Before I cast my vote…
It’s been an intense week in Singapore with political discussions filling the air. The political parties have been going all out campaigning their mandates and manifestos, the social media scene has been dominated by status updates, notes and plenty of lively discussions about this upcoming elections, and even the taxi drivers are taking this opportunity to raise their utmost concerns during this period (albeit that isn’t exactly a new phenomenon).
While this is the first time I’ll be casting my vote, I have been closely listening and observing to what everyone has to say, and what the political parties have to offer. I’m not going to deny that I am partisan, and I have my own political view that I hold on to. Yet, being a first-time voter, I have taken on an objective stance to give everyone a chance to say what they intend to say.
Coming out from all these campaigns, I am certain that the opposition has a strong conviction of what they stand for and represent. Yes, much like my classmate Stanley, if we are being realistic about the policies that they propose, the feasibility and practicality of those propositions are questionable. I’m not going to deny that our government has done an excellent job over the years, as they are efficient with what they do, and not to mention pragmatic and realistic. As a matter of fact, I like our government for what they have done for us. Let’s admit it, there is no popular government in the world. People will always be dissatisfied with what they have, nothing can ever fulfill their expectations perfectly, and they will always be criticising what the government is doing. Because are people are human. And that’s just a human thing to do. Look at the US. People were all for Obama to be president, and 4 years after, his popularity ranking dropped amongst citizens as they criticise his incapacity to bring about the changes he had promised in his Presidential campaign.
And Singaporeans exemplify this quality precisely. We will never be happy about what the government does. Sure, because there is always something to pick on. But never have I seen so much anger, dissatisfaction and criticism expressed to the ruling party until this election.
We know for sure that the younger generation voters represent a desire for change, one that stands for equality and democracy, which is exactly the foundation that this country was built upon.
It’s funny how the ruling party keep emphasising on the past, reminding citizens to remember the past and the foundations that Singapore was built upon, and what they have done for us in the past to convince them to make the right decision when voting. It amazes me that it is at this juncture when they themselves stop to realise that the past matters too. This coming from the government that is all about progress and change, seeing how fast they themselves are developing the country into…something that sometimes I don’t recognise anymore. The crowded trains packed with foreigners, the fast-changing face of the city exuding the aura of luxury and world-class facilities at the expense of the lives of the working class enslaving their hours away to make ends meet, the constant remarks about racial minorities and how these remarks make them feel even more estranged and uncared for. That wasn’t what we all signed up for. That isn’t the Singapore I grew up with. That isn’t what we want.
As I’m making my way out to the Polling Station, there sure is a lot to reflect on, and what we want from this election. Having raised these issues, I do hope that whoever wins this election will pay attention the concerns raised from the grounds, and be more sensitive and aware to what the masses have to say.
All the best to all the contesting parties. May tonight be a determinant of Singapore’s bright future.
The Woes of Allocating Resources: A Rant
The month of March has been one filled with too many retail therapies. I have made my trips down to the mall oh-so-many times and spent oh-too-much money on rather unnecessary items. Then again in my defense they are good buys to make my money worth.
This month alone, I had spent $70 bucks on a red dress from Bershka (totally unnecessary but IMO totally gorgeous), $99 bucks on a denim-overalls dress from Mango (bought this for a Wednesday night out, retrospectively, a waste of my cash but still, it’s pretty) and $80 on 2 pairs of pants from Forever 21 (totally needed, so this is justified). That will equate to a total of, urm, well a lot. And I’m cabbing around and spending amount more than my net-worth drinking overpriced coffee and yet still complaining that I am out of cash. And yet I still have the cheek to consider catching a flight out to Jakarta for a weekend out partying. Capitalist much?
Amidst this pretentious lifestyle of the rich and (not-so)-famous that I lead, my FYP has been a good humbling source and experience altogether, I must add. Developing a thesis about disabled people has opened my eyes to this group of people in the society, and every day, I come across people who with various sorts of disability. Well, mostly people with mobility impairments, I must add. I think it’s true that awareness comes about when one is exposed to the factors, either through study or experience.
