The Anti Neo-Democracy Theorist

Entries from September 2005

Freedom of Speech?

September 29, 2005 · No Comments

A Simple Classical Argument worth posting:

An important argument for upholding individual rights and liberties is that it ensures the maximum pursue of one’s own economic, social and political interests. When one has the political, social and economic freedoms such as the right to vote, the freedom to work wherever and whenever you want, the freedom to unionize etc, it creates a self-sustaining free and capitalist country where people are free to pursue their own interests.

In contrast, the lack of economic freedom under a communist centralized economic system in Russia from the early 1930s to the late 1980s resulted in the severe misallocation of human and natural resources. This in turn resulted in little incentive to pursue economic efficiency and growth. Widespread corruption and the informal economy boomed. Over the years, the different systems resulted in the GDP per capita for U.S.S.R in 1980 being ten times less than that of the U.S.A in the 1980s. Also, the constant action against dissidents as well as the unfair and staged electoral system resulted in the appointment of less than competent leaders in the decision making bodies in contrast to America’s relative electoral freedom which allows professional politicians to fulfill their role in a representative democracy.

Categories: Uncategorized

Ethos

September 24, 2005 · 1 Comment

An interesting Ethos worth considering; A faith worth listening to; A vision worth seeking for

为追求建立富有活力的公民,社会和健全的民主宪政国家;在一个没有恐惧的环境里相互对话,寻求理性的社会诉求; 尽 心 尽 力

Categories: Uncategorized

PM denies Backtracking on Political Reforms

September 23, 2005 · No Comments

Speaker’s Corner- Registration plus police monitoring?, Political Films- Banned?, Climate of Fear, Self-censorship among less informed Singaporeans-Priceless

For everything else there is Mastercard, but would it save you from political oblivion?

PM denies backtracking

on political reform

Agence France Presse

September 19, 2005

SINGAPORE

PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong has denied backtracking on his promise to open up political debate in Singapore in his first year in office.

“The trend continues to be towards opening up,” he said in an interview carried Monday by the Straits Times newspaper when asked about recent incidents that might be seen as setbacks to a more liberal political atmosphere.

“But that doesn’t mean the laws don’t have to be enforced,” said the 53-year-old son of independence leader Lee Kuan Yew, whose People’s Action Party has ruled Singapore since it became independent 40 years ago.

An independent film maker, Martyn See, is now under investigation for his documentary on a local opposition leader, Chee Soon Juan, which police said could be a violation of the Films Act banning political movies.

He has been forced to surrender a digital camera and tapes used in producing the banned film “Singapore Rebel” and could face a jail term of up to two years or a fine of up to S$100,000 (US$60,000).

The prime minister said in the interview that the “out of bounds markers” for political movies would have to evolve over time.

Lee is now preparing for general elections to secure his own mandate 13 months after taking over from Goh Chok Tong, who stepped down in August 2004 as part of the city-state’s carefully orchestrated succession process.

Lee said other forms of political expression exist, mentioning a Speakers’ Corner in a public park which has been used infrequently since it was set up in September 2000. He also said restrictions on indoor forums had been relaxed.

“Government doesn’t stop you,” he said. “If you want to express yourself, there (is) no lack of avenues for doing so either on the Internet, in the media, or you can make a play, and many people do.”

Categories: Uncategorized

An Interesting Article

September 20, 2005 · No Comments

Think she exaggerated the political activism of Singaporeans though-Singaporeans are largely apathetic and are likely to give a resounding victory to the ruling party in the next General Elections. Most young people would not bother to attend rallies, listen to various candidates and would probably shop and watch movies at Junction 8 the night before polling day.

New display of public anger

Star, Malaysia
September 18, 2005

Insight Down South By Seah Chiang Nee

TRADITIONALLY a passive and undemonstrative lot, Singaporeans are beginning to publicly protest against unpopular policies, and concerned authorities would like to stop it before it gets worse.

A string of smallish incidents – graffiti, attempted rallies and other public protest forms – has made an unlikely appearance in this city-state known for 40 years for its tight political control.

