Response to WK's No Eating or Drinking: Fine $500 post
WRITTEN BY: MING FENG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009: SMRT introduces the complete ban on consuming all form of food, including plain water, on all trains.
2011: SMRT bans sleeping on trains, the rationale being "dunno, just for the heck of it." Offenders are fined $500.
2012: The notorious East-West line claims the first victim, who died of dehydration after attempting to ride from Pasir Ris to Joo Koon.
2013: Fine raised from $500 to $5,000.
2013: Fine raised from $5,000 to $50,000.
2013: Fine raised from $50,000 to $500,000.
2014: SMRT bans singing, loud handphones, talking louder than 45 decibels, not keeping to the left on escalators and not giving way to alighting passengers, as part of their motto of "Moving People, Enhancing Lives".
2015: SMRT renamed to SMaRT despite their rules being quite on the contrary. SMaRT changes motto to "Moving People, OUR Way".
2016: SMaRT bans inhaling of plain water, after one commuter attempted to justify the ingestion of plain water through the nose as "inhaling, and not drinking, and therefore you can't fine the shit out of me". The man was detained for being a public nuisance.
2018: 172 people died from dehydration while attempting the "Coast to Coast" feat, riding from Pasir Ris to Joo Koon without alighting to drink water. Local adventurer Mr S.C Khoo becomes the first man in the world to succeed in this feat, becoming a national hero once again.
2019: SMaRT caught 783,402 people attempting to drink or inhale plain water on the train, and decided to make smuggling more than 18 grams of plain water into trains a capital offence. In the same year, SMaRT declares a profit of $402 billion, a world record for a public transport company, while denying that fines make up the bulk of their profits.
2019: First person executed for attempting to smuggle a bottle of NeWater into trains.
2021: A commuter with 18kg of plain water strapped to his body, managed run through the water detector gates, evade pursuing station officers, and charged through the ticket gantry without paying. He later disappeared into the peak hour crowd and was last seen distributing water on the platform. The Water Bearer, as he was later affectionately known among commuters, was branded a hero by the people but was never seen attempting the feat again. SMaRT arms their station officers with police-issued MP5 submachine guns after the infamous incident. The SMaRT management deals with the humiliation by likening the Water Bearer's actions to that of "a terrorist, a suicide bomber", and threatens to shoot any commuter attempting to emulate the Water Bearer.
2027: To solve the problem of commuters not giving up seats to the elderly, the pregnant and the handicapped, SMaRT bans the elderly, the pregnant and the handicapped from taking trains. SMaRT buys over SBS Transit.
2030: After a nine-year hunt, the Water Bearer was finally caught and was due to be sentenced to death. However, he escaped through the window inside one of the toilets in a detention facility. The notorious Window was last reinforced in 2008 when a wanted terrorist escaped through it. The Water Bearer was never seen again, despite eye-witnesses reported seeing him swimming in the Straits of Malacca with a flotation device fashioned out of 180 NeWater bottles hours after he was reported missing.
2034: The number of deaths related to the plain water drinking ban exceeds that of the Death Railway, earning SMaRT the nickname of "The Death Transit".
2035: SMaRT successfully monopolises public transport after completing the buyover of ComfortDelgro. The people likened the move to an experience similar to the Japanese Occupation. SMaRT shot down the claim, saying nobody in this generation has ever been through the Japanese Occupation, and therefore there is no basis of comparison. SMaRT ridership at an all-time low.
2036: In a brilliant collaboration with the government, private transport, including bicycles and tricycles, are completely banned from the roads. SMaRT encourages the people to take their world class public transport service. SMaRT ridership at an all-time high. SMaRT embarks on the Great Leap Forward programme, massively and rapidly expanding their transport services.
2038: Taxi flag down rates raised to $24.40. Bus fares increased by 600%.
2048: Taxi flag down rates raised to $96.70. Bus fares increased by 600%.
2086: Great Leap Forward ends. There are now 666 kilometres of train tracks serving every corner of Singapore, including previously inaccessible places like the Live Firing Area, Pulau Brani, Pulau Sudong, Jurong Island, Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong. Batam extension opens. There is one taxi for every four people, and one bus for every 12. SMaRT employees make up more than half of the 15 million people in Singapore.
2987: SMaRT celebrates 1000 years of public transport service.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
The Political Opposition
From The Blue Sweater, posted 4 September 2009
Ok, before I begin, the disclaimer:
First, this essay is about politics, but aims only to reflect on the realities of political opposition in Singapore.
Second, this is NOT a Political Science essay. So for any of my PS friends reading this, please don’t take it so seriously...