While I strut down Tampines Central, happily with shopping bags in hand after spending an incredible amount of money at the supermarket buying bunch of nonsense (and I mean NONSENSE, irrational and impulsive buys to fill my boredom), I walked past the regular street buskers at the train station. There was the Uncle who used to play saxophone but have now ditched his sax for his vocs (think he might have sold his fashionable, expensive instrument), and another guy who sold little toys for kids sitting on the floor waiting for someone to stop by his floormat-makeshift stall. And it got me thinking what happened to these people to put them in such situations.
And then I realised that, as I go deeper into my FYP, that disability is not something one experiences by choice. Nobody outrightly CHOOSE to be disabled. Truth is, as alluded by Mike Oliver, disability itself is a social and cultural construct. One’s physical impairment does not mean anything if society does not create these disabling barriers which make them disabled, such as poorly developed infrastructures or facilities or limitations to social and economic participation.
So then that made me realise that, hey, why should these two guys who I was looking at be subject to being out in public places to earn a simple living. It did not help that the very same day, at the foodcourt, a young gentleman from the APSN school came up to me asking for donation contribution as he was trying to raise funds as instructed by the school. There, I could not help but feel an unbearable amount of sympathy for these guys as they go about, from table to table, trying to beg people for a few cents of their money.
In my opinion, what’s happening here is undeserving public humiliation that these disabled people are subjected to. Where is the social welfare that aims to protect these people from such humiliating circumstances? Do we even have any legislation that is designed to protect these guys from being victims of social humiliation? Okay, pardon my perhaps radical perspective in this matter, but these guys should not deserve to be treated and subjected to those situations.
While I learnt that the old man who plays the saxophone at Tampines MRT is also an granduncle of two of my cousins, I also found out that he had decided to pursue such a lifestyle because he loves music and he still wanted to entertain the public while at the same time earning his living. Fair enough, if it was by choice. But what about the other guy who was selling children’s toys and the APSN school boy who was forced to ‘beg’ for school funds? What happens to these guys?
At times like these, I could not help but wonder if a welfare system is indeed the most ideal for any society. It requires a commitment on the taxpayers parts, of course, but at least there is unanimous goodwill in the society to stand up for the rights of the disadvantaged in the society.
I mean, this coming from the very same person who complained about spending too much money on selfish needs. To be honest, after walking past these guys, I realised that whatever amount of taxes I had just spilled my money on will be likely used for further development of facilities and further commercialisation and corporatisation (is this even a word?) which, NEWSFLASH NEWSFLASH, will not even be generated for these disabled guys. So which part of our pool of wealth is invested to these guys again?
Walking past these guys made me more aware of the social ill that we are subjected to in a capitalist society. And that being said, this serves as a self-remind, but think about it guys, if you can spend $20 a day in overpriced coffee or cab fares or buying new shoes or whatever, you can definitely afford to help these guys on the streets and give them a penny or two to help them out. Just a thought.
Between paranoia and vigilance
Last Wednesday, I saw a man recording a video using his mobile phone in the train as I was about to alight at Tanjong Pagar. It was the morning rush hour, and everyone else perhaps did not notice him (although I must say his action wasn’t implicit either.) As I took an exit from the train, I realise that he was recording the whole scene, of people rushing out into the morning madness, and then of people going up the escalator in the station. I kept a watch of him, and felt uncomfortable and decided to approach the SMRT staff about their underground stations security policies.
See, the thing is, there were a number of times when I had seen SMRT staffs approaching tourists or foreign workers when they were caught recording videos within our underground stations. And I thought it was purely stupid that SMRT takes such bureaucratic measures at even restricting our poor, curious foreign friends for wanting to capture the whole scene. These people were after all innocent, possibly.
And there I was, last Wednesday, seeing a man with a video phone and started to get suspicious and reported him.
Truth is, I have to admit that I get pretty anxious at the thought of a terrorist attack on Singapore. I might acted as one of those apathetic citizens, taking a Laissez-faire stand and having a nonchalant attitude about it. I mean, come on, how much more do we have to do? Our Internal Security Department (ISD) are at the forefront of any counter-terrorism activities – sometimes I felt they were even taking it too, over-excessively seriously. We have those guys in uniforms patrolling our trains and stations. We have security checks before buses enter the underground depot at the airport. What more do we want?
But when I started to think about it, Singapore does have a lot to lose if an attack occurs. We have our financial hub at stake, the moneys, assets, infrastructures, buildings, and most importantly – people.