Actually the perpetrators involved have been few, their acts mild and pretty routine when compared to other cities, east or west.

But in this strict law-and-order society, vandalism and public demonstrations, however small or peaceful, will evoke a strong police response.

The first shock came in July when the headquarters of the National Kidney Foundation, the largest charity, was defaced following revelations of financial abuses by its executive Mr T.T. Durai.

It was the first case of political vandalism in many years. An angry person or persons sprayed paint on its entrance and sidewall with words “big liar” and “Save Singapore” in Chinese and English.

They were quickly erased, police investigated without an arrest but the episode left a clear message that, for the right reason, Singaporeans could actually behave as angry dwellers elsewhere.

Last month in an opposition constituency, a vandal defaced the publicity banner and picture of the likely ruling People’s Action Party candidate Sitoh Yih Pin.

And in a residential neighbourhood, protesters painted the words, “Jobs for foreigners, NS (national service) for Singaporeans”, on a public facility, evidently reflecting anger at both policies.

The opposition Singapore Democratic Party has been calling for civil, non-violent action against the government, but it has largely been ignored. There’s no indication that these incidents were connected to it or to one another.

The police reacted with full force when four SDP members staged a protest rally in the central district.

A dozen riot police wearing helmets and knee-high protective gear and carrying shields and batons confronted them outside the Central Provident Fund.

Critics cracked jokes about the “overkill” to break up the tiny demonstration calling for greater transparency and accountability in the state-managed pension fund and other government agencies.

The four dispersed without being arrested. Under the law, any public protest of at least five people without a police permit is deemed illegal.

Such approval is rarely, if ever, given to an opposition rally outside election campaigning.

In a limited way, these recent actions reflect the new generation, which feels less beholden to the PAP for its contribution to the nation. A growing number blames it on an authoritarian rule.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has promised a freer environment, but it is unlikely to cover public demonstrations.

The government’s view of “freer” politics is that of an unhindered debate within or with the ruling party rather than with an opposition, something not shared by its critics.

Lee Kuan Yew, who once said young people tended to equate politics with the excitement of contests and debate, is being proven right.

His top-down party has set up a “feedback” channel where people can raise complaints as well as community and student dialogue sessions that are widely reported in the press.

But all these are viewed as too sanitised and tended to evade real major issues. At any rate the government listened, but rarely followed the suggestions, critics believe.

The new display of public anger is unlikely to spread. The sort of demonstrations often seen in Taiwan, Hong Kong or Japan – let alone the West – is unlikely to become a way of life here any time soon.

But Singaporeans will probably think up new innovative ways to complain.

Recently, protesters concocted a novel way to complain about the continued closure of the suburban Buangkok MRT station two years after it was built because of insufficient resident users there.

They placed eight cardboards of white elephants on a road divider outside the station during the visit of a Cabinet minister, implying it was a wasted asset.

It is part of the North-East Line, which was opened by the then-Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. He then said, “We do not squander money on big white elephants that become financial burdens for our future generations.”

Many Singaporeans had a good laugh, but the humour was lost on the police, who launched a thorough investigation to find the culprits who had put up the white elephants.

In an article, a columnist of the pro-government Straits Times wondered: “When the results of the investigation are made public, what will the people’s reaction be?”

Singaporeans think it an excessive reaction. Some, however, see it as a strong warning to the public to stop such protests.

Broadly speaking, Singaporeans have retained their bo chap (“don’t care”) attitude about politics. Many don’t even know or care who their members of Parliament are.

The activists are a relatively small number of probably several thousand strong. These are, however, becoming more politically active, taking part in online discussions and organising Internet petitions.

Others operate political weblogs. One of them said, “Singaporeans are interested in political matters, always have been. The mass media in Singapore argues that they are more interested in the 5C’s (materialism) but surely access to the 5C’s is a political question.

