A British Study showed that the legalization of homosexual sodomy correlated with an upsurge of STDs among gays. Common sense tells us that with more acceptance, any form of consensual sexual behaviour increases. Sodomy laws have some deterrent effect.

Interestingly enough, this is what I found from that very same report:

"Just because folks are well informed doesn't mean they'll necessarily make the wisest choices in terms of their health," said Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, who oversees AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "This is true of all humanity, not just gay men."

The government should focus on preventing HIV through more active media and informational campaigns of the debilitating consequences of HIV, drugs and unprotected sex – not shift the blame on the homosexual community. The article even explores the destructive impact of stigmatisation of homosexuality by society that results in depression, substance abuse and low self-esteem that drives homosexuals to take risks.

As far as we know, Ms Thio eschews neo-colonial imperialism, but most of the empirical evidence used to support her stance is drawn from Western publications. Not only is she assuming that all societies are homogenous and will react the same manner, she is also consciously attempting to recreate the same patterns of discrimination and stigmatisation here by devaluing homosexuality. Tell me this isn't blind ethnocentrism.

She never questions the spurious connection between trends – legalisation of homosexual acts would have made them more open and visible to the public, and religious fundamentalists might have led the charge to demonise homosexuals (after all, they possess greater access to media outlets) and thus concentrated public attention on gays, or pushing them into depression – what about HIV rates of heterosexuals?

Medical literature indicates that gays have disproportionately higher STDs rates, which puts them in a different category from the general public, warranting different treatment.

Nobody is advocating discriminating them from society solely based on 'medical literature', and Thio certainly does not own a monopoly of 'medical literature'. Thio herself is proposing delineating a dichotomy in society between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Note her use of the word 'treatment', confirming the fact that she does perceive homosexuality as a disease.

Heterosexual sodomy unlike homosexual sodomy does not undermine the understanding of heterosexuality as the preferred social norm.

Thio finally reveals her prejudices: society should be more concerned with preserving heterosexuality as an institution, and this objective is valued above the 'less important' issues of deterring people from 'paedophilia, bestiality and incest'. Homosexuality as a crime is more serious than any crime that a heterosexual may commit in his or her bedroom.

Public sexual morality must buttress strong families based on faithful union between man and wife, the best model for raising children.

Empirical evidence, please? The only reason why this may even sound remotely acceptable to the public is that generations of people have been born into societies whereby heterosexuality is the predominant way of life. But a dominant way of life does not imply that it is the best way of life.

The argument from consent ultimately celebrates sexual libertine values, the fruit of which is sexual licentiousness, a culture of lust, which takes, rather than love, which gives. This social decline will provoke more headlines like a 2004 Her World article called: “Gay guy confesses: I slept with 100 men…one of them could be your hubby.” What about the broken-hearts involved?

Yes, excuse her while she conveniently dismisses the constant proliferation of confessions from porn-stars and prostitutes serving heterosexuals. Why, I expected her to blame the popularisation of the 'culture of lust' on decadent 'Western values'! Where did the anti-colonial mantra go?

Sir, government policy is not to pro-actively enforce 377A. Some argue that just keeping this law on the books will erode the rule of law. I disagree. It is not turning a blind eye on the existence of homosexuals here; it is refusing to celebrate homosexuality while allowing gays to live quiet lives. This is prudent, as it is difficult to enforce ‘bedroom’ offences; such intrusive powers should be judiciously used anyway.

The sheer pretension to moral superiority is simply disgusting: she actually believes that homosexuals should be content with living 'quiet lives', not to raise trouble or make noise like everyone else can, but to simply rejoice in the right to exist and live on earth, then fade away into the next world. Furthermore, her pompous tone seems to indicate that the 'generosity' and 'tolerance' of the state should be appreciated.

Since the laws are there, we might as well use them! What good is the law if we don't enforce it, right? My fear is that when she talks about using laws 'judiciously', she is referring to the distinguishment between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy, and not according to the especial circumstances of the particular case.

Conversely, homosexual activists lobby hard for a radical sexual revolution, waging a liberal fundamentalist crusade against traditional morality. They adopt a ‘step by step’ approach to hide how radical the agenda is. Liberals never ask: what happens next if you repeal 377A.

More conspiracy theories and panic-mongering! The spectre of homosexual revolution is hanging like a Sword of Damocles over the heads of Singaporeans, it seems.

Conservatives never ask: what happens if the existing system has kinks? Conservatism as an ideology respects wisdom, longevity, time-honoured traditions and the tried-and-tested way of doing things. As such, they are more rigid and less likely to respond effectively to changes in circumstances and public opinion.

Sir, to protect homosexuals, some countries have criminalized not sodomy but opposition to sodomy, making it a ‘hate crime’ to criticize homosexuality. This violates freedom of speech and religion; will sacred texts that declare homosexuality morally deviant, like the Bible and Koran, be criminalized? Social unrest beckons. Such assaults on constitutional liberties cannot be tolerated.

Always useful to resort to worst-case-scenarios and then portray the argument as a valiant struggle against the inevitable apocalypse should 377A be repealed. Just to note, Ms Thio, freedom of speech on issues like religion is not tolerated in Singapore – the government has made it explicitly clear that such divisive issues are not to be discussed openly. Politicisation of race and religion in Singapore by the state has rendered any commentary, public or private, equally liable to scrutiny. Most citizens have recognised these markers and have not sought to challenge them. The probability that individuals and homosexual activists would openly and defiantly call for criminalisation of 'hate speech' is low, because the government will see to it that it is the final adjudicator on such issues, and anyone who dares to cross the markers will be severely punished. This applies to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.