The capture of Ahmad Maulana in Indonesia revealed that there was a plan to bomb Orchard MRT station. We have to admit that we should be grateful that the intelligence managed to seize him and unravel the plot before the tragic occurs.
Imagine if they had managed to plant a bomb in the Orchard underground station. Can you imagine how tremendous the impact would have been, for not only Orchard station itself, but the whole of Singapore?
At the end of the day, I do want to go back home safely and not worry about these security issues. I want to be comforted and know that we have got everything under control. I want to be able to sit in my office in Tanjong Pagar knowing that it is safe to be there and not have the MRT station being blown up. And that was why I decided to report the guy.
To avoid sounding less like the government, I realise that I might have made a difference in the security of this country. Whether or not that guy I saw was threatening, I have done my part, albeit minor, in the whole scheme of counter-terrorism.
And yes, everyone matters.
WYTT: Attractive women ‘discriminated against when applying for masculine jobs’
Read original article
To a certain extent, this study is nothing new. We have time and time again encountered this situation when we know that women are being discriminated from more ‘masculine’ professions, and adding the ‘beauty’ angle to this study does not change the fact. If we think about it, attractive women tend to be the ideal personification of feminity, (in the society’s perspective at least). Advertisements (for products, services etc.) often favour the more beautiful people anyway, right?
What worries me however is the fact that despite the air of female empowerment we have in this age, this trend still persists. At the end of the day we can conclude that these industries are still pretty patriarchal and largely dominated by our male counterparts. Why is it that this is still happening? I believe that there was a recent study done to show that women these days are more educated and more capable than men to handle bigger roles in the workforce.
Perhaps there is still this whole skepticism that women are not able to handle more technical professions as they are seen to be likely less tough and rugged than their male counterparts. But my observation stands that my female friends who are studying engineering in school are more likely to be passionate and interested in what they study and will be doing compared the the rest of the male engineering population. Similarly, I have female acquaintances in the police and civil defence force who are excelling in their fields and are capable of leadership positions.
It is about time the society move with time and be open to such concepts. Gender differentiation is such a passe notion and it should not even be a hindrance to workplace operations.
Intercultural, interreligion
Respecting boundaries (intercultural, interreligion)
Song of the moment: Decode -Paramore
How can I decide what’s right
when you’re clouding up my mind
I can’t win your losing fight
All the time
Nor could I ever own what’s mine
When you’re always taking sides
But you won’t take away my pride
No not this time
For what is worth, I appreciate the fact that the human population is diverse. And more than that, we are different in our own ways and this difference adds more meaning to our existence on Earth as we share and learn from each other.
The intercultural & international communication class last evening was the best as of yet. Prior to the class yesterday, I was rather apprehensive of what is going to be discussed for that particular lesson. Yet I convinced myself this has to be good and it will…(and surely, did too). The topic of discussion, I daresay, is somewhat a taboo. Yet in an academic setting, it is refreshing and ought to be out in the open more often, despite my position and belief in the secular system. That’s right, we finally discussed the topic of “religion” in class.
It was a refreshing take to be attending this class in a European land, I daresay. Firstly, I get a fresh outlook on the Western perspective on world issues. We also discussed world views and deep structures last night too, as an overarching concept to the subset topic of religion. Secondly, being a Singaporean, I realise that I am at the crossroad of 2 fundamental ideals of the world: the West and the East. The fact that I come from a secular country, yet a country with people with faith (and various faiths, mind you), I am more than happy to share my perspective with the rest of the class.
Although some of the answers that we have discussed to the various questions that pop up during the lecture discussion are not satisfactorily in depth, but the points made were pretty clear. Why do religions compare themselves with each other? Why are Christianity and Islam (and Judaism too, for that matter) always at conflict with one another? Why must we let issues of the past get in the way for our compromises and effort at making peace in the present and future?
For one thing, I appreciate the system Singapore adopts, of being secular. Sure, it is a Western concept, and not that everyone appreciates the Western concepts, (and to note that some countries in the West to not subscribe to secularism too). Definitely, there is a no-sure method of what is right and what works. But the fact that we are secular yet freedom of religion exists makes individuals able to lead their lives to the best of how we want to.