“But talking about the price of HDB flats, a casino, COE’s, MRT prices are political issues. If you don’t “do” (talk about) politics then what do you do?”

o Seah Chiang Nee is a veteran journalist and editor of the information website littlespeck.com

Categories: Uncategorized

My passion being discussed in TODAY

September 18, 2005 · 2 Comments

My passion which is to see Politics and Sociology being able to taught in local schools one day is being discussed in TODAY. I am hopeful that the authorities would listen and respond. If not, i wonder, will the next generation of Singaporeans be highly educated, but devoid of critical thinking that is needed absolutely to survive in a global knowledge based economy. We simply cannot afford to plant rice or mine for gold..Singapore doesn’t have that



CLASS, OUR GUEST TEACHER ON POLITICS …


YVONNE LIM

VOICES EDITOR

SHOULD keen young Singaporeans get the chance to study politics and sociology at O and A level?

The idea, posited by undergraduate Wayne Soon in his commentary, “Think pills for generation lax” (Sept 7), gets Mr Leow Xian Yin’s vote.

“As I will be sitting for the O-level examination, I understand what Mr Soon means when he writes, ‘Youth today seem to have been depoliticised by the education system’,” says Mr Leow. He agrees it’s important for this country’s future to have youth today who are “challenged to think for themselves, and more importantly, for their homeland”.



“By offering social science subjects such as sociology and politics at the O and A levels, youth will be put into an environment of critical thinking, nurturing all rounded individuals … If there are passionate young Singaporeans who wish to serve the nation by being involved in politics, shouldn’t the Ministry of Education cater to them
?”

While “myopic” parents are likely to argue that studying hard science is more important to a future career, Mr Leow is hopeful the Government might offer social science subjects “as an elective”, alongside music, art and languages.

“Also, what about polytechnic students? The emphasis is on areas such as science and engineering, business and design, as polytechnic graduates are expected to play an important role in the workforce, promoting economic growth. In the United Kingdom, diplomas in fields such as economics, sociology and politics, and government are available.”

As for the lack of teachers trained in such subjects, Mr Leow says: “In Singapore, there are many political analysts, sociologists and other renowned professionals in these areas. Won’t students be privileged if they can, one day, have Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, or ministers such as Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Mr George Yeo, or even NMPs such as Ms Eunice Olsen, as their guest speaker in their classroom?”

Five students — Loong Cui Wen, Chan Wei Han, Tang Kar Wai, Chng Li Shi and Liyana Abdul Hamid — write in a joint letter: “We are working on a school-based project that deals with the issue of individuality in Singapore, or rather the lack of it, among youth … One of the main reasons behind their ‘coolness’ about political issues is they simply do not know enough.”

But youth are also reluctant to voice views that oppose someone in authority, out of fear of a backlash or in the belief that they will be disregarded.

“We feel that action taken so far has been stifling youth voices instead of enforcing PM Lee’s vision of ‘a future of opportunity and promise’,” the five say.

As if prescient of the latest legal action against two bloggers for making racist remarks, the students, who wrote in before that happened, noted the “possibility that without the individual’s social responsibility for what they say, the move towards a more outspoken society may result in its degenerating into one with a culture of impulsiveness and insensitivity to others”.

“However, we feel that the need to create a more outspoken society far outweighs that danger,” the five conclude.

Mr Melvyn Leong’s angle on the problem of depoliticised youth is that “today’s local politicians are an elite bunch of individuals carefully handpicked by the incumbent government. It is perfectly understandable that you need the brightest minds to run the country. However, this results in normal citizens being unable to identify with the politicians and, therefore, not being interested in what the politicians are saying”.

But Mr Arzami Salim, an exco member of Mendaki Club, feels it is “unfair to regard our youth as insensitive and ignorant when it comes to thinking about the future of our nation”.

Unlike our forefathers in the pre-independence years, he says, “We don’t see politicians or university students out on the street to prove a point anymore. In those days they had to claim a voice for the people. Today’s setting is different. Not only are we free to voice our opinions, we are well taken care of as a society. Therefore, what our young people do for the nation is not necessarily visible.”