That Ms Thio has failed to consider domestic political realities and instead chosen to indiscriminately apply foreign experiences to the local circumstances bespeaks of her narrow-mindedness and ignorance.

Steps 4 and 5 relate to legalizing same-sex marriage or partnerships, child adoption rights. This subverts both marriage and family, which are institutions homosexuals seek to redefine beyond recognition. Will MOE then commission a book copying the US “Heather has 2 mummies” called “Ah Beng has 2 daddies?” What if parents disagree with their kids studying homosexual propaganda?

Ms Thio is oblivious enough not to recognise the subtle heterosexual 'propaganda' in MOE textbooks and curricula.

To slouch back to Sodom is to return to the Bad Old Days in ancient Greece or even China where sex was utterly wild and unrestrained, and homosexuality was considered superior to man-women relations. Women’s groups should note that where homosexuality was celebrated, women were relegated to low social roles; when homosexuality was idealized in Greece, women were objects not partners, who ran homes and bore babies. Back then, whether a man had sex with another man, woman or child was a matter of indifference, like one’s eating preferences. The only relevant category was penetrator and penetrated; sex was not seen as interactive intimacy, but a doing of something to someone. How degrading.

This admission is laughable, mainly due to the complete obtuseness of Ms Thio – where has she been living all her life? One does not have to venture into ancient Chinese or Greek history to witness the 'Bad Old Days' whereby women were viewed as merely existing to serve reproductive functions, to stay at home and bear babies because that is their 'preordained' role in society – they should accept their submissive position and let the men deal with the 'important matters' of life. The Great Marriage debate is merely one of several signifiers that the patriarchal order demands and expects that women should perform their 'highest national duty as reproducers of the nation' (Kenneth Paul Tan).

Furthermore, sexual objectification of women in the modern age has been a phenomenon triggered and catalysed by the profusion of promiscuity and expansion of the media. Thio equates homosexuality with female discrimination, when patriarchal systems of governance and law are the likelier perpetrators. In fact, heterosexuality is conducive for the reproduction of successive systems of patriarchy, while homosexuality challenges the conventional public/private division of labour between couples. However, this is an issue that can be discussed at another point in time. If this isn't a snarky attempt to seek scapegoats to absolve patriarchy of its complicity in the prejudice against women, I don't know what is.

However, I have noted a disturbing phenomenon over the 377A debate– the argument by insult. Instead of reasoning, some have resorted to name-calling to intimidate and silence their opponents. People with principled moral objections to the homosexual agenda are tarred and feathered ‘homophobes’, ‘bigots’, to shut them up. This strategy is unoriginally imported from foreign gay activists, which stifles creative thinking and intellectual enquiry.

Vilification of homosexual activists is also an unoriginal tactic copied from practices of fundamentalist Christian groups and associations in the US. Ms Thio should not take us as fools - her vernacular is replete with subtle and overt references to her disdain and prejudical attitude towards homosexuality.

Are You the Son of the Son of the Son?

2007-09-27T20:05:00.000+08:00

Imperfect past makes present tense in The Campaign to Confer the Public Service Star on JBJ.

Frankly, I just can't seem to resist tattling out the entire title of the play that we just watched on Tuesday night! It deserves to be recognised and publicised through word of mouth (or through the blogosphere) for its brilliance in execution and for instigating critical thinking about the state of politics in Singapore. I won't pretend to understand every single aspect of the film that the friendly, feisty Pam Oei and Rodney Oliveiro (whom I last saw in Spin on Ch5, acting as the resident guitar-jamming bad boy) fleshed out so vividly in the 2-hour production - it is thought-provoking, intense, reflective with a modicum of pessimism injected into for good measure.

Bureaucracy

Rodney had rhetorically quoted Shakespeare and asked, "What's in a name?" True enough, this theme of 'names', or rather the blatant obfuscation of connotations related to these names, resonated throughout the play. Titles such as DSP, 2DS and PPS with which the characters address each other - the formalistic, civil conversations and mood of the scenes betray the kind of stifling, rigid bureaucratic mechanisms that make up the essence of how exactly this country is run by the government. Typical accusations of alienation and impersonal detachment that are associated with too efficient a bureaucracy come to mind - indeed, that formed wellsprings of discontent in Singapore's electoral history, when the PAP witnessed swings of support.

The 'other JBJ'

A contentious issue kept cropping up in discussions post-play: did another JBJ - supposedly non-political and uncontroversial - exist in the reality of the play? David Lee referred to this 'other JBJ', which deflected a fair share of concerns away from those who were worried that if they would be compromised should they acknowledge any association with the real JBJ. Yet it seems that all the characters were quick to resort to acknowledging the existence of this 'other JBJ', as if this person was just as well-known and prominent as the real JBJ.

The supposition is this: that 'the other JBJ' is referring to the JBJ, except that the usage of 'the other JBJ' is merely a tactic to avoid compromising oneself should Big Brother be surveiling. To put it simply, 'the other JBJ' is merely a legal fiction that common citizens choose to believe (implicit in the common understanding is that there is no other JBJ) in order to escape being complicitly involved with JBJ himself. Reiterating Shakespeare's maxim, "What's in a name?"

'The other JBJ' refers to the JBJ - perhaps one could perceive it as a facetious, misguided attempt to separate the political JBJ from the citizen JBJ, but the reality is that both are inseparable and part of one man. Which is eerily reflective of the state of Singapore's civic arena: everything is politics - there is no separation between the civic and the civil. A person who criticises the political system had best be prepared to defend his stand because the very act of criticism conveys a desire to wield power as a citizen and change politics. And that does not escape the attention of the political powers.