Alright, now I can start... though I seriously wonder whether those disclaimers are necessary in the first place.
There has been much news about opposition parties in general recently. Japan had a historic change in its politics, when the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) ended the 55-year rule of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).
In Singapore, the opposition party PKMS hit the headlines (and made a fool of themselves) after fights broke out due to power struggles within the party. All these events made the discussion with a friend of mine today all the more meaningful.
A friend of mine took a module on politics in Singapore, and I was approached for ideas, as I took the same module during Special Semester.
I was given this question, which is not strictly a political science question, but nevertheless is related somewhat to the topic of Singapore politics: “I know some people who vote opposition, but when asked why, they didn’t have a real reason, other than ‘I just don’t like the PAP.’ How does it make sense?”
Well, my initial thought was that it simply doesn’t make sense. I was initially inclined to say that these voters are simply irrational, but then again, I personally felt that wasn’t really answering the question.
So I adopted a different approach to the question, that is, I wanted to address the question “Why do people vote opposition in the first place”.
I thought of three possible reasons.
First, there are people who simply do not support the PAP as it is. People might be dissatisfied with its elitism, the conservatism, or the political ideology of the party.
Second, there are people who sincerely believe that there should be more space and opportunities for the opposition. This is because of the belief that a true democracy is one in which ruling and opposition parties can compete on an equal basis, which is a situation that does not happen in Singapore. In addition, there is the desire for the greater presence of opposition in parliament, so that there is more debate and alternative voices in parliament.
Of course, one might rebut by arguing the role of the Nominated MPs in parliament, but the problem is, though NMPs are non-partisan by nature, they are screened by a PAP-dominated panel, which affects the neutrality of the NMPs.
Third, and more importantly, there are people who do not benefit, or are even marginalised by PAP policy. PAP policies and schemes might not have benefited them, and there are important structural contradictions in some of the government’s policy, such as the contradiction between cosmopolitanism and building national identity, between embracing globalisation and coping with the problems and challenges associated with it, such as the “digital divide”, which marginalises the older generation who lack the IT skills necessary in the digitised job market.
Though there are issues, it is ultimately important to note that these factors are ultimately inconsequential. Political opposition in Singapore is ultimately too weak, for a variety of reasons, to effectively challenge the PAP government (I won’t get to the reasons, one can write an entire essay out of these reasons, which I decline, having already done so just last semester). We are very unlikely, in the foreseeable future, to see the situation in Japan, when a long-ruling party is simply brought to its knees.
Nevertheless, I feel there is an important lesson for the PAP. The ineffective handling of national problems and issues can lead to public disillusionment. The PAP will not see the situation as that in Japan, but public dissatisfaction is easily manifested in the electoral swings, as evident in the PAP’s troubled years of 1980 and 1984.
Ok, before I begin, the disclaimer:
First, this essay is about politics, but aims only to reflect on the realities of political opposition in Singapore.
Second, this is NOT a Political Science essay. So for any of my PS friends reading this, please don’t take it so seriously...
Alright, now I can start... though I seriously wonder whether those disclaimers are necessary in the first place.
There has been much news about opposition parties in general recently. Japan had a historic change in its politics, when the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) ended the 55-year rule of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).
In Singapore, the opposition party PKMS hit the headlines (and made a fool of themselves) after fights broke out due to power struggles within the party. All these events made the discussion with a friend of mine today all the more meaningful.
A friend of mine took a module on politics in Singapore, and I was approached for ideas, as I took the same module during Special Semester.
I was given this question, which is not strictly a political science question, but nevertheless is related somewhat to the topic of Singapore politics: “I know some people who vote opposition, but when asked why, they didn’t have a real reason, other than ‘I just don’t like the PAP.’ How does it make sense?”
Well, my initial thought was that it simply doesn’t make sense. I was initially inclined to say that these voters are simply irrational, but then again, I personally felt that wasn’t really answering the question.
So I adopted a different approach to the question, that is, I wanted to address the question “Why do people vote opposition in the first place”.
I thought of three possible reasons.
First, there are people who simply do not support the PAP as it is. People might be dissatisfied with its elitism, the conservatism, or the political ideology of the party.
Second, there are people who sincerely believe that there should be more space and opportunities for the opposition. This is because of the belief that a true democracy is one in which ruling and opposition parties can compete on an equal basis, which is a situation that does not happen in Singapore. In addition, there is the desire for the greater presence of opposition in parliament, so that there is more debate and alternative voices in parliament.
Of course, one might rebut by arguing the role of the Nominated MPs in parliament, but the problem is, though NMPs are non-partisan by nature, they are screened by a PAP-dominated panel, which affects the neutrality of the NMPs.