“Indeed, there are many young and dedicated people quietly dedicating their time, energy and intellectual skills to make this vision (of Singapore) a reality. Not known to many, these groups of young professionals have been meeting, discussing and executing programmes that help to bring people together and find solutions to problems in society,” he adds.

The “influx of comments” published in local newspapers is testimony that there are “many avenues to get involved in nationbuilding” in today’s changed landscape, says Mr Arzami. “Maybe it is not a Generation Lax that we need to consider but rather, a Generation Lap, in which all of us could participate,” he adds.

Categories: Uncategorized

Self Censorship Stymies Growth

September 17, 2005 · 5 Comments

My article on Sept 12

TODAY

Self Censorship stymies growth

Better to deal with hate speech by encouraging people to actively reject such slurs

Wayne Soon

I REFER to Mr Timothy Tang’s letter, “Free speech, are you responsible enough?” (Sept 16). He has made a case for self-censorship and the need to be responsible with speech.However, alternatives to combating hate speech and the effects of heightened self-censorship should also be considered.

Hate speech should not be condoned here, in order to protect the fabric of a multi-racial and multi-cultural nation.

Mr Tang seems to suggest that heightened self-censorship or more government regulations to curb free speech would prevent hate speech from arising. However, I believe it is more important to create an active citizenry who would oppose hate speech themselves.

An overwhelming majority of Singaporeans reject racism and its ideals. However, our political and social culture, which seems to foster social inaction, might result in most ordinary Singaporeans not standing up against and actively rejecting such racial cleavages.

In order to address this, should there not be a thorough re-examination of the education system and the political culture, so as to create a society that will defend Singapore’s interests and oppose hate speech when the need arises?

In addition, Mr Tang seems to hold a narrow definition of “constructive criticism”. Should “constructive” criticism refer only to criticism that comes loaded with alternative suggestions?

Take criticism that gives rise to issues and these issues require a community debate before a consensus or a compromise can emerge. Would this sort of alternative discourse be labelled “destructive” criticism?

I completely agree that constructive criticism and hate speech should be mutually exclusive.However, should “constructive” criticism be necessarily defined as and restricted to the narrow sphere of discourse?

Can Singapore afford a culture with high levels of self-censorship?

Developed countries that would thrive in today’s knowledge-based economy are those which create the most leaders, thinkers and innovators in the corporate, political, social and culture world.

It is important to note that effective leaders have many sides to them. Besides expertise in their own field, they also possess political, social, culture and corporate passion and vision.

Given that passion and vision cannot thrive in a sphere of heightened self censorship, will Singapore be able to create exceptional thinkers and leaders who will put the country ahead of the competition?

Will the next generation of Singaporeans be highly educated but devoid of the critical thinking that is necessary for Singapore to thrive in a global knowledge based economy?

Categories: Uncategorized

A Far Cry from William Safire Days

September 14, 2005 · 2 Comments

This article appeared today in the NY Times. Thought I was reading the People’s Daily though

Singapore and Katrina

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: September 14, 2005

Singapore

There is something troublingly self-indulgent and slothful about America today - something that Katrina highlighted and that people who live in countries where the laws of gravity still apply really noticed. It has rattled them - like watching a parent melt down.

That is certainly the sense I got after observing the Katrina debacle from half a world away here in Singapore - a city-state that, if it believes in anything, believes in good governance. It may roll up the sidewalks pretty early here, and it may even fine you if you spit out your gum, but if you had to choose anywhere in Asia you would want to be caught in a typhoon, it would be Singapore. Trust me, the head of Civil Defense here is not simply someone’s college roommate.

Indeed, Singapore believes so strongly that you have to get the best-qualified and least-corruptible people you can into senior positions in the government, judiciary and civil service that its pays its prime minister a salary of $1.1 million a year. It pays its cabinet ministers and Supreme Court justices just under $1 million a year, and pays judges and senior civil servants handsomely down the line.

From Singapore’s early years, good governance mattered because the ruling party was in a struggle for the people’s hearts and minds with the Communists, who were perceived to be both noncorrupt and caring - so the state had to be the same and more.