It could be further reasoned that the characters - by constantly upkeeping this myth of 'the other JBJ' - are exercising self-censorship on themselves, as displayed by the numerous rejections that the protagonist met with as he tried his best to find backers for his campaign. David realises that he needs to play this game of deliberate obfuscation to get through channels - thereby adopting the myth of 'the other JBJ' - and not be perceived as someone out to create trouble. Another perspective is that this exercise in 'negative-naming' is an ingenious mechanism within which to conduct discussions about controversial political issues between citizens, hence implying that it is actually a tool of civil society.

The Other, JBJ. Would that not be possible as well? What's in a name, really?

Clara Tang (and her father)

Clara is obviously in the throes of a conundrum - attempting to balance between doing her job as a civil servant of the bureaucracy and doing what's 'right'. As a product of the system in Singapore, she finds it difficult to abandon gratitude for the people who have gifted her with this track to material success. She finds out that she, too, cannot escape from this tried-and-tested route to career advancement that her own father has also taken. Her father is presumably a high-ranking civil servant who took this route, followed all protocol without questions - basically, fulfilling the criteria for a candidate of Max Weber's ideal bureaucracy: dispassionate, rational, efficient and respectful of rules.

Why do various characters such as the DSP and PPS refer to her father by asking if he still plays golf, or if he holds a handicap? Isn't 'golf' a luxury for the wealthy? Does that not hint at the monetary benefits enjoyed by the father, therefore reinforcing the attractiveness of the iron rice bowl of the civil service?

Phillip T

Only Phillip speaks of Clara's father in a wry, sarcastic tone: "Still an uncompromising bastard?" This hints at Phillip's possible disgust for Clara's father's unyielding conformity to the dictates of the bureaucracy. Phillip's sense of righteousness as editor of a newspaper to uphold the truth is manifested in his desire to uncover the so-called 'conspiracy' that he suspects is being engineered to cover up David's demise. He is portrayed as deeply skeptical of the government, and is more than enthusiastic in keeping the possibility of conspiracy alive through the press. When Clara advocates restraint - she believes that Phillip is allowing his skepticism of government to cloud his ethics - Phillip accuses her of selling her conscience and betraying her ideals. Hence, the animosity that culminates into a heated confrontation between the two, when Phillip loses his job and asks Clara if she's happy.

This tension between the two protagonists due to conflict of professional ethics has been simmering beneath the surface - contained for the sake of friendship, but more importantly for Clara, her selfish desire to fulfil her sexual needs with Phillip. As such, who can blame Phillip for feeling used and humiliated so that Clara can continue presenting herself as free from the torment of having to grapple with her conscience?

Eventually, it simply had to give, and Clara had her first silent intercourse with Phillip for a long, long time - literally and figuratively speaking.

Serving both ends

The closing scene reflects the exact message intended by the government in reality: seemingly edging towards acceptance of political reform yet fundamentally insistent on the maintenance of the status quo. By conferring the Public Service Star on David Lee and not on JBJ, Clara has taken a cautious step towards recognising the legitimacy, relevance and contribution of political figures who dared to oppose the government. The government, though grudging in condoning the act of conferring the Star, also sees it as beneficial to itself since it projects an openness to political reform.

Hence, the Man with the Iron Cane lambasts Clara for being naive in thinking that the idealism of her generation will bring about anything but utter ruin to the country - and Clara turns to face him at the end, disobeying his strict orders not to. It does redeem Clara in the eyes of the audience, and more importantly, it seems to hint at the reality that though civil society is forced to be evasive and self-obfuscatory, change is inevitable, no matter how gradual or seemingly insignificant. The very act of political commentary is motivated by a desire to change it.

Spliced with bits of humour, comic timing, daring antics and witty comebacks, Pam and Rodney deliver a solid piece of political commentary that forces us to consider the realities of the system: idealism versus pragmatism; is there place for morality and ethics in Singapore as defined by Western thought?; the supposedly neutral, non-political bureaucracy; innovations of civil activism that stem from the co-optation of civil society into civic society.

Imperfect past makes present tense. Indeed, the trappings of the past that still define the mindset of the political powers, and it will not be easily dismantled - not if they have their way with it.

Requiem Part 2

2007-09-02T20:43:00.001+08:00

Is there a wider gulf between Civilisation and the State of Nature, or within Civilisation itself?

In Part 1 of Requiem, I had concluded with the fact that the 'lowest common denominator' was not as I had posited it to be (preservation of life, liberty and property) but rather the grim reality of authoritarianism. As Thomas Hobbes had opined, his thoughts and perspectives shaped by the violent experiences of civil war, humans were inherently selfish and thus existed in that state of nature in which conflict was a natural occurence, even an unavoidable inevitability. He then laid down his suggestion that a sole sovereign would be responsible for governing over the peoples, asserting that the latter had, without hesitation, surrender all rights to this sovereign. This would be the first and only conscious choice each individual in that state of perpetual war would feel compelled to make; upon subordinating those rights to the sovereign, the individual would have absolutely no power whatsoever to challenge the authority of the sovereign. The system of authoritarian rule championed by Hobbes did not consider the unchallenged authority of the sovereign problematic, and neither did he express reservations should the sovereign choose to expand that authority to decide life, empoverishment or death for its subjects.

