Right vs Wrong Religion?
"God has no religion" -- Mahatma Gandhi
Friday, October 30, 2009
A short documentary film about food and poverty -- "Chicken a la Carte"
A JC friend of mine shared the following video on her Facebook page and I thought it was necessary for me to share it with a larger audience.
In the end, as my Human Rights lecturer from two semesters ago would have pointed out: it's not an issue of there being not enough food, it's about there being an unequal distribution of food resources.
Relevant posts:
i) Post No. 66: “谁知盘中餐，粒粒皆辛苦?”
ii) Highlights from "NUS Stand Up Against Poverty"
iii) Post No. 85a: Imagine A World Without Poverty (I)
iv) Post No. 85b: Imagine A World Without Poverty (II)
Relevant posts:
i) Post No. 66: “谁知盘中餐，粒粒皆辛苦?”
ii) Highlights from "NUS Stand Up Against Poverty"
iii) Post No. 85a: Imagine A World Without Poverty (I)
iv) Post No. 85b: Imagine A World Without Poverty (II)
Monday, October 26, 2009
NUS PSSoc: Partisan or Not?
I am not sure how many of you all are aware of this but it would seem that there is an ongoing tussle between the NUS Political Science Society (PSSoc) and the readers of The Online Citizen (TOC).
Essentially, this tussle began when TOC published an article reporting/reviewing the "Straight Talk: Is Singapore = PAP?" forum that the NUS PSSoc recently organised. In this article, the author appears to have implicitly portrayed the NUS PSSoc as being partisan (in favour of the PAP) because the Society invited only PAP members and NUS academics to speak at the forum but not members of the opposition. This portrayal was picked up by the readers of the article and in the comments section, comments echoed the perception of the NUS PSSoc being partisan in favour of the PAP.
Recognising that such a perception of the NUS PSSoc was being spread on TOC, members of the current executive committee (exco) of the Society stepped in to clarify matters. And as far as I can see, the main points they wanted to clarify include but are not limited to the following:
i) That the forum was not intended to be a partisan event
ii) That although there may be members of the Young PAP within the Society and within its exco, the Society is on the whole non-partisan
iii) That this forum is only the first event organised by the current exco and in future events, opposition members and/or critics of the political status quo will be invited
iv) That the Society has, in the past, organised events in which opposition members and/or critics of the political status quo have been invited to speak
Of course, it will seem to me that despite the clarification, the general sentiment remains that the NUS PSSoc is not totally non-partisan.
What do I think about all this?
Well, before I say anything else, let me first state that although I have been an ordinary member of the NUS PSSoc (i.e. I have never been part of its exco) for the first two years of my undergraduate life at NUS and have helped out at two of its major events, I am no longer associated with it (my membership lapsed and I didn't have time to renew it).I say this lest any of you all dig up my previous links with NUS PSSoc and cast aspersions upon my objectivity in writing this post.
In addition, what I am going to say below is entirely based only on information which is available in the public sphere. Hence, I will concede that there may be things going on behind the scenes which I am not aware of.
That said, I must say that on the whole, my stance towards this tussle between the NUS PSSoc and TOC readers is basically the same as the one I expressed in this earlier blog post of mine.
Specifically, I will say that it strikes me as somewhat unfair, if not fallacious, to label the NUS PSSoc as being partisan in favour of the PAP just based on one event they organised and because they have Young PAP members within the Society and its exco.
Also, I find it somewhat odd that some of the comments on TOC expressed the sentiment that the NUS PSSoc should be more "oppositional" in nature. Hmm... So being partisan in favour of the PAP is to be censured but partisan in favour of the opposition is okay, if not to be lauded?
And we should keep in mind that the fact that NUS PSSoc is just a students' society catering to mainly Political Science undergraduates in NUS, it is not a opposition party or a lobby group. It is thus perhaps unfair to expect or demand that the Society to act as something it is not.
Finally, as I said above, I am not aware of anything that may have gone on behind the scenes with regards to the organisation of the forum. But if indeed things occurred behind the scenes that prevented members of the opposition and/or critics of the political status quo to attend and speak at the forum, the question will then be "who is doing the preventing?". If it was not NUS PSSoc itself which was doing the preventing but some "higher authority", then perhaps we should not lay the blame entirely at the feet of the Society.