Even after the Communists faded, Singapore maintained a tradition of good governance because as a country of only four million people with no natural resources, it had to live by its wits. It needed to run its economy and schools in a way that would extract the maximum from each citizen, which is how four million people built reserves of $100 billion.

“In the areas that are critical to our survival, like Defense, Finance and the Ministry of Home Affairs, we look for the best talent,” said Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy. “You lose New Orleans, and you have 100 other cities just like it. But we’re a city-state. We lose Singapore and there is nothing else. … [So] the standards of discipline are very high. There is a very high degree of accountability in Singapore.”

When a subway tunnel under construction collapsed here in April 2004 and four workers were killed, a government inquiry concluded that top executives of the contracting company should be either fined or jailed.

The discipline that the cold war imposed on America, by contrast, seems to have faded. Last year, we cut the National Science Foundation budget, while indulging absurd creationist theories in our schools and passing pork-laden energy and transportation bills in the middle of an energy crisis.

We let the families of the victims of 9/11 redesign our intelligence organizations, and our president and Congress held a midnight session about the health care of one woman, Terri Schiavo, while ignoring the health crisis of 40 million uninsured. Our economy seems to be fueled lately by either suing each other or selling each other houses. Our government launched a war in Iraq without any real plan for the morning after, and it cut taxes in the middle of that war, ensuring that future generations would get the bill.

Speaking of Katrina, Sumiko Tan, a columnist for the Sunday edition of The Straits Times in Singapore, wrote: “We were shocked at what we saw. Death and destruction from natural disaster is par for the course. But the pictures of dead people left uncollected on the streets, armed looters ransacking shops, survivors desperate to be rescued, racial divisions - these were truly out of sync with what we’d imagined the land of the free to be, even if we had encountered homelessness and violence on visits there. … If America becomes so unglued when bad things happen in its own backyard, how can it fulfill its role as leader of the world?”

Janadas Devan, a Straits Times columnist, tried to explain to his Asian readers how the U.S. is changing. “Today’s conservatives,” he wrote, “differ in one crucial aspect from yesterday’s conservatives: the latter believed in small government, but believed, too, that a country ought to pay for all the government that it needed.

“The former believe in no government, and therefore conclude that there is no need for a country to pay for even the government that it does have. … [But] it is not only government that doesn’t show up when government is starved of resources and leached of all its meaning. Community doesn’t show up either, sacrifice doesn’t show up, pulling together doesn’t show up, ‘we’re all in this together’ doesn’t show up.”

Categories: Uncategorized

That Yearning to Express

September 13, 2005 · 1 Comment

A Response to my article- I personally think her painting of Singapore as a uncomprising state is quite interesting. However, I do notice strands of liberalization in the polity, just that in the absence of democratization. But I really like the way political debate is being fostered, at least it gives our youths something to think about beside hello kitty, star idols and how much $$$$ one can make being chosing anthropology or finance as a major.

That yearning to express
Jocelyn Cai
September 10 2005
Allow unorthodox ideas and
criticism to help nurture a
politically vibrant society

I ADMIRE Wayne Soon’s interesting suggestions for more political activism among the youth (“Think pills for Generation Lax”,Sept 7).

But more than 10 pages into the same edition of TODAY, we find an article (“Notquite in Sync”) that underlines the difficulty in doing so.

Looking at history and encouraging discussion are elementary steps we can take towards catalysing political awareness among our youth.

But if they step out of the classroom and face a stifling environment for political expression, is it just then all theory and no practice? Its like teaching a kid how to
crawl, but never permitting him or her to walk or run.

There are countless examples on how many other countries, developed or third world, have more freedom of political expression.

In the United States, political parties enthusiastically engage students as early as in high schools, and these organizations often blossom at the university level. That is not to say the world leader of today does not have its woes.

Despite aggressive campaigning, low voting rates among young Americans continue to dog the elections. However, at least they have an option, the choice of participating whole-heartedly in politics when they wish to.

When the Iraq War broke out, thousands of students from my university joined in peaceful marches and protests, professing their beliefs from both side of the spectrum.