Hence, the warning that democracy may prove to be 'one man, one vote, one time' is highly relevant and should disabuse intellectuals of the notion that democracy alone guarantees the preservation of life, liberty and property. 'Preservation' against the reversion to the state of war is an obvious, fundamental concern and a bulwark against anarchy (chaos and violence) and lawlessness; equally imperative is 'preservation' against governmental abuse, because the synergy of the collectivisation of material resources, concentration of common political objectives, culmination of collective interests and the consecration of the institution that is the government in legitimacy points towards the government as the most powerful entity in the state. Thus, the most powerful is also the most likely to abuse that power. The only countervailing force that can limit the usage of power by the government comes from the People. Being the same entity that has bestowed upon the government legitimacy and right of representation, the People as a collective force is also the most dependable defender of civil liberties and rights.

As kurt pointed to an article he had composed a few months back, lamenting the disheartening state of affairs in the US, here was my response:

a jacksonian, I lament as well the state of affairs that the political system, electorate and the once time-honoured traditions of pluralist politics and demagoguery-free deliberation has degenerated into.

During the inter-war years, the sentiment of dolchstosselegende, or the "stab in the back" was easily exploited and amplified by the NSDAP - that Germany only lost the Great War in 1918 because the Weimar Republic acceded to that demand, thereby constituting a betrayal of the highest order: snatching "imminent" victory right under the noses of the Army. This myth of betrayal gradually became one of the more prominent cornerstones of the NSDAP programme as well as that of the Communists and Socialists.

In the years leading up to that momentous victory at the polls, both the Left and the Right constantly sought to undermine the Weimar Republic. They shared that common goal: to destabilise the government, render the political center powerless and ultimately precipitate the collapse of the Republic. Galvanising the masses behind that myth of betrayal (while conveniently papering over the disastrous miscalculations of the Generals themselves during the Great War), the Nazis were able to decisively grasp such a huge majority of the votes.

Yet in the post-war decades that ensued, when the extra-parliamentary tactics employed by the extreme Left and Right became indistinguishable, with both ends of the spectrum seeking to undermine the faith of the public in the governing center, the peoples of Western Europe responded by huddling towards the center, recognising and condemning the extreme parties for their regression into violence and eventual irrelevance.

It must have been eerily reminiscent of 1933 that Western Europeans saw in the mirror: the precedent set by the Nazis that shook the populations to the core - that ideological extremism and blind partisanship could only end up destroying the fragile vestiges of democracy and government.

So it seems prudent to suggest that the the US is seemingly beginning to learn this lesson: that the Left and the Right have descended into such blatant demagoguery, acrimonious disregard and the vicious cycle of partisanship, clientelism and witch-hunting; that both ends of the spectrum have betrayed the American people and served not the national interest but themselves and their vested objectives; that there is, tragically, no representative worth voting for at the elections.

a jacksonian, you are right that this is not sheer laziness or inertia. Neither the Left nor the Right have descended into the type of extra-parliamentary behaviour that was typical of extreme left- and right-wing organisations in Western Europe in the '70s and '80s, but they seem to be tempting fate and toeing the line. The Right and definitely the Left have betrayed the people - perhaps this will be the galvanising force necessary to convince citizens to discredit these partisan hacks that roam the halls of Congress, and eventually carve out a center that is worth supporting and voting for.

Alas, the ordinary citizen in the US now finds himself more or less disenchanted with the entire system of party politics, disillusioned with the promises of the adversarial Democrats and the discredited Republicans, disgusted with their indulgence with demagoguery - and surely in the natural evolution of the psyche amidst these bouts of skepticism they must have asked themselves: what is left of this system, of this form of governance, that is worth preserving? Yet that is not reflective of the presence of any alternatives, unless we consider a regression into the dark days of Fascism even remotely appealing. What should be asked by the citizens is: what have we forgotten about the traditions set forth by the Founders of the Constitution that have till today carried the Republic as far as they can before being taken for granted and thus eroded by apathy and recklessness?

Of course, to recall what one has forgotten is a much more challenging task than simply blaming the current state of representative democracy on the parties of today, identifying the effect as the cause by ignoring the possibility that what the public has taken for granted has been gradually dissolved and marginalised, shaping the priorities and objectives of future statesmen and their parties such that adherence to preserving tradition is less likely to be observed as a vote-getter.

Reverting to the question that I had posed at the conclusion of Part 1, it is important to ask whether the 'international community' views piratical groups as 'enemies of the human race'. For particular actors in the international system of states, these 'enemies' are tolerated as the necessary price to be paid for the surreptitious advancement of higher priorities, one of which is the depredation upon, and eventual destruction, of the West. These sovereigns believe that they are able to somewhat manage these unruly piratical forces, and as long as these instruments are not intent on inflicting harm on them, then these forces should be allowed to exist and burgeon. A precedent was already established then, during the 16th century:

[...] piracy had emerged as an essential, though unsavory, tool of statecraft. Queen Elizabeth viewed English pirates as adjuncts to the royal navy, and regularly granted them "letters of marque" (later known as privateering, or piracy, commissions) to harass Spanish trade.

It was a brilliant maneuver. The mariners who received these letters, most notably the famed explorers Francis Drake and Walter Raleigh, amassed immense fortunes for themselves and the Crown, wreaked havoc on Spanish fleets, and terrorized Spain's shoreside cities. Meanwhile, the queen could preserve the vestiges of diplomatic relations, reacting with feigned horror to revelations of the pirates' depredations.

[...] This precedent would be repeated time and again until the mid-19th century, as the Western powers regularly employed pirates to wage secret wars.