Third, and more importantly, there are people who do not benefit, or are even marginalised by PAP policy. PAP policies and schemes might not have benefited them, and there are important structural contradictions in some of the government’s policy, such as the contradiction between cosmopolitanism and building national identity, between embracing globalisation and coping with the problems and challenges associated with it, such as the “digital divide”, which marginalises the older generation who lack the IT skills necessary in the digitised job market.
Though there are issues, it is ultimately important to note that these factors are ultimately inconsequential. Political opposition in Singapore is ultimately too weak, for a variety of reasons, to effectively challenge the PAP government (I won’t get to the reasons, one can write an entire essay out of these reasons, which I decline, having already done so just last semester). We are very unlikely, in the foreseeable future, to see the situation in Japan, when a long-ruling party is simply brought to its knees.
Nevertheless, I feel there is an important lesson for the PAP. The ineffective handling of national problems and issues can lead to public disillusionment. The PAP will not see the situation as that in Japan, but public dissatisfaction is easily manifested in the electoral swings, as evident in the PAP’s troubled years of 1980 and 1984.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Why Are Singaporeans So Hard to Please?
I had some thoughts after reading an article in the Channel NewsAsia webpage on the installation of half-height barriers in the above-ground MRT stations, which will be completed across the nation by 2012.
There are a few issues that revolved around this policy, firstly, why these barriers are built, and second, how people reacted to this change, which is the focus of my post here.
The barriers were built as a response to cases of suicide in MRT stations, where people simply jumped off the platform onto the track at the oncoming train. So the barriers were erected in order to prevent the chances of people falling onto the tracks, by intention or by accident. It also prevents personal objects from falling onto the tracks.
The benefits? First accidents and deaths are avoided. Second, time is saved and convenience ensured, as train services are always disrupted after each accident, which causes a certain amount of distress and frustration (just imagine stuck in the station, or the train, for more than an hour because the trains couldn’t move).
BUT, some Singaporeans are just so hard to please.
“It’s unsightly.” Said one. “There is no ventilation.” Said another.
I was thinking, given Singapore’s insane weather, there’s no difference whether there’s a barrier or not in the first place. Besides, the existence of barriers is not the real cause of temperature conditions in MRT stations anyway.
And unsightly? Well, the Metro in Taipei had the same barriers too, they didn’t complain.
Besides (and to be really cynical), given the already unsightly appearance of above-ground MRT stations in Singapore, it really doesn’t make a difference.
What is more important, to think of the larger picture, is to consider what these barriers are for. They are, to use the RSAF’s advertisement motto, “for a higher purpose”. They are there to prevent accidents and disruptions to train services.
So, why are Singaporeans so hard to please?
It’s because, to me, we are just such a demanding lot of people. We want the best of everything, even if they might contradict one another. We want safer stations and less disruption, and yet want “visual pleasure” and ventilation, we want good salaries and career prospects, yet are cynical of our education system, which is responsible for the creation of career opportunities for individuals.
It’s really like the people in the US, who want to slim down by eating.
Of course, not everyone in Singapore is like that. The difference in opinion to the erection of barriers is also not necessarily the self-contradicting statements of specific individuals. But it does show one thing about human society in general: that conflicting interests create the difficulty of policy implementation and social improvement.
I was also reading about Mr Obama’s recent healthcare reforms, which led to intense debate in the US. It’s a pretty complex issue, so just for a quick background, here’s some of the issues.
First, Mr Obama wants to extend insurance coverage to more Americans. A large number of Americans are still uninsured, so you can imagine what will happen to them if they incur medical costs, which are ridiculous in the US.
Second, Mr Obama wants to reform the insurance system. Currently, insurance companies (in the US, of course, you can’t imagine insurance companies in Singapore doing that) can reject claims based on “pre-existing conditions”, meaning you’ve had some previous health condition you may or may not know about. So, if you are hospitalised, for say, heart disease, and you have high blood pressure, the insurance company can reject your insurance claim because of the pre-existing condition of high blood pressure (ridiculous, isn’t it).
For a cynical take on the shambles of the US healthcare system, you can watch Michael Moore’s Sicko. Of course, I’ll have to warn you, it’s very cynical, and biased in some ways, so take note.
In the US, the debate is really intense. Obama’s supporters feel he’s not doing enough, and his opponents and critics are saying he’s bringing more problems and creating “socialised medicine”, exemplified by the communist states and the British National Health Service (NHS), which are portrayed as inefficient and expensive (well, not quite. The NHS is expensive, for the state, but it’s quite efficient, thanks to Mrs Thatcher’s reforms).