I had the fortune of participating in perhaps the one and only anti-war protest of my life, and was greatly inspired by the resilience of the participants in spite of the heavy downpour.

In the meantime, political discourse on the “Little Red Dot” remains lively only on a certain website. Perhaps citizens are not mature enough for such forms of expression, or so some think.

The Government might be worried that protests may end up violent like the riots of 1963. But with tight security and the right ingredients (for example, you need to apply for permits to stage a protest at my university), protests and marches can be peaceful and non-disruptive to both the political and economic systems.

Moreover, they would be fantastic platforms to stir genuine political interest.
We cannot look to just one country or a single model to ignite a more open and vibrant political environment.

Besides being transparent, Singapore needs to be open to criticism and not be overly defensive.

Critical thinking is necessary. And there is really no “formula” for entrepreneurship nor creativity.

But does Singapore boast the right environment and possess the right elements to stimulate such innovative and often unorthodox ideas and attitudes?

While travelling, I often reassure foreigners I meet that they can safely visit Singapore without having to visit the prison.

And that there really are no “big brother” cameras catching every single person who litters and jaywalk, nor are there automatic caning machines that punish criminal offenders on the spot.

Or are there?

Categories: Uncategorized

Think pills for Generation Lax

September 7, 2005 · 2 Comments

My article published in TODAY.

Think pills for Generation Lax

Young Singaporeans must shed their political disinterest

Do you agree with his views? Send an email to news@newstoday.com.sg

I RECENTLY attended the Singapore International Foundation’s International Student Symposium, where I gained some insight into the political orientation of young Singaporeans.

.

While some were engaged on issues ranging from the role of the arts to the state of the political opposition here, the majority of the student audience either chatted among themselves or played with their mobile phones.

.

When asked if there would be more political pluralism in the next generation, a speaker replied that the next generation simply would not care enough to make a difference. This generated much laughter — probably of affirmation.

.

To encourage young Singaporeans to take a greater interest in our nation’s affairs, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his Government have taken steps to engage them since his first National Day Rally speech last year.

.

There is the National Youth Forum, last August’s Youth Consultation Exercise and the yearly Pre-University Seminars. But for these initiatives to have an impact, should they be expanded to embrace a larger, more diverse audience?

.

Youth today seem to have been depoliticised by the education system — which involves the learning of the official “inspirational form” of Singapore history; the discouragement of political discourse on campus; the absence of opportunities to study social science subjects such as sociology and politics at the O- and A-levels; and a set of prescribed “shared values” that emphasises consensual rather than competitive political participation.

.

Young Singaporeans either tend not to think critically or feel that being critical results in unwanted consequences or has no purposeful outcome.

.

If a generation of Singaporeans grows up with only basic notions of political participation, can Singapore expect good political leaders in the future? Or, for that matter, to be a global and cosmopolitan city, a vision set out by Mr Lee in his recent National Day Rally speech?

.

In order to ensure that our future leaders have empathy for Singaporeans, passion for Singapore, knowledge of political history and the ability to manage a complex economy and society, our education system must place a greater emphasis on critical thinking.

.

This can be achieved through a revaluation of the history curriculum to allow for discussion of the real political battles of pre- and post-1965 Singapore. History is not simply a linear story — it should involve a close examination of historical sources to discover how events and ideas came about.

.

For example, the political battles between the People’s Action Party (PAP) and the Barisan Socialis (BS) could be discussed in classrooms by examining oral accounts given by PAP and BS Members of Parliament. This could, in turn, lead to a fruitful discussion on the issues of welfare, communitarianism and Singapore’s struggle for nationhood.

.

Second, subjects that deal with the grey areas of policy-making and managing a rapidly evolving society should be studied. Doing so would help us understand the different ways in which individuals and groups make decisions, exercise power and respond to change.

.

Young Singaporeans, especially those pursuing post-secondary education, need the basic knowledge and tools to analyse the evolution of the political, societal, cultural and economic spheres in Singapore in a rapidly globalising world. Those interested in politics and sociology should have the opportunity to study these subjects at the O and A levels.