Yet to risk the stability of the international system by allowing these entities to run roughshod over territories and across borders would be a serious concern for these sovereigns, who would then erect authoritarian or totalitarian safeguards within their Nations in order to preserve domestic sovereignty and ensure that the monopoly of force and ideological control remained in the hands of the ruling elite. In the Middle East, the rulers know very well that a significant proportion of their peoples are vulnerable to the tempting clarion calls for 'Arab nationalism' and 'revolution', and they do not trust that their own peoples would always choose to respect sovereignty and by extension disregard the galvanising appeal of the transnational agendas of these piratical forces. Regimes will fiercely and uncompromisingly guard against the very demons they unleash upon their external environment, fearful of their fragile allegiance as they are in awe of their potential scope and freedom of action without accountability.

That is, until it becomes almost impossible to manage, even for the regimes themselves:

The corsairs refused to curtail their activities after each war's conclusion, and the states realized that they had created an uncontrollable force. It was this realization that led to the Declaration of Paris in 1856, signed by England, France, Spain, and most other European nations, which abolished the use of piracy for state purposes. Piracy became and remained beyond the pale of legitimate state behavior.

[...] The Declaration of Paris is, on the one hand, a recognition of shared guilt. On the other, it represents the first articulation since the Roman era of piracy as a crime in and of itself. The pirate, by this definition, exists like a malevolent satellite to the law of nations. "Considering . . . that the uncertainty of the law and of the duties in such a matter [as piracy] gives rise to differences of opinion between neutrals and belligerents which may occasion serious difficulties, and even conflicts," the declaration stated, the signing parties "have adopted the following solemn declaration: Privateering is and remains abolished."

Thus, it seems that until these state sponsors of such piratical forces are at the brink of regime collapse, when the forces they believed they could harness for their own ends have turned on them and have either directly carried out operations subverting the domestic sovereignty of the state, thereby weakening the authority and ideological superstructure that allows the ruling elite control over the masses; or indirectly through the clarion call of transnationalism that instigates citizens to challenge state authority and attempt revolution or coup d'etat; only then will the possibility of establishing a Covenant be considered likely. Even if such a predicament transpires, one wonders - knowing the schisms between the Arabs and the lengthy legacy of sectarianism and tribalism that permeates to this day - if ever a Covenant such as that drawn between the European powers could be created and actually adhered to. They have become so used to the transgressing of international law and the principle of sovereignty that to consciously attempt following the rules for once might prove the axiom "old habits die hard" true, again and again.

An intriguing point I would like to raise: when the Covenant was established in 1856, the reality was not of European 'nations' and their fear of Westphalian sovereignty being violated, but rather a more realist concern with overseas empires, especially the British who derived their imperial power from the Navy and dominated the 'high seas', which reinforced and sustained that myth of European invincibility - the ideology that crafted the so-called 'colonial mindset' and the ideas of 'white man's burden' which contributed partially to the justificatory reasons for the transgression of sovereignty in that era.

As a result of this colonial mindset, these colonies and their rag-tag pirate crews were preemptively discredited and devoid of legitimacy, and any action that threatened to subvert colonial authority or challenge European control was automatically categorised as a declaration of war against 'all of civilisation' - be reminded that European intellectuals then chose to distinguish Europeans as part of the 'civilised world', while the colonised formed part of the 'barbarous, uncivilised masses' that had to be subjugated under the banner of the European empires. Thus, it is plausible, even recommended, that we should perceive the judgement passed down by the Europeans as one of false altruism, with the intention of disguising the exploitative nature of colonialism by appealing to this 'common humanity' - even though the contradiction did not present itself glaring enough to warrant questioning till self-determination and nationalism were introduced as ideas into the international system.

By 'all of civilisation' the European powers meant their empires and the peoples being governed under it, though that certainly did not mean that the colonial masters ever perceived their subjects to be as civilised as them. Thus, it is highly questionable that self-determination did not already present itself before in that age, only to be discredited with a wave of the hand and a label that represented 'un-civilisation'.

This brings us back to that same question: we might speak of hostis humani generis, but to each entity the "enemy" is different, the "human race" is defined by varying parameters and standards, occasionally with regard to extreme strains of ethno-religious thought (think Nazism, Islamism). With such serious dichotomies existing and cutting across Nations, parochial definitions of "enemy" have proven will continue to prove to be more relevant and thus more deserving of attention than transnational threats, since the repercussions of dealing with the former are usually felt closer to home since domestic and foreign policy are typically calibrated to deal with the "enemy". Hitler could perceive the non-Aryans as sub-human, while it served the purposes of the superpowers in the Cold War to demonise the other as the "enemy" of the "human race" (again, a collective term employed to generate solidarity among the oppressed and thereby divert attention from its repressive rule).

Hostis humani generis simply does not cut it as a galvanising rationale.

Perhaps I can posit a suggestion as to why Europe today seems disinterested in preserving sovereignty: the European colonial powers viewed sovereignty as a mechanism with which to limit each other's attempts to expand their empires, and to deny the indiscriminate extension of that right, the delegitimisation of piracy served that shared objective; yet in this modern era, it is no longer the recognition of preservation of imperial power that incentivises the struggle to delegitimise piracy and terrorism, but rather a defensive rationale of protecting one's own borders (in comparison to the European state of today, the empire of yesterday seemed more valuable and thus more worthy of protection than merely the Nation-state as defined by territorial borders; the argument is less compelling than before, since the promise of extending the reaches of Empire was kept alive in 1856, but rendered almost ridiculous as a concept now).

It is thus less apparent than ever that the requiem of piracy has ceased, but ever more worrying is the seemingly gradual disinclination to take the initiative to fearlessly espouse one's support of the principles that have laid the groundwork for stability and order in international relations, and to convey the unyielding will to fight to the death for the preservation of these principles. Again, it comes down to people forgetting what has been taken for granted, and blaming the remnants of the pillars holding up Nations for the transgressions of transnational progressivists.