I had always taken it for granted, and thought that the “quasi-utopia” that exists in the country is something artificial. But now I learn to appreciate it more than ever as nothing beats having the harmony and freedom to believe in whatever faith you want to subscribe to. So what if I am a Muslim and I have Christian friends…or more than that, what if I am a Jewish boy with a Muslim girlfriend? You know..that kinda thing…
All being said, tolerance should be a universal quality instilled in any system at all. No matter if you subscribe to the Western ideal of secularism or the Middle Eastern ideal where religion dominates all aspect of living, the keyword to having a harmonious balance is TOLERANCE. Because when we open our minds and be more objective, our relationships with others will be more meaningful.
Spreading the love to the world.
xoxo
Syida
Environment
Environment
We have been at it for years. Coming to the end of this course, it is rather apt that environment should be a concluding topic to it. Environmentalists, climatologists, social activists, politicians, the media (just to name a few) have been discussing the environmental problem for years now ever since industrialization seem to have brought imminent side effects to the place we all live in. Environmental problems and pollutions are inevitably an effect of human activities. Global warming and climate change are the hazards brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere caused by industrialization and car usage, for example. Pollution is also caused by the inability of the people to manage their waste problem, causing problem such as land pollution.
Essentially, I see the environmental problem arising out of 3 interlinked factors; economic, political and social. Nonetheless, ultimately, the overarching force that controls these factors is only one: the free market system.
The free market system has created a culture of mass consumerism. Having mass consumerism run the market system means increasing production of goods to be used by the society which demands those products. Industries are ran to meet these demands. From this demand-supply chain, we already see a few phenomena likely to happen. Firstly is the issue of mass production, which may lead to wastage arising out of needs versus wants. Consumers in the mass consumer culture today may want products which they may not necessarily need, and thus, may contribute to the wastage problem. Secondly is the running of these industries. While factories depend on the fuel power to run, they also emit carbon into the atmosphere, creating undesirable ozone effects.
Whilst we notice the role of economy and society in contributing to this effect, governments’ role in contributing to this phenomena should also be assessed. Economic forces have created capitalistic governments who prioritise economic profiteering above environmental hazards. While developed nations still contribute to global warming, they still want developing countries to adopt environmentally friendly approaches to development, setting a double-standards in approaching this issue. On top of that, it is also essentially a war between governments and NGOs as countries are not signing treaties after treaties made as a vow to reduce carbon emission from industries to generate economic profits.The Kyoto Protocol is a clear indication of governments’ commitment to the issue of global warming. While in 2008, 183 parties have ratified the protocol (source: http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/application/pdf/kp_ratification.pdf) , it took years of convincing to ensure that governments are agreeable to the protocol. On top of that, there is no legally binding institution to monitor the commitment of countries to this protocol due to the issue of national sovereignty. Ultimately, it is an issue of individual countries’ integrity in commiting themselves to it.
At the end of it all, it all boils down to people in societies and governments to realise that ecological problems arise out of human activities and only us humans who have the means to fix this problem. Governments and societies have to work hand in hand to curb the issue of carbon emission into the atmosphere as well as waste management issues. In order for this to be possible, economic goals have to be subordinated to make way for the focus to be on solutions to solve this problem.
What governments need to realise that commitment to the terms of environmental solution practices does not mean that their economic objectives are being jeopardised. The equation is simple; the goals of the Kyoto Protocol is merely the preservation of the environment and NOT harping on the economic benefits. Thus, what governments need to realise is that as the free market economy operates in a culture of mass consumerism, which started the whole snowballing of effects, economies need to find alternative ways to operate and reap profits.
In my most earnest opinion, (In light of the recent change in American leadership), as countries often wait for one another to champion a cause, it all starts with an influential superpower to initiate the move. Obama, maybe it’s up to you now.
=)
Population & Health (Population Control)
Singapore has been at it for years. Beginning in 1949, family planning services were offered by the private Singapore Family Planning Association, and by 1960 was receiving some government fundings (www.photius.com). In 1970s, abortion and voluntary sterilization were legalized to react to the postwar baby boom. The government also embarked on a family planning campaign and was encouraging couples to “stop at two.” By the late 1980s, as birth rates are falling, the government created incentives to encourage families to go for a third child, providing generous maternity leaves and child education subsidies. Now, in the era of the Y2K, the government is embarking on pro-family policies to encourage young couples to bear more children.