What am I trying to put forth here? First, in Singapore, there’s this really famous saying, “In Singapore, one can die, but can never fall ill”, reflecting the high costs of healthcare in Singapore.
But if you know just a little more about the other healthcare systems of other countries, you’ll realise we’re not all that bad. At least we have some form of funding for healthcare (not that the US doesn’t have things like medisave, medishield and medifund, they do. But they are much less substantial in funds), and at least insurance companies don’t cheat us like they do in the US.
What bridges both the US and Singapore is the contradicting interests that are involved. To put it bluntly, both want a healthcare system that is good, but both also don’t want to pay for it.
In the presence of conflicting interests, we need to think critically, rather than naively and childishly say, “I want it my way.”
There are a few issues that revolved around this policy, firstly, why these barriers are built, and second, how people reacted to this change, which is the focus of my post here.
The barriers were built as a response to cases of suicide in MRT stations, where people simply jumped off the platform onto the track at the oncoming train. So the barriers were erected in order to prevent the chances of people falling onto the tracks, by intention or by accident. It also prevents personal objects from falling onto the tracks.
The benefits? First accidents and deaths are avoided. Second, time is saved and convenience ensured, as train services are always disrupted after each accident, which causes a certain amount of distress and frustration (just imagine stuck in the station, or the train, for more than an hour because the trains couldn’t move).
BUT, some Singaporeans are just so hard to please.
“It’s unsightly.” Said one. “There is no ventilation.” Said another.
I was thinking, given Singapore’s insane weather, there’s no difference whether there’s a barrier or not in the first place. Besides, the existence of barriers is not the real cause of temperature conditions in MRT stations anyway.
And unsightly? Well, the Metro in Taipei had the same barriers too, they didn’t complain.
Besides (and to be really cynical), given the already unsightly appearance of above-ground MRT stations in Singapore, it really doesn’t make a difference.
What is more important, to think of the larger picture, is to consider what these barriers are for. They are, to use the RSAF’s advertisement motto, “for a higher purpose”. They are there to prevent accidents and disruptions to train services.
So, why are Singaporeans so hard to please?
It’s because, to me, we are just such a demanding lot of people. We want the best of everything, even if they might contradict one another. We want safer stations and less disruption, and yet want “visual pleasure” and ventilation, we want good salaries and career prospects, yet are cynical of our education system, which is responsible for the creation of career opportunities for individuals.
It’s really like the people in the US, who want to slim down by eating.
Of course, not everyone in Singapore is like that. The difference in opinion to the erection of barriers is also not necessarily the self-contradicting statements of specific individuals. But it does show one thing about human society in general: that conflicting interests create the difficulty of policy implementation and social improvement.
I was also reading about Mr Obama’s recent healthcare reforms, which led to intense debate in the US. It’s a pretty complex issue, so just for a quick background, here’s some of the issues.
First, Mr Obama wants to extend insurance coverage to more Americans. A large number of Americans are still uninsured, so you can imagine what will happen to them if they incur medical costs, which are ridiculous in the US.
Second, Mr Obama wants to reform the insurance system. Currently, insurance companies (in the US, of course, you can’t imagine insurance companies in Singapore doing that) can reject claims based on “pre-existing conditions”, meaning you’ve had some previous health condition you may or may not know about. So, if you are hospitalised, for say, heart disease, and you have high blood pressure, the insurance company can reject your insurance claim because of the pre-existing condition of high blood pressure (ridiculous, isn’t it).
For a cynical take on the shambles of the US healthcare system, you can watch Michael Moore’s Sicko. Of course, I’ll have to warn you, it’s very cynical, and biased in some ways, so take note.
In the US, the debate is really intense. Obama’s supporters feel he’s not doing enough, and his opponents and critics are saying he’s bringing more problems and creating “socialised medicine”, exemplified by the communist states and the British National Health Service (NHS), which are portrayed as inefficient and expensive (well, not quite. The NHS is expensive, for the state, but it’s quite efficient, thanks to Mrs Thatcher’s reforms).
What am I trying to put forth here? First, in Singapore, there’s this really famous saying, “In Singapore, one can die, but can never fall ill”, reflecting the high costs of healthcare in Singapore.
But if you know just a little more about the other healthcare systems of other countries, you’ll realise we’re not all that bad. At least we have some form of funding for healthcare (not that the US doesn’t have things like medisave, medishield and medifund, they do. But they are much less substantial in funds), and at least insurance companies don’t cheat us like they do in the US.
What bridges both the US and Singapore is the contradicting interests that are involved. To put it bluntly, both want a healthcare system that is good, but both also don’t want to pay for it.