Requiem Part 1

2007-09-01T21:44:00.001+08:00

The requiem for pirates of centuries-past may be a tad premature.

kurt has provided a series of posts that cover the pirate-terrorist parallel, of drawing analogies between both categories of criminals which exist centuries apart - yet are disturbingly alike in terms of the multiplicity of their behaviour, the endless transgressions of rules and conventions established between Nations, the instruments and means with which they utilise to achieve their mercenary, predatory goals: here, here, here and here.

In an earlier response to kurt's framing of Piracy as a crime in the eyes of international law and justice, here are my initial musings:

By expounding upon the concept of sovereignty that revolves around and defines the international system of states, and taking into account that sovereignty has been coveted as a privilege, a license to legally participate in the international system and be recognised for its right to do so, it seems logical to assume that any terminologies, conceptualisations and definitions regarding the preservation or violation of sovereignty in terms of territoriality or constitutional independence must be attuned to the reality that every act by a sovereign or non-sovereign actor is judged according to that concept and the upholding of the pillars of sovereignty.

I would perhaps attempt to refine the term attached to aQ - 'unjust aggressor'. First of all, aQ being a non-sovereign actor that exploits the transnationalistic reach of terrorism, ideology and arms sales - it does not qualify as being even eligible as an entity to be judged in the context of international justice. International justice - like international law - is not a doctrine governing how each person in every sovereign state should be judged by an external authority other than the state which he or she resides in: it is akin to the Law of Nations, whereby the behaviour of nations with relation to other nations is regulated by certain rules agreed upon by the nations themselves. I make this distinction because it should not be conflated with the transnational strain of International Justice and its embrace of 'terrorist rights' and Kantianesque 'international society' that presupposes moral equivalence.

International justice in this aspect thus acts as a regulating mechanism in determining which sovereign actors are justified in waging wars, which of them are 'just'; which actors are 'unjust' in pursuing military options, and which sovereign actors are being 'unjustly' besieged and targeted for such violation of sovereignty. Of course, international justice is akin to a convention that states themselves choose whether to adhere to or not - their possession of international legal sovereignty bestows them with the right to join such a convention or withdraw from one. Those who choose to join and respect the rules of this doctrine are the same actors tasked with the responsibility of defending the doctrine itself, and they are automatically accorded the right to judge whether a questionable act by a sovereign is 'just' or 'unjust' according to the principles of sovereignty as defined by the convention.

aQ, by disqualifying itself as a sovereign actor, is denied both the right to be recognised as an equal participant in international relations and the right to be judged according to its course of action whether it is justifiable in terms of moral or altruistic reasoning. aQ's actions are devoid of legitimacy and justification in this international system of sovereign states. No extent of 'divinely granted right' can alter that fact, unless the day comes when all sovereign actors accept that religious doctrines, not agreed-upon rules and conventions, govern relations between states.

Thus, the term 'unjust' does not seem at all appropriate for aQ, since the entity falls outside the jurisdiction of the international system of states. It does not need to be judged in this context, no matter how obvious its transgressions are. What should be more apparent and therefore recognised by sovereign powers is that aQ is an invalid anomaly that threatens the preservation of the system which orders relations between themselves, and thus should be exterminated by whatever means necessary. No 'right' or 'wrong',no moral dilemma with regard to the scales of justice, but the realist perspective on this issue dictates that this decision taken by states is amoral and purely for rational interests.

By extension, those sovereign actors whose rational interests coincide with the survivability of entities such as aQ, and who are harbouring elements of aQ or providing it with the resources necessary to flourish are putting themselves at risk of violation of their own membership in the international system. Sovereignty as a privilege can be easily withdrawn should its defenders judge that the transgressor is exploiting the privilege itself to sanction and support illegitimate and unjustifiable acts of violation of other participating states' sovereignties. This act of withdrawal requires no transnational entity or overarching authority to approve, but it is up to each sovereign state to safeguard its own sovereignty and therefore respond convincingly to communicate its intent to punish such transgressions for exploiting its position within the system. And that points to the right of sovereign powers to deny other sovereign powers the right to undermine the very doctrine that recognises them as legitimate actors.

kurt responded:

Piracy upon the high seas is the best known part of this, but the activity of illegitimate warfare, on land or sea, is, as you pointed out, a crime against the Nation State system. It is not only a crime against a single Nation, but against *all* Nations. That is why the US allows for its high seas definition, other Nations to declare an organization piratical and use that as a basis for treating them the same. The unjust war waged via illegitimate means is a crime against all Nations.

[...] 'Terrorism' is an activity taken up by those waging illegitimate and unjust war. The crime that describes that form of warfare is the civil one of piracy. Trying to address 'terrorism' separately would be like trying to address 'close assault tactics' in the UCMJ: an asinine thing to do. It is but a method or means, but the activity as a class is illegitimate and unjust war of depredation.