Population control policies as such are not new. In fact, it is rampant throughout the world. China is known for its “one-child policy” to curb its booming billion population number. The United States Public Health Service Act started a campaign in 1970s to encourage women to have access to contraceptives. Even in Iran, their family policies are strict in controlling the population. Being a country that has succeeded in having a steep population reduction graph, Iran is in fact surprisingly the only country where mandatory contraceptive courses are required for both males and females before a marriage license can be obtained despite being a strict religious regime (Larsen,read article: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update4ss.htm).
How much is it in the interest of the state to control its population, and to what purpose? Maybe Malthus’ population theory might be the factor that influenced them. Thomas Malthus might have suggested that the exponential population growth would mean the scarcity of resources, and proponents of his view might even push this by suggesting that the world would collapse with the ever-increasing population increase. In 1968, Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich wrote a well publicized book entitled The Population Bomb*. Ehrlich predicted widespread famine and disaster unless population growth was reduced to zero in America and throughout the world by compulsory methods if necessary (Jessop, read article: http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/Articles/200712/20071210_Bomb_America.htm). Some theorists even suggest that uncontrolled population growth results in poverty, and thus the need to control it.
But honestly, how very true is Malthus’ theory in our society today. Firstly, the world has gone past the 6 billion population mark, and it has not yet collapsed as what Ehrlich might have suggested (Sernau). The supply of food is ultimately able to feed the world population. What I feel may be the problem, however, is the distribution of these resources. Poverty comes about not because of the increasing numbers which equates to higher demand and food supply which may not be adequate for consumption, but rather the poor distribution of wheat, grain and other staple food supplies. Ultimately, nature comes to work in such that when there are new additions to the world population, at some point the existing number will drop.
Secondly, how relevant is Malthus’ theory in a world divided into the First World and the Third World, where First World cosmopolitan societies seem to have declining birth rates and the Third World is where the number is increasing. With one society having a declining rate and the other with a steady growth, population growth will reach an equilibrium. The worry of government is perhaps curbing poverty, thus, once again, this drives me to my point that population is not so much the problem, but rather distribution amongst the world population.
Thirdly, is the question of the effectiveness of population control policies. How much can the state really have an ironfist control over something that is natural to human beings? Sure, perhaps that might come off as pretty much a moralist statement, but even in sociological perspectives, population control policies have been notorious for being infamous among societies and in some instances, may even generate social grievances. China’s one-child policy have been infamous for leading to infanticide of female babies among Chinese families. Even in Singapore, which swings from having ‘controlled policies’ to ‘pro-child policy’ erratically today, the effectiveness of encouraging young couples to bear children is questionable.
Nonetheless, it all boils down to good management and governance. Governments, while need justification to their population control policies, should also ultimately display capability to manage those policies and react to the repercussions that would later unfold. Even by having a policy to a good cause, with poor planning and management, the policy may be weak and useless in their attempt to control the people. On top of that, grievances might even arise. Thus, while governments attempt to justify their move, they should also prove their ability at bringing the desired impact to the population.
Politics of identity & globalisation
Between us and them…and who am I?
When an overseas friend of mine was in town recently, we caught up over sushi and tried to learn about each other better. I was pleased to learn that besides being an Australian, he’s also got a mix of English, Irish, Scottish, Egyptian and Greek cultural background in him. Pretty interesting. And then he asked me the same question in my direction. “So what are you?” I was somewhat stunned.
What does it mean to be me? I am a Malay, a Muslim, and a Singaporean. My ethnicity and cultural background gives me a sense of belonging to a particular community, and strengthens my sense of self.
While ethnicity creates cohesion amongst people of the same heritage and background, it also divides the human race. Ethnicity creates a boundary, as Sernau said it, a “divider between us and them.” Who are the Whites? Who are the Blacks? So are we merely recognized for the colour of our skin now?
Increasingly, ethnic variations have been blurred over time with globalization and urbanization shaping human interactions. Inter-marriages too may cause the diluting of ethnic variations. Humans are only recognized based on a major ethnic group which they belong too. To put it simply, I am a Malay. But my background is much more diverse than that. I made up of the Johore-Rhio, Bugis and Javanese heritage. Many don’t see the need to know where they come from or who they are. It irks me that while some people bother finding out their cultural backgrounds, there are others who might be nonchalant about it.