In the end, I do not know about you all but I will be keeping an eye to see how things evolve with regards to this affair.
P.S. 27/10/2009
I have been looking through the comments made on TOC in response to the article in question and I think I have two more points which I like to express.
One, it would appear to me that perhaps members of the current NUS PSSoc exco may need to improve on their strategic communication skills.
I say this because while I think it was necessary that they clarified matters regarding the forum with/on TOC, it was perhaps not that wise a move for them to step into the fray and attempt to clarify through posting comments as their clarifications would most likely be drowned out by the cacophony of other comments. If I am not wrong, since the exco had already sent in a statement/clarification through email to the TOC editorial board, it would perhaps be better if the exco had waited till that statement was published on TOC before they made any further comments. And even if TOC delayed or declined publishing the statement, the exco could have released the statement on the NUS PSSoc's own website (and provide a link in the comments section of TOC to the website).
It also did not help that there seem to be at least three members of the exco who were trying to post comments to clarify NUS PSSoc's stance. This was perhaps somewhat confusing. And at times, it was not entirely clear whether those members were speaking in their own capacity or on behalf of the entire exco. The language and tone utilised in the exco members' comments could perhaps also be better chosen; it would seem that several comments were made on the spur of the moment and by individuals who were quite caught up emotionally in the fray.
If any of the exco members are reading this post, allow me to say I mean well with what I have said above.
Secondly, I must say that I am rather saddened by how several comments on TOC used language and tones which were much less than civil. Some of the comments may even be construed as personal attacks. On that note, I cannot help but wonder about if the moderators at TOC have been paying full attention to the comments being made in response to the article in question.
I find it particularly saddening that the author of the article has been dragged into the fray, in light of the comments which appear to be casting aspersions upon her character and state of mind.
Essentially, this tussle began when TOC published an article reporting/reviewing the "Straight Talk: Is Singapore = PAP?" forum that the NUS PSSoc recently organised. In this article, the author appears to have implicitly portrayed the NUS PSSoc as being partisan (in favour of the PAP) because the Society invited only PAP members and NUS academics to speak at the forum but not members of the opposition. This portrayal was picked up by the readers of the article and in the comments section, comments echoed the perception of the NUS PSSoc being partisan in favour of the PAP.
Recognising that such a perception of the NUS PSSoc was being spread on TOC, members of the current executive committee (exco) of the Society stepped in to clarify matters. And as far as I can see, the main points they wanted to clarify include but are not limited to the following:
i) That the forum was not intended to be a partisan event
ii) That although there may be members of the Young PAP within the Society and within its exco, the Society is on the whole non-partisan
iii) That this forum is only the first event organised by the current exco and in future events, opposition members and/or critics of the political status quo will be invited
iv) That the Society has, in the past, organised events in which opposition members and/or critics of the political status quo have been invited to speak
Of course, it will seem to me that despite the clarification, the general sentiment remains that the NUS PSSoc is not totally non-partisan.
What do I think about all this?
Well, before I say anything else, let me first state that although I have been an ordinary member of the NUS PSSoc (i.e. I have never been part of its exco) for the first two years of my undergraduate life at NUS and have helped out at two of its major events, I am no longer associated with it (my membership lapsed and I didn't have time to renew it).I say this lest any of you all dig up my previous links with NUS PSSoc and cast aspersions upon my objectivity in writing this post.
In addition, what I am going to say below is entirely based only on information which is available in the public sphere. Hence, I will concede that there may be things going on behind the scenes which I am not aware of.
That said, I must say that on the whole, my stance towards this tussle between the NUS PSSoc and TOC readers is basically the same as the one I expressed in this earlier blog post of mine.
Specifically, I will say that it strikes me as somewhat unfair, if not fallacious, to label the NUS PSSoc as being partisan in favour of the PAP just based on one event they organised and because they have Young PAP members within the Society and its exco.
Also, I find it somewhat odd that some of the comments on TOC expressed the sentiment that the NUS PSSoc should be more "oppositional" in nature. Hmm... So being partisan in favour of the PAP is to be censured but partisan in favour of the opposition is okay, if not to be lauded?
And we should keep in mind that the fact that NUS PSSoc is just a students' society catering to mainly Political Science undergraduates in NUS, it is not a opposition party or a lobby group. It is thus perhaps unfair to expect or demand that the Society to act as something it is not.