In the presence of conflicting interests, we need to think critically, rather than naively and childishly say, “I want it my way.”
Thursday, July 23, 2009
When Hardware isn’t Everything
Today I’ll do a military post. I was inspired by the recent vote cast by the US Senate against the acquisition of an additional seven F-22 raptor fighter jets as part of a defence authorisation bill.
This was in support of President Obama’s desire to reduce wastage in defence spending, and focusing on fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than military hardware.
In his words:
“At a time when we’re fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, this would have been an inexcusable waste of money”
“I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defence projects…”
Just for your knowledge, the F-22 raptor looks like this:
And the US Air Force (USAF) already has 187 of these, the most advanced jet fighter in the world.
Personally, I commend President Obama and the US Senate for their decision. But there are three main issues I’ll like to explore as a response to this issue, and from there, talk about the whole notion of defence spending in general.
First, the effectiveness of the F-22.
Second, the military-industrial complex.
Third, the emphasis on hardware.
The F-22 was designed as an air-superiority fighter, meaning it was designed to take out enemy fighters. For that purpose, it was designed to have stealth features, the ability to “supercruise” (travel at supersonic speed without afterburner), and thrust vectoring for extra manoeuvrability.
But the problem is, given the current nature of military operations in the world today, is such a category of military hardware still relevant? In the post-cold war world, terrorism has superseded conventional militaries as the primary threat to national security. Given this context, wouldn’t it be wiser to spend on counter-insurgency?
Besides, the complexities of such military hardware create huge costs for governments, due to maintenance costs, and the need for specialised support equipment and services. The specialist role of the F-22 also implies other planes have to be bought to fulfil other roles, such as the ground attack role.
This is why some people argue that the alternative, the multi-role F-35 Lightning II, better known as the Joint Strike Fighter, is a better choice:
The second issue is that of the military-industrial complex. Supporters of the acquisition argue that F-22 production provides 25,000 jobs, and indirectly support 70,000 jobs. The defence industry forms an integral part of the US economy, in what is called the military-industrial complex, coined by former US President Dwight Eisenhower.
In a nutshell, it defines the politico-economic relationship between the state, the military and the defence industries.
To illustrate how it works:
A militaristic government wants to use military action to fulfill some strategic or political objective, and sends the military for these operations. Since the military needs hardware and support services to carry out these wars, it has to purchase them from the defence industries, which therefore are supported by and profits from the state. In return, the defence industries sponsor the government, bringing its politicians back into power. The government is then free to continue its militaristic policies, continuing the cycle.
So what is the problem here?
First, the government is trapped in the vicious cycle of militarism. Governments become dependent on the support of the defence industries for their legitimacy, and the defence industries push them towards aggressive foreign policies. Therefore, governments can become corrupted by this relationship, since defence industries hold so much leverage.
Second, it affects other sectors of the economy. The primacy of the defence industry means that other industries are not given the same level of attention and development.
The increasing weakness of US manufacturing industry, with the exception of the defence industry is evidence of the advent of the military-industrial complex.
Third, why all that emphasis on hardware?
As I have mentioned above, the current nature of military action has changed since the times of the Cold War. Of course, there are emerging powers such as China, and re-emerging powers such as Russia, that are still aggressively pursuing policies of modernisation within their militaries.
But there are two things to consider. First, the advent of diplomacy within the international community. The international community has been united by the common threats of international terrorism and rogue states. Their relative military strengths have been channelled towards the containment of these two threats.
Second, given the weak global economy, isn’t it wiser to spend money on more constructive purposes, rather than “destructive” ones?
Actually, come to think of it, the same thing is happening to Singapore too. Over recent years, the Singapore Armed Forces have acquired a whole array of military hardware as part of its project of modernisation. F-15 fighters, Formidable - class stealth frigates, Leopard 2 main battle tanks...
But it begs the question: does it fulfil the true needs of our military? It does, if one considers the age of the equipment these new hardware were designated to replace, but on the other hand, how is “improvement” on our defence capability measured?
It’s certainly not a game of numbers, nor is it a matter of “who’s got the latest hardware”.
And what about the average soldier? Has his life as a soldier improved?
To end off this post on a lighter note, I think the F-22 issue could come to a better conclusion if only they got their hands on this particular F-22:
Yeah. Starscream.
The only question left would be: Will we control him, or will we end up controlled by him?
This was in support of President Obama’s desire to reduce wastage in defence spending, and focusing on fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than military hardware.
In his words:
“At a time when we’re fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, this would have been an inexcusable waste of money”
“I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defence projects…”
Just for your knowledge, the F-22 raptor looks like this:
And the US Air Force (USAF) already has 187 of these, the most advanced jet fighter in the world.