But then again, perhaps I should emphatise. “Why should we care when ultimately we come from the same background, somewhere along our lineage?” Somewhere down our history, we might discover we share a common heritage somewhere. Recognising ourselves as a belonging to a particular ethnic group does not do justice to uniting the human race, but only further divides it. True? I don’t think so. Ethnicity should never be a problem unless we make it one.
In my most earnest opinion, the concept of ethnicity strengthens one’s sense of self, and put one’s place in the society (not necessarily negatively) in order to make him belong to a “something”. Sernau might have mentioned that ethnicity may potentially create a dangerous concept of race. A potentially dangerous concept? Sure, with race comes prejudices such as racism and ethnocentrism. But does this automatically mean that ethnicity is problematic?
Ethinicty is only a problem when it gets in the way of human interactions and dealings with each other. When colour or backgrounds become a hindrance, it already constitutes as racism. The emphasis on race is especially strong in the Middle Eastern countries that the region sees plenty of conflicts based on ethnic differences. When ethnic variations become politicized, it creates a whole lot of conflict in a country or region. Even in Indonesia, a country of many tribes and ethnic groups, when the difference between the Irian Jayans is emphasized, it pulls the country away from the central government that triggered a series of political turmoil in the country.
Many countries in the world today are multi racial due to the influx of immigrants due to globalization. The differences in race and religion should not affect the rights one get in the country he lives in. Various aspects of administration should not let race be a criteria in their dealings, especially in businesses, trade, employment and public policies.
In fact, application forms which require one to state his race should eliminate this portion as it serves no purpose, unless to further divide and differentiate potential candidates to a particular position in an organization. For what is worth, only one’s merits, academic or professional qualifications should be a measure to entry to these things.
Democracy & Human Rights
Democracy, the people and media
Very often when talking about democracy, the question at the top of my head will be “what is democracy in the truest sense?” There are afterall various types of democracy in the world today. The concept seems to be really fluid. Different countries practice democracy in different ways, thus I perceive the concept to be diluted from its theoretical sense. The most common kind of democracy we hear today is “constitutional democracy” which is practiced in most countries. And then there are of course other types like representative democracy and participatory democracy, and even going back to the medieval time there were the Athenian democracy.
In Beckman’s ‘Explaining democratisation: notes on the concept of civil society’ (1997), he relates democracy to the civil society. Although according to him, the notion of civil society has a history of ambiguity in Western political theory, it is generally accepted that the civil society consist of shared interests, purposes and values. Although democracy is practised differently in various nation-states, it is nonetheless generally accepted to be the ability of the people to choose their leaders. While Cunnigham defined democracy as “rule by the people”, alluding to the commonly used notion of “government of the people FOR the people”, Schumpeter argued that democracy is nothing but the ability of the people to vote for or against their leaders and political parties.
This then brings me to the prerequisites of a democracy in a society. In order for the society to practice their voting rights intelligently, there is a need for the masses to be educated and informed of the political agendas of the personalities they are supporting. An educated society is imperative for democracy to work ideally. Nonetheless, an educated society is also a derivative from the practice of democracy. Much like the “chicken and egg” equation, education and democracy coexists.
As a media student, democracy has a special place in my heart. The issue of media democracy has long been debated. As the mass media has a adverse influence in the society, governments all over are wary of the media, and media autonomy is practised differently in different countries. Why the difference? Beckman argues that the concept of civil society has been incorporated into a liberal political agenda that ultimately makes it redundant and overshadowed by the political agendas.
A free press system is an element of the civil society. Yet how true is it that the press gets 100% freedom, and is entirely free from the state? Perhaps in the United States, the First Amendment protects the autonomy of the civil society. Even Scandinavian countries are known for the level of freedom their media has. Yet in Singapore, the issue of media democracy is questionable. In fact, it has been a hotly discussed issue among Western democracies. Does this mean that human rights have been infringed? How much liberty do we want in order to consider ourselves considerately “media democratic”?