Finally, as I said above, I am not aware of anything that may have gone on behind the scenes with regards to the organisation of the forum. But if indeed things occurred behind the scenes that prevented members of the opposition and/or critics of the political status quo to attend and speak at the forum, the question will then be "who is doing the preventing?". If it was not NUS PSSoc itself which was doing the preventing but some "higher authority", then perhaps we should not lay the blame entirely at the feet of the Society.
In the end, I do not know about you all but I will be keeping an eye to see how things evolve with regards to this affair.
P.S. 27/10/2009
I have been looking through the comments made on TOC in response to the article in question and I think I have two more points which I like to express.
One, it would appear to me that perhaps members of the current NUS PSSoc exco may need to improve on their strategic communication skills.
I say this because while I think it was necessary that they clarified matters regarding the forum with/on TOC, it was perhaps not that wise a move for them to step into the fray and attempt to clarify through posting comments as their clarifications would most likely be drowned out by the cacophony of other comments. If I am not wrong, since the exco had already sent in a statement/clarification through email to the TOC editorial board, it would perhaps be better if the exco had waited till that statement was published on TOC before they made any further comments. And even if TOC delayed or declined publishing the statement, the exco could have released the statement on the NUS PSSoc's own website (and provide a link in the comments section of TOC to the website).
It also did not help that there seem to be at least three members of the exco who were trying to post comments to clarify NUS PSSoc's stance. This was perhaps somewhat confusing. And at times, it was not entirely clear whether those members were speaking in their own capacity or on behalf of the entire exco. The language and tone utilised in the exco members' comments could perhaps also be better chosen; it would seem that several comments were made on the spur of the moment and by individuals who were quite caught up emotionally in the fray.
If any of the exco members are reading this post, allow me to say I mean well with what I have said above.
Secondly, I must say that I am rather saddened by how several comments on TOC used language and tones which were much less than civil. Some of the comments may even be construed as personal attacks. On that note, I cannot help but wonder about if the moderators at TOC have been paying full attention to the comments being made in response to the article in question.
I find it particularly saddening that the author of the article has been dragged into the fray, in light of the comments which appear to be casting aspersions upon her character and state of mind.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
KRMF 2009 -- a stage-managed event
I have just returned back from the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum 2009 (this year, the guest of honour was Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and the forum moderator was Professor Tommy Koh) and I must say that I am quite disappointed in how it went. My disappointment stems primarily from how the Forum appeared to be stage-managed (and, based on my interaction during the post-event reception with those of my friends who also attended the event, I am not the only one with such a sentiment).
Why do I say the Forum appeared to be stage-managed?
Well, before the actual Forum began, Professor Tommy Koh explained that about 500 questions were sent in by those applying to attend the Forum and out of these questions, the student organisers of the Forum chose 20 questions. Then, out of these 20 questions, Professor Koh, after discussion with the student organisers, selected 9 questions to be posed to Minister Mentor (MM) Lee during the Forum. [Note: after reading comments that have been made in response to a complaint similar to mine, I thought I should clarify that while it was clear that the questions were pre-selected, it however remains unclear whether MM Lee himself knew beforehand what questions would be asked or had a hand in selecting the questions]
It was however not made clear upon what basis or criteria these 9 questions were chosen out of the about 500 questions that were sent in. With this opaque process of selecting questions, I cannot help but wonder if some form of censorship took place behind the scenes.
If the selected questions were, to some extent, provocative or insightful questions, I would perhaps be less disappointed. But, as things turned out, the selected questions were generally what could termed as "politically safe/tame" questions; only one of the question, which was about whether the recent influx of new immigrants will dilute Singapore's national identity, perhaps got close to be provocative.
And if the questions were selected only to kick start discussion, I would not have mind them as much. However, these selected questions were the only questions that were allowed to be asked during the whole Forum! The rest of the audience were, in effect, denied the chance to ask MM Lee any questions during the Forum before it ended promptly after he answered the nine selected questions. In light of this, the call for active participation from the audience by the Forum's Project Director in his opening address would appear most ironic.