Personally, I commend President Obama and the US Senate for their decision. But there are three main issues I’ll like to explore as a response to this issue, and from there, talk about the whole notion of defence spending in general.
First, the effectiveness of the F-22.
Second, the military-industrial complex.
Third, the emphasis on hardware.
The F-22 was designed as an air-superiority fighter, meaning it was designed to take out enemy fighters. For that purpose, it was designed to have stealth features, the ability to “supercruise” (travel at supersonic speed without afterburner), and thrust vectoring for extra manoeuvrability.
But the problem is, given the current nature of military operations in the world today, is such a category of military hardware still relevant? In the post-cold war world, terrorism has superseded conventional militaries as the primary threat to national security. Given this context, wouldn’t it be wiser to spend on counter-insurgency?
Besides, the complexities of such military hardware create huge costs for governments, due to maintenance costs, and the need for specialised support equipment and services. The specialist role of the F-22 also implies other planes have to be bought to fulfil other roles, such as the ground attack role.
This is why some people argue that the alternative, the multi-role F-35 Lightning II, better known as the Joint Strike Fighter, is a better choice:
The second issue is that of the military-industrial complex. Supporters of the acquisition argue that F-22 production provides 25,000 jobs, and indirectly support 70,000 jobs. The defence industry forms an integral part of the US economy, in what is called the military-industrial complex, coined by former US President Dwight Eisenhower.
In a nutshell, it defines the politico-economic relationship between the state, the military and the defence industries.
To illustrate how it works:
A militaristic government wants to use military action to fulfill some strategic or political objective, and sends the military for these operations. Since the military needs hardware and support services to carry out these wars, it has to purchase them from the defence industries, which therefore are supported by and profits from the state. In return, the defence industries sponsor the government, bringing its politicians back into power. The government is then free to continue its militaristic policies, continuing the cycle.
So what is the problem here?
First, the government is trapped in the vicious cycle of militarism. Governments become dependent on the support of the defence industries for their legitimacy, and the defence industries push them towards aggressive foreign policies. Therefore, governments can become corrupted by this relationship, since defence industries hold so much leverage.
Second, it affects other sectors of the economy. The primacy of the defence industry means that other industries are not given the same level of attention and development.
The increasing weakness of US manufacturing industry, with the exception of the defence industry is evidence of the advent of the military-industrial complex.
Third, why all that emphasis on hardware?
As I have mentioned above, the current nature of military action has changed since the times of the Cold War. Of course, there are emerging powers such as China, and re-emerging powers such as Russia, that are still aggressively pursuing policies of modernisation within their militaries.
But there are two things to consider. First, the advent of diplomacy within the international community. The international community has been united by the common threats of international terrorism and rogue states. Their relative military strengths have been channelled towards the containment of these two threats.
Second, given the weak global economy, isn’t it wiser to spend money on more constructive purposes, rather than “destructive” ones?
Actually, come to think of it, the same thing is happening to Singapore too. Over recent years, the Singapore Armed Forces have acquired a whole array of military hardware as part of its project of modernisation. F-15 fighters, Formidable - class stealth frigates, Leopard 2 main battle tanks...
But it begs the question: does it fulfil the true needs of our military? It does, if one considers the age of the equipment these new hardware were designated to replace, but on the other hand, how is “improvement” on our defence capability measured?
It’s certainly not a game of numbers, nor is it a matter of “who’s got the latest hardware”.
And what about the average soldier? Has his life as a soldier improved?
To end off this post on a lighter note, I think the F-22 issue could come to a better conclusion if only they got their hands on this particular F-22:
Yeah. Starscream.
The only question left would be: Will we control him, or will we end up controlled by him?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
"What Is" Series- What is a Superpower?
I am no expert on N Korea; nobody in the world really is anyway, given the secretive nature of the state. But I am still very interested in this country, which really is a utopian project that turned into a political monster and human catastrophe.
I was inspired by this video on Youtube, which is typical N Korean propaganda.
The description says:
“A "superpower" should not be defined by its ability to dominate and project power, but to be capable of standing against every external threat. North Korea manages to do it successfully.”
The question that came to my mind is: “Really?”
First, to beg the question, what is a superpower? A superpower is a country with hegemonic power in the international system, with the ability to project power and influence beyond its political boundaries.
N Korea clearly isn’t a superpower. It doesn’t have that kind of influence. It never had. It never led the communist camp (it was the old Soviet Union) during the Cold War, nor was it a regional power (the regional communist power in Asia was, well, obviously, China).