What I had, unarguably, posited at that juncture was a separation of laws governing relations between sovereigns on one side of the jurisdictional dichotomy, and another set of laws governing relations between a sovereign and a non-sovereign on the other side. In the former situation, the Law of Nations has been established and accepted as the norm in the international system of states - the concept of sovereignty and its principles of non-intervention and reciprocity, laid down by the legacy of Westphalia. Its rules have been institutionalised, the behaviour of sovereigns conditioned by participation in the international society of states, to a considerable degree of conformity and acceptance of the legitimacy of such an international order. The scope of The Law of Nations does indeed already cover relations between sovereigns and non-sovereigns, as expounded on by Vattel and highlighted by kurt:

As nature has given men no right to employ force, unless when it becomes necessary for self defence and the preservation of their rights (Book II. § 49, &c.), the inference is manifest, that, since the establishment of political societies, a right, so dangerous in its exercise, no longer remains with private persons except in those encounters where society cannot protect or defend them. In the bosom of society, the public authority decides all the disputes of the citizens, represses violence, and checks every attempt to do ourselves justice with our own hands. If a private person intends to prosecute his right against the subject of a foreign power, he may apply to the sovereign of his adversary, or to the magistrates invested with the public authority: and if he is denied justice by them, he must have recourse to his own sovereign, who is obliged to protect him. It would be too dangerous to allow every citizen the liberty of doing himself justice against foreigners; as, in that case, there would not be a single member of the state who might not involve it in war. And how could peace be preserved between nations, if it were in the power of every private individual to disturb it? A right of so momentous a nature, — the right of judging whether the nation has real grounds of complaint, whether she is authorized to employ force, and justifiable in taking up arms, whether prudence will admit of such a step, and whether the welfare of the state requires it, — that right, I say, can belong only to the body of the nation, or to the sovereign, her representative. It is doubtless one of those rights, without which there can be no salutary government, and which are therefore called rights of majesty (Book I. § 45).

Crystal-clear it should be what Vattel is basically conveying: only sovereigns and their representatives possess the legitimacy to wage war and attain 'justice' through military statecraft. The prevailing intellectual principle with regard to military statecraft is that monopoly of force is legitimately and lawfully wielded by the state itself, as characterised in domestic sovereignty. There is no opportunity for obfuscation or post-modern interpretation of such a principle, in contrast to the "pervasive ideology that sanctifies the independence, rather than the subordination, of economic power to government" that Samuel P. Huntington asserts. Vattel further clarifies that piratical attacks are devoid of legitimacy; again, I am indebted to kurt for his efforts [bolding mine]:

Legitimate and formal warfare must be carefully distinguished from those illegitimate and informal wars, or rather predatory expeditions, undertaken either without lawful authority or without apparent cause, as likewise without the usual formalities, and solely with a view to plunder. Grotius relates several instances of the latter.5 Such were the enterprises of the grandes compagnies which had assembled in France during the wars with the English, — armies of banditti, who ranged about Europe, purely for spoil and plunder: such were the cruises of the buccaneers, without commission, and in time of peace; and such in general are the depredations of pirates. To the same class belong almost all the expeditions of the Barbary corsairs: though authorized by a sovereign, they are undertaken without any apparent cause, and from no other motive than the lust of plunder. These two species of war, I say, — the lawful and the illegitimate, — are to be carefully distinguished, as the effects and the rights arising from each are very different.

[...] Nothing of this kind is the case in an informal and illegitimate war, which is more properly called depredation. Undertaken without any right, without even an apparent cause, it can be productive of no lawful effect, nor give any right to the author of it. A nation attacked by such sort of enemies is not under any obligation to observe towards them the rules prescribed in formal warfare.

Vattel's Law of Nations presupposes that the motives of these pirates are "spoil and plunder", or the "lust of plunder", thereby inadvertently exposing a gap within its jurisdiction if applied to the modern context of international relations. If the criteria for instigating and waging 'legitimate and formal warfare' includes the espousing of a cause which can somehow be justified on the grounds that the motive is not as predatory and basic as greed for loot, then apologists for transnational entities such as aQ are likely to counter that its agenda may regard the acquisition of funds through illegal arms and drug sales as essential to the survival of the organisation, but that objective is merely subordinate to the higher echelons of objectives, from the ambitious to the all-encompassing: driving US troops out of the Middle East; the erosion of American prestige and the deterrent effect of the US military; the establishment of sanctuaries in Waziristan among other locales; the eventual destruction of Israel and the West; the Islamic Caliphate.

The scope of its agenda, blatant methods of terror, techniques of propaganda and visibility on the global stage render it almost impossible for sovereigns to excuse themselves from at least being remotely informed of the causes that aQ espouses, such that it is more than just 'apparent', but also 'apparent' that it can be justified on moral grounds. The only contention to such an assertion is that aQ's causes may be inherently amorphous and deliberately vague in order to allow it flexibility and avoid costs of non-compliance to rigidly-set doctrines or protocol. Yet this contention is the Trojan Horse that provides the lethal counter-blow to this 'apparent' cause: the ambiguity that does not qualify aQ's cause as 'apparent' or coherent.

Vattel's assertion that warfare 'undertaken either without lawful authority or without apparent cause' undoubtedly deprives transnational scourges and harbingers of indiscriminate bloodshed such as aQ of legitimacy and credence. It is perhaps fortunate for this analytical approach that aQ does not pledge allegiance or acknowledge its financial backers - in fact, the entity despises the Saudi sheikhs for accommodating with the US, shares a schism with Shi'ite fundamentalists from Iran and Syria as problematic as that with the West - despite receiving funding from the Iranians and the KSA. Neither Nation has so far dared to hold itself fully accountable for aQ's actions and rhetoric, or authorise their actions in a transparent manner akin to declarations of military campaigns as practised by sovereigns. Thus, 'lawful authority' is absent in the equation - aQ is not legitimately recognised as an arm of the Saudi or Iranian state apparatus by the sovereigns, thus it is doubly discredited according to Vattel's criteria.

That state sponsors of terrorism are reluctant to acknowledge that amorphous entities such as Hezbollah, Hamas and aQ are proxies with which these sovereigns conduct their own depredatory form of foreign policy should thus deprive these entities of lawful authorisation - these entities should be given no quarter, yet why does a sizeable proportion of the intelligentsia still adhere to the notion that their causes are perhaps explicable and justifiable?