.

More importantly, issues ranging from the importance of good governance to the widening income gap and the potential for social divisions between Singaporeans and foreigners should be discussed in the classroom.

.

Teachers, peers, the media, politicians and speakers with non-traditional views could help students better understand the implications of the social and political issues of the day.

.

Mr Lee is justified in his praise for the compassion, resourcefulness, courage and strength shown by Singaporeans over the past 40 years.

.

However, if we do not address the importance of critical thinking, we risk creating a highly educated populace that is unthinking, complacent and lacking in passion for Singapore. Will the next generation then fail to see politics as a form of public service and a vocation?

.

The writer, a 22-year-old Singaporean, is a student at Carleton College, Minnesota and a research intern with a local think-tank.

Categories: Uncategorized

Recommendation for a brillant book-PLEASE get it! 6 out of 5 stars

September 4, 2005 · 1 Comment

Saw the Second link yesterday with Clad and Myra. Absolutely fantastic and enjoyable. I am really beginning to enjoy Singapore production, having watched Dim Sum Dollies and this. The Singapore Cast was superb and the actors were hilarious. For those who watched, Daulat:Long Live and Talaq were the texts I enjoyed most being performed =)

After the play, went makaning in Arab Street at this Kampong Glam Coffeeshop in Arab Street with Clad, Myra and Heru (haven’t seen this chap in YEARS). We played Uno which I won most of the time due to my irritating tactics at making sure Claudine and Heru didn’t win..haha…sorry guys! Will miss them once I go back to the U.S.A

Hopefully next term will be good. I kinda want more holiday considering I was interning in the last two months but time and tide waits for no man.

Gonna to miss ALL my friends So much…..

Recommending an excellent and exciting book today. It’s one of my favorite book called

Bad Elements, Chinese Rebels from Los Angles to Beijing by Ian Buruma

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679781366/qid=1125846488/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-0335676-5536144?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It is available from Kinokuniya Singapore or amazon.com. It is better than Dan Brown’s thrillers or Jeffrey Archer’s revelations or Stephen King’s horrors. And best of all it is true stories. To give you a glimpse of how good it is, read the reviews below by Publisher Weekly and two readers, one from the Republic of Singapura. I actually wrote to Ian Buruma to comment on how good it is and he was glad I liked it; He mentions it has seem to be forgotten after September eleven. Whether he meant that the fight for democracy was less important to East Asia or his book became less popular as the general genre of popular non fiction shifted to terrorism/security and International relations by elites is less important; For me, it was a wonderful book!

From Publishers Weekly
Myths abound about China: all Chinese everywhere are united in a community of enduring culture; Western-style democracy is unsuited to China, as it would bring only chaos and the disruption of unity. In this brilliant report of his encounters with Chinese dissidents, rebels and democrats those blessed or cursed with “sheer cussedness” veteran journalist Buruma (The Wages of Guilt, etc.) brings into question such generalizations. There are, it seems, many Chinas and many Chinese willing to risk all in the name of individual freedom and the rule of law. In the U.S., Buruma visits exiled veterans of the 1989 Tiananmen protests who have adjusted well to their new lives and older exiles lost in the impatient busyness of America. He travels to Singapore an antiseptic and intolerant blend of the market and one-party rule where dissidents risk not only prison but extreme marginalization within a conformist society. He then moves on to Taiwan, with its lively if banal democracy (of banners and campaign buttons and staged rallies) and the men and women who, under the island’s Nationalist Party rule, faced lifetimes of torture, prison and exile to bring democracy to life, and then to Hong Kong, where democrats try to keep the rule of law alive under China’s new rulership. Finally, he travels to the center, the motherland, China. Buruma detects the stench of political decay as the Communist Party drifts into dangerous irrelevance, but amid the decay are rebels fighting battles big and small, for the simple right to criticize, the grand right to choose their leaders. Whether he’s describing the noble melancholy of an exiled Chinese rebel or the unbridled joy of free elections in Taiwan, Buruma’s writing is as elegant as Chinese calligraphy and as potent as Chinese wine. It is hard to imagine anyone in the West beginning to understand China without first reading this book.