Second, the ability to defend against any external threat. Well, any self-respecting country can do that. To be able to resist attack doesn’t quite count as being a superpower. If that was the case, then Singapore is a superpower. Of course, this is an exaggeration, but my point is, being a superpower has certain pre-requisites, and carries with it certain responsibilities.
Besides, if those propaganda videos were any good gauge of N Korea’s abilities, stock footage of the kind you see in the news (like the ubiquitous launch of the Taepodong missile, or the parades), outdated weapons and tactics are hardly a good indication of N Korea’s ability to defend itself.
Last, but not least, superpower status isn’t just military status, it’s economic status. Good try for N Korean propaganda, but stock footage from the 70s isn’t quite going to help, not to mention how far the rest of the region has gone ahead. S Korea, which was behind the north in the 70s and early 80s, China, after Chairman Deng’s reforms, and of course, Japan, which has gone beyond anyone could possibly imagine.
Just to digress a little, S Korea and Japan probably have N Korea to thank for their prosperity. The Korean War brought opportunities for both sides, especially Japan economically, as they became important for US interests.
Ultimately, superpower status is not something that can be fabricated from propaganda videos or political rhetoric. True power is something that can be exercised. Little wonder you don’t see the US needing to do all those military parades.
I was inspired by this video on Youtube, which is typical N Korean propaganda.
The description says:
“A "superpower" should not be defined by its ability to dominate and project power, but to be capable of standing against every external threat. North Korea manages to do it successfully.”
The question that came to my mind is: “Really?”
First, to beg the question, what is a superpower? A superpower is a country with hegemonic power in the international system, with the ability to project power and influence beyond its political boundaries.
N Korea clearly isn’t a superpower. It doesn’t have that kind of influence. It never had. It never led the communist camp (it was the old Soviet Union) during the Cold War, nor was it a regional power (the regional communist power in Asia was, well, obviously, China).
Second, the ability to defend against any external threat. Well, any self-respecting country can do that. To be able to resist attack doesn’t quite count as being a superpower. If that was the case, then Singapore is a superpower. Of course, this is an exaggeration, but my point is, being a superpower has certain pre-requisites, and carries with it certain responsibilities.
Besides, if those propaganda videos were any good gauge of N Korea’s abilities, stock footage of the kind you see in the news (like the ubiquitous launch of the Taepodong missile, or the parades), outdated weapons and tactics are hardly a good indication of N Korea’s ability to defend itself.
Last, but not least, superpower status isn’t just military status, it’s economic status. Good try for N Korean propaganda, but stock footage from the 70s isn’t quite going to help, not to mention how far the rest of the region has gone ahead. S Korea, which was behind the north in the 70s and early 80s, China, after Chairman Deng’s reforms, and of course, Japan, which has gone beyond anyone could possibly imagine.
Just to digress a little, S Korea and Japan probably have N Korea to thank for their prosperity. The Korean War brought opportunities for both sides, especially Japan economically, as they became important for US interests.
Ultimately, superpower status is not something that can be fabricated from propaganda videos or political rhetoric. True power is something that can be exercised. Little wonder you don’t see the US needing to do all those military parades.
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Urumqi Riots, the Issues, and the Ugly Beast of Ethnocentrism
De Maitre has put up many interesting posts these few days. Having to fight a fierce battle against the monotony of life and lost, I decided to discuss something more depressing.
The recent riots in Urumqi, the provincial capital of Xinjiang, China, has resulted in hundreds dead and thousands wounded. It has also deeply divided and antagonised two fractions of a society. Both Han and Uighur Chinese walk the streets brandishing weapons, attacking each other when the riots were at their height two days ago. The situation is much calmer now, given the massive flood of paramilitary forces and troops into Urumqi, but we now have to examine why the riots got so bad, and what it means for China.
Actually, the understanding of the issue is different between East and West. The West, given their long-standing support for human rights and self-determination, interpreted the issue as the outburst of long suppressed feelings of oppression by the Uighurs under Han rule. It sees the issue in very much the same way as it interprets the problem of Tibet.
By contrast, the East sees the problem from a socio-economic perspective, instead of a political one. Actually, Uighurs (and minorities in general) are treated better than the Han in China. Yes, it’s positive discrimination. Uighurs for example, need less points to enrol in local universities, much like how Tamils have to do better than the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, and the Chinese had to do better than the Bumiputera in Malaysia, except it’s the reverse, and are even sentenced more leniently for offenses. So rather than say than the Uighurs are oppressed by the
Han, the Han are being oppressed by themselves.
So what IS the problem?