Perhaps the organisers of the Forum will defend themselves by claiming that the rationale of having only pre-selected questions being asked during the Forum was to ensure the Forum adhered to the planned time schedule. I will concede that, compared to similar events of previous years, this year's Forum ended on time. But, if given a choice, I (and I suppose many amongst the audience will perhaps agree with me) will rather have the Forum end late due to an over-abundance of people wanting to ask questions than to have the Forum end on time with only pre-selected (and "politically safe/tame") questions being posed. The latter, in my opinion, runs contrary to the very notion of what a "forum" is supposed to be.
In addition, I cannot help but have the feeling that this pre-selecting of questions was perhaps in part to prevent a repeat of what happened four years ago at a similar event which MM Lee was also the guest of honour.
Hopefully, this year's Forum will not set a precedent for subsequent forums. In the end, forums are supposed to be open and engaging, not stage-managed.
P.S.
From what I heard, next year's guest of honour for KRMF may be Foreign Minister George Yeo
Why do I say the Forum appeared to be stage-managed?
Well, before the actual Forum began, Professor Tommy Koh explained that about 500 questions were sent in by those applying to attend the Forum and out of these questions, the student organisers of the Forum chose 20 questions. Then, out of these 20 questions, Professor Koh, after discussion with the student organisers, selected 9 questions to be posed to Minister Mentor (MM) Lee during the Forum. [Note: after reading comments that have been made in response to a complaint similar to mine, I thought I should clarify that while it was clear that the questions were pre-selected, it however remains unclear whether MM Lee himself knew beforehand what questions would be asked or had a hand in selecting the questions]
It was however not made clear upon what basis or criteria these 9 questions were chosen out of the about 500 questions that were sent in. With this opaque process of selecting questions, I cannot help but wonder if some form of censorship took place behind the scenes.
If the selected questions were, to some extent, provocative or insightful questions, I would perhaps be less disappointed. But, as things turned out, the selected questions were generally what could termed as "politically safe/tame" questions; only one of the question, which was about whether the recent influx of new immigrants will dilute Singapore's national identity, perhaps got close to be provocative.
And if the questions were selected only to kick start discussion, I would not have mind them as much. However, these selected questions were the only questions that were allowed to be asked during the whole Forum! The rest of the audience were, in effect, denied the chance to ask MM Lee any questions during the Forum before it ended promptly after he answered the nine selected questions. In light of this, the call for active participation from the audience by the Forum's Project Director in his opening address would appear most ironic.
Perhaps the organisers of the Forum will defend themselves by claiming that the rationale of having only pre-selected questions being asked during the Forum was to ensure the Forum adhered to the planned time schedule. I will concede that, compared to similar events of previous years, this year's Forum ended on time. But, if given a choice, I (and I suppose many amongst the audience will perhaps agree with me) will rather have the Forum end late due to an over-abundance of people wanting to ask questions than to have the Forum end on time with only pre-selected (and "politically safe/tame") questions being posed. The latter, in my opinion, runs contrary to the very notion of what a "forum" is supposed to be.
In addition, I cannot help but have the feeling that this pre-selecting of questions was perhaps in part to prevent a repeat of what happened four years ago at a similar event which MM Lee was also the guest of honour.
Hopefully, this year's Forum will not set a precedent for subsequent forums. In the end, forums are supposed to be open and engaging, not stage-managed.
P.S.
From what I heard, next year's guest of honour for KRMF may be Foreign Minister George Yeo
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Human Rights Workshop at NUS on 31/10/2009 -- "whose Right is it anyway?"
Although I will most likely not be able to attend this event because of the various assignment deadlines I have to meet (arrghh, the burdens of being a honours year undergraduate), I thought I will share the following information with a wider audience.
For those of you all whose eyesight is not that good, here's a summary of the important points.
What: "whose Right is it anyway?" -- a human rights workshop organised by MARUAH, in conjunction with UNYAS and NUS USP
When: 31/10/2009, Saturday, 0900h-1730h
Where: National University of Singapore [where exactly in NUS the event will be held seem to be unconfirmed yet, as far as I can see]
Facebook event page
For more information and registration, please refer to here.
What: "whose Right is it anyway?" -- a human rights workshop organised by MARUAH, in conjunction with UNYAS and NUS USP
When: 31/10/2009, Saturday, 0900h-1730h
Where: National University of Singapore [where exactly in NUS the event will be held seem to be unconfirmed yet, as far as I can see]
Facebook event page
For more information and registration, please refer to here.