I caught a glimpse of such a perspective in my very own class when the topic of sovereignty was being discussed. I had asserted that the concept of sovereignty had been the dominant principle guiding and facilitating relations between groups of peoples who had organised themselves into states, and that the legitimacy of each and every actor was determinant on the preservation of this particular international system of states. aQ has violated and disrespected this concept, and therefore should be viewed as deserving of punishment and eradication. After that, I continued by adding that the basis of determining what acts conducted by entities within the entire framework of relations are acceptable and reasonable must first and foremost establish the exact nature of the entities in interaction - that will then provide the boundaries within which international law and justice can exert jurisdiction.

A fellow student countered with the suggestion that I was merely advocating the eradication of aQ on the grounds that it did not agree with the concept of Westphalian sovereignty, and suggested that I should view their worldview of the Islamic Caliphate as valid and worthy of consideration. No, I did not further question her on how she felt the 'international community' should deal with invalids like aQ, or if she truly thought that cost of tolerating aQ and its worldview would be worth endangering the international system of states. That can be reserved for a separate discussion outside the classroom, since I sensed that the lecturer did not want our mini-debate to dominate the entire lesson.

Thus, in light of the realisation that there are those who still believe that the causes that these invalids embrace are somehow justifiable, I expanded on my initial theory:

The paradigm that I put forth in response to your post the other day can be viewed as a device to counter those who believe that transnational identities such as aQ should not be viewed as the enemy of the international system because prosecuting them in the name of international law and justice on the grounds that they do not agree with the Western-imposed concept of sovereignty laid down at Westphalia is Euro- and ethno-centric, and therefore proof of our narrow-minded intolerance of competing world views (all of which, in their opinion, should be given equal importance and legitimacy - moral equivalence?).

I had attempted, with every intention, of appealing to the solely rational, perhaps realist in that sense, nature and judge for themselves the disruptiveness and corruptibility of such transnational entities that fundamentally threaten order in international society. For once, they should recognise the lowest common denominator in terms of the 'interest of humanity': to preserve life, liberty and property. For once, they should struggle within themselves to resist from resorting to arguments claiming that the indiscriminate execution of force, of bloodshed and murder, can be justified by the humiliating legacy of colonialism/imperialism. Blame the individuals, the pirates that are hijacking the concept of sovereignty, attempting to usurp the Nation-state as representative of the peoples without accountability or legitimacy. These terrorists embrace the new, unorthodox global paradigm, riding on the wave of popularity of revivified memes of decades-past such as imperialism (as posited by the dependency theorists) and new-age colonialism. All of a sudden, it has become so much easier to attribute blame for the mediocrity and retardation of the Middle East regimes to the unseen forces of Empire - the narrative so seductively simple, couched in the familiar language of the past. This knee-jerk response as a form of argument indeed betrays the absence of a contemporary, relevant awareness of the current realities on the ground, and it exposes their fallacious, disingenuous and insidious attempts to escape responsibility for their actions.

If the purely rational theory - that aQ is an invalid and therefore should be terminated rather than tolerated as merely an outcast, when the cost of tolerating its existence may be as serious as the collapse of international order - does not even resonate a certain degree with those adamant about gifting equal treatment to non-state actors without discretion and thus solely due to principle, then we can probably resign ourselves to the fact that these advocates have no inkling as to what has contributed so essentially to the survival of the international system.

I am further convinced that there needs to be a separate set of laws governing relations between sovereigns and non-sovereigns, such that the distinction itself establishes that causes espoused by non-sovereigns are by default non-justifiable. The onus will be entirely on the non-sovereign to convince the Nations which it may be interested in exercising its influence on that its intentions will not threaten to violate sovereignty, international law or justice. Only through the concrete agreement of such a covenant between the non-sovereign and the sovereign will the non-sovereign be brought into the international system of states as a secondary member, whose rights of participation are determined solely by the sovereigns which gave approval to that covenant, and can be withdrawn at the sovereigns' will.

kurt quipped in response [bolding mine]:

The attitude of working with the physical reality, understanding cultural interplay, and that there is discrimination not only allowed but *mandatory* in the affairs of men and must be worked with on that basis, which is, I think, how your rational view and mine work (in their different ways) is something that has been forgotten by the post-WWII world. In attempting to form some non-written ideal of 'international law', those that push it (first thinkers, then politicians, then bureaucrats, then lawyers, then thinkers, etc.) as not brought any international accord, not limited warfare, not ended genocide, nor, indeed, sustained a concept of the nation state or given anything viable as its replacement. Indeed, they cannot as any such large system encompassing democratic and non-democratic peoples will, ultimately, hit to the 'lowest common denominator' of authoritarian rule. Humanity is unruly because of our differences, and attempting to pave them over and make all men and their societies exactly 'equal' makes saints and demons exactly 'equal'. Those that sustain life and those that commit genocide are seen as 'equal' and no differentiation between them is given and, even worse, those that have committed mass murder find those that would excuse it.

Perhaps it is unrealistic to assume that the 'lowest common denominator' is the preservation of life, liberty and property, since the assumption lends itself a paradoxical air in non-democratic states - if the recognition of such preservation is so inherently human, why is the 'lowest' denominator in these authoritarian regimes the exact opposite of respect for such rights? It is useful to question the existence of this amorphous entity called 'humanity' - is it merely a Kantianesque construct assuming that all individuals essentially share inherently similar objectives and interests? This leads us to question whether transnational scourges such as aQ are truly being perceived in the light that they are entitled to: as 'enemies of the human race' or hostis humani generis.

This discourse shall be continued in a second part.