4 Stars-Reviewer: Ken Lee (Singapore Singapore)

As with all of Buruma’s other writing, this is a brilliant book, well-written and convincing. The strength of his writing lies in his appreciation of, and his craving for the intricacies and idiosyncracies that make up the Asian lifestyle. In this book, he gets down and dirty, even enduring the squalid conditions of rural Chinese life to live with a family whose Christian matriach runs an underground ‘Church’.

My primary grouse with Bad Elements can perhaps be encapsulated in this very episode: I was very much looking forward to hear Buruma’s views on the underground Church movement in China, and was expecting as much, but he chose to present the internal conflict within the above-mentioned matriach’s family instead, whose children (like the Communist government) think that she’s dabbling in the occult. Buruma loses the opportunity to discuss much of the issues he so tantalizingly mentions: an interview with a senior Chinese dissident falls through because the writer misses him as he passes quickly through the turnstiles of the Beijing underground, for instance.

This book strikes one as more of a work of travel writing, with plenty of pointed perspectives and unexpected opinions emerging from both the writer, the landscapes through which he passes and, of course, the people he meets. As such, this isn’t quite as academic, nor does it provide as much in-depth historical/sociological research as some readers might expect. Another word of caution: while Buruma is mostly accurate in his descriptions, he does tend to neglect details - titles, place names, translations. Still, he does correctly observe that Lee Kuan Yew is, indeed, Senior Minister, the title he’s held ever since stepping down from Prime Ministership. In Buruma’s earlier The Missionary and the Libertine, Buruma actually makes the jarring mistake of addressing the man as Head Minister, a position which doesn’t quite exist in Singapore.

Buruma’s views are informative, but don’t expect much objectivity here: he never shifts from his position that the CCP is ‘morally bankrupt’ (a phrase he uses a lot), and fails to provide balanced commentary of a wide array of issues, ranging from Tibet to the Tiananmen Massacre. Anyone or anything associated with the CCP is hence rendered malignant.

That said, Bad Elements is a great read. It will keep you up at night, just to get through all the details the writer so willingly provides! As complementary reads, I would suggest Ian Gitting’s China Through the Sliding Door, a journalistic (if somewhat dry) account of reporting from China over the last 4 decades and Jan Wong’s China, a witty work of non-fiction that manages to paint a sympathetic picture of the sufferings of the Chinese people under the CCP. Gitting’s book is a masterpiece for its unapologetic objectivity and amazing detail.

5 Stars- A clear-sighted investigation of present-day Chinese dissent, January 10, 2002

Reviewer: RYAN R KOOPMANS (Sacramento, CA USA)

The thread connecting the chapters in this book, several of which are adapted from Buruma’s previously published writing, is the author’s journey from free Los Angeles and thereabouts to unfree Beijing. At each stop along the way Buruma interviews dissidents or former dissents from Chinese societies. Their stories do seem to blend into each other after a hundred pages or so. There’s the childhood of relative prosperity, the youthful recognition of a corrupt society, and the public expression of defiance, followed by arrest, imprisonment, and usually torture. The grisly repetition of fiendishly cruel punishments would be macabre if it weren’t for Buruma’s personal explanation for his curiosity: he wants to know if he and his generation in Europe could have borne such trials.

It is the personal element that makes this book as captivating as it is. We hear not only each dissident’s words but also Buruma’s reactions to them and sometimes arguments against them. His long experience in Asian affairs and understanding of Western and Asian societies make his thoughts as illuminating as the stories of the dissidents themselves. The book is not a travelogue but has elements of one. He meets old friends and strangers, eats new foods, and ruefully observes changes in urban landscapes. His brief descriptions of Singapore, Taipei, Hong Kong and other cities on his route capture them in their essence.

“Bad Elements” is informative, horrifying, inspirational, and even funny at times. Anyone with an interest in Chinese culture, Asian politics, or modern history will find it enlightening.

Categories: Uncategorized