Monday, October 05, 2009
A power shift only when the PAP becomes incompetent and corrupt?
"But if the PAP ever becomes incompetent and corrupt and lets the people down, then it deserves to be voted out. We will do our utmost to ensure that this does not happen"
The above remark, according to today's Straits Times ("Serving well is key to success", 5/10/2009), was part of the answer given by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in response to a question from Japanese journalists on whether "the political shift that occurred in Japan recently -- with the Liberal Democratic Party losing power to the Democratic Party of Japan -- could happen in Singapore".
On my first reading of the above remark, I cannot help but notice it could be interpreted in two different ways. One, that the PAP will do its utmost to ensure that it does not become incompetent, corrupt and let Singaporeans down; this, I believe, was what PM Lee meant. Two, that the PAP will do its utmost to ensure that it does not get voted out; this, although PM Lee was not saying it, is perhaps what the PAP has also been doing with much vigour.
And on deeper reflection, I cannot help but wonder if the PAP does indeed become corrupt and incompetent, will it, in light of the institutional measures it has put in place to endow itself with the greatest advantage in elections and politics, really be voted out of office? Or will it be more likely that it will remain in power, despite it becoming incompetent and corrupt, because of the institutional measures it has put in place previously?
Also, even if a corrupt and incompetent PAP does get voted out of office, will it, in light of the institutional safeguards it has put in place to guard against a "freak election", regain political power after one term because any new non-PAP government will be stymied by these institutional safeguards?
Of course, as MM Lee Kuan Yew said in a dialogue session with young Singaporeans three years ago, if the PAP does become incompetent and corrupt, Singaporeans will, despite the institutional measures in place, nonetheless find a way to remove it from office, either peacefully through voting or violently through protests and demonstrations.
However, while I agree with the point that if the PAP does become completely unbearable, Singaporeans will find a way to remove it from office regardless of what obstacles there may be, I suppose most of you all will agree that such a situation is not one anyone of us all is looking forward to (that is, the PAP becoming completely unbearable and Singaporeans needing to resort to extra-electoral means to remove it from office).
In the end, while it may be theoretically true and easy to say that the PAP will be voted out or removed from office once it becomes corrupt and incompetent but things may not be that simple in reality.
The above remark, according to today's Straits Times ("Serving well is key to success", 5/10/2009), was part of the answer given by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in response to a question from Japanese journalists on whether "the political shift that occurred in Japan recently -- with the Liberal Democratic Party losing power to the Democratic Party of Japan -- could happen in Singapore".
On my first reading of the above remark, I cannot help but notice it could be interpreted in two different ways. One, that the PAP will do its utmost to ensure that it does not become incompetent, corrupt and let Singaporeans down; this, I believe, was what PM Lee meant. Two, that the PAP will do its utmost to ensure that it does not get voted out; this, although PM Lee was not saying it, is perhaps what the PAP has also been doing with much vigour.
And on deeper reflection, I cannot help but wonder if the PAP does indeed become corrupt and incompetent, will it, in light of the institutional measures it has put in place to endow itself with the greatest advantage in elections and politics, really be voted out of office? Or will it be more likely that it will remain in power, despite it becoming incompetent and corrupt, because of the institutional measures it has put in place previously?
Also, even if a corrupt and incompetent PAP does get voted out of office, will it, in light of the institutional safeguards it has put in place to guard against a "freak election", regain political power after one term because any new non-PAP government will be stymied by these institutional safeguards?
Of course, as MM Lee Kuan Yew said in a dialogue session with young Singaporeans three years ago, if the PAP does become incompetent and corrupt, Singaporeans will, despite the institutional measures in place, nonetheless find a way to remove it from office, either peacefully through voting or violently through protests and demonstrations.
However, while I agree with the point that if the PAP does become completely unbearable, Singaporeans will find a way to remove it from office regardless of what obstacles there may be, I suppose most of you all will agree that such a situation is not one anyone of us all is looking forward to (that is, the PAP becoming completely unbearable and Singaporeans needing to resort to extra-electoral means to remove it from office).
In the end, while it may be theoretically true and easy to say that the PAP will be voted out or removed from office once it becomes corrupt and incompetent but things may not be that simple in reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