And that, I personally feel, is a tricky question to resolve. Democracy is inevitably linked to freedom, and very often the issue of freedom is questioned to as whether there is such thing as a “total freedom”. Of course there is, yet the only problem is total freedom might mean chaos as interests collide and principles are conflicting.
Yet the issue with democracy is such that it represents the sovereignty of the people. It is a symbolic representation, and inevitably an important aspect of human rights. There is no true blue formula so as to how democracy should function and what should work for countries. Afterall, societies vary based on their history of formation and environments. For the fact that democracy is practised differently in different parts of the world, I have nothing against it. Yet states should always respect the fundamental idea behind it.
Democracy is to vest the people with the rights they have in the workings of the society. Although the government is selected by the people, the state should not exclude the people from policy-making processes and give them the rights to input in such activities. True, the government is given the mandate to rule, yet transparency should exist in order for trust and rapport to exist between the state and society. And this transparency should be allowed in the way the media functions. Ideally, the media SHOULD be free of the state as they have an ethical responsibility to inform the society of nothing but the truth.
Post-election thingamagic (Reflection and other stuff)
And we’re back to the programme.
It’s a beautiful sunny Monday morning out here in Singapore’s financial district and everything is back to normal. Yea, you know, the usuals. Gaunt looking working people walking to their offices with solemn expressions on their faces, some fresh-faced, crisp looking bank personnels walking around looking important, and oooh hello, a suave looking man with briefcase and blazer in hand. Heh heh. (Me looking at men, yea that’s normal too yea.)
Seems like everyone’s still experiencing the post-election hangover, from the looks and feel of it. We observed history-in-the making on Saturday night/Sunday morning when the Opposition party made what is said as the biggest win in the Singapore Parliamentary Election the nation-state has seen in its 46 years since independence. And what is this big victory? 6 seats in Parliament, occupied by the Worker’s Party, out of a total of 87 seats.
Yup. That’s right. 6 out of 87, of which the rest are of course occupied by the ruling party PAP, and that is considered quite a revolution in this country. Well, just as a few of us predicted, this win by the Opposition is a realistic one, and expected.
Despite the outburst of political activism that we saw expressed by many young Singaporeans, with social media serving as the platform for discussions and any expression of resentment towards the ruling party or showing their support for the Opposition which has came out strong this time round, there is still plenty of time before Singapore sees a real change. Much like Dr. Cherian George (read blog here), I agree that it will take some time before we see a paradigm shift in politics here.
What we had seen in the previous weeks were plenty of lively discussions and debates by the masses online and it had been heartening to notice that apathy had taken a backseat in Singapore’s politics. Singaporeans are getting more involved and aware of the political climate and taking a more active role in this election. That is of course, the next big take-away from this election, besides the biggest win our Opposition has seized. It’s a refreshing change, for a start.
Social media has of course been a significant catalyst for this rejuvenated activism, and as blogged by my classmate Stoofi (read blog here), there were definitely plenty of interesting discussions and arguments posted by fellow Singaporeans, ranging from satirical analogy to well thought out argument pieces contributed on Facebook and blogs and shared across Twitter, etc.
Of which, a recent Youtube video produced by a friend also made me realise the power of social media and the strategies that make the shared content viral. FallenSuperheroSG’s Youtube video, the currently viral Yam Ah Mee’s club mix (watch here) is a good case study for the strategies for viral videos. Firstly, of course this guy’s skills is a commendable one (haha yea yea biased remark but it’s true so this is valid). But on top of that, the rate that this video is being shared amazed me. It was even shared on Stomp, Yahoo! News and The Online Citizen, so he’s making it big islandwide hey! I mean personally, I take this as a good learning point. Viral videos are not produced with the sole intention to be a “viral vide”.
Very often, viral videos are unintentional. The strength of the viral video lies in its content, and the creative element it has. Or anything that serves human interest. In the case of FallenSuperhero’s for example, he pegged on the current most talked about issue that people are all bothered about, and took something out of it, and spun it around into something that entertains other people, and they go on sharing. Once you have a number of other platforms picking it up, there you have it, a video worthy of everyone’s time. Good stuff, I must say.
That being said, check his Youtube channel out. Guy produces lots of pretty sweet mixes and sometimes rock covers of pop hits. FallenSuperhero FTW!
(Told ya this isn’t exactly entirely politics related)