The problem is two-fold. First, ethnic identities. Fundamental differences exist between the Uighurs and the Han. The most apparent one is religion (the Uighur are Muslims). These differences, when not handled properly, exploded into violence, when deep-seated tensions and discontent amongst the two groups can no longer be contained, and are triggered by specific events, like the current riots caused by violence between a group of Han and Uighurs.
The second problem is economic. The divide between rich and poor is a much more serious threat to peace. Despite the onset of economic growth in Xinjiang, the uneven distribution of wealth can seriously threaten peace, especially if the issue is interpreted with the lens of ethnicity, like now.
In addition, when there is progress, states than have strong ethnic or regional identities tend to break away. It has happened before in history. When Napoleon conquered Europe, he exported the ideals of the French Revolution, such as liberty, the rule of law, to the other states. And when these states saw the potential to achieve these ideals, they decided to break away from French rule.
Likewise, when the Han dominated government brought economic growth to Xinjiang, it only increased the impetus for a breakaway movement to take ownership of that economic progress.
Having discussed the issues behind the rioting, what are the consequences?
It’s obvious. There are no winners in civil strife. The loss of life, the damage to property is on both sides. The progress and development that have occurred can be put to nought in the event of conflict. When that happens, everyone suffers, and when they blame each other from their economic and social predicament, they trap themselves in an endless struggle. Sri Lanka is the classic example of that struggle.
When the ugly beast of ethnocentrism is on a rampage, everyone in its way suffers.
The recent riots in Urumqi, the provincial capital of Xinjiang, China, has resulted in hundreds dead and thousands wounded. It has also deeply divided and antagonised two fractions of a society. Both Han and Uighur Chinese walk the streets brandishing weapons, attacking each other when the riots were at their height two days ago. The situation is much calmer now, given the massive flood of paramilitary forces and troops into Urumqi, but we now have to examine why the riots got so bad, and what it means for China.
Actually, the understanding of the issue is different between East and West. The West, given their long-standing support for human rights and self-determination, interpreted the issue as the outburst of long suppressed feelings of oppression by the Uighurs under Han rule. It sees the issue in very much the same way as it interprets the problem of Tibet.
By contrast, the East sees the problem from a socio-economic perspective, instead of a political one. Actually, Uighurs (and minorities in general) are treated better than the Han in China. Yes, it’s positive discrimination. Uighurs for example, need less points to enrol in local universities, much like how Tamils have to do better than the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, and the Chinese had to do better than the Bumiputera in Malaysia, except it’s the reverse, and are even sentenced more leniently for offenses. So rather than say than the Uighurs are oppressed by the
Han, the Han are being oppressed by themselves.
So what IS the problem?
The problem is two-fold. First, ethnic identities. Fundamental differences exist between the Uighurs and the Han. The most apparent one is religion (the Uighur are Muslims). These differences, when not handled properly, exploded into violence, when deep-seated tensions and discontent amongst the two groups can no longer be contained, and are triggered by specific events, like the current riots caused by violence between a group of Han and Uighurs.
The second problem is economic. The divide between rich and poor is a much more serious threat to peace. Despite the onset of economic growth in Xinjiang, the uneven distribution of wealth can seriously threaten peace, especially if the issue is interpreted with the lens of ethnicity, like now.
In addition, when there is progress, states than have strong ethnic or regional identities tend to break away. It has happened before in history. When Napoleon conquered Europe, he exported the ideals of the French Revolution, such as liberty, the rule of law, to the other states. And when these states saw the potential to achieve these ideals, they decided to break away from French rule.
Likewise, when the Han dominated government brought economic growth to Xinjiang, it only increased the impetus for a breakaway movement to take ownership of that economic progress.
Having discussed the issues behind the rioting, what are the consequences?
It’s obvious. There are no winners in civil strife. The loss of life, the damage to property is on both sides. The progress and development that have occurred can be put to nought in the event of conflict. When that happens, everyone suffers, and when they blame each other from their economic and social predicament, they trap themselves in an endless struggle. Sri Lanka is the classic example of that struggle.
When the ugly beast of ethnocentrism is on a rampage, everyone in its way suffers.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
An Irrational Approach to a Rational Foreign Policy
North (N) Korea has gone really far these days.
Having conducted a second nuclear test in May, it has proceeded to launch a further seven missiles from various sites just last Saturday.
The outburst of anger and condemnation at N Korea’s actions is understandable, given the provocative nature of its actions and the threat to international peace, not to mention having spent an estimated 700 million dollars on those tests, which could have paid for its food shortage for a good two years.
This creates the impression that N Korea’s actions defy logic.
But, is N Korea truly irrational?
I think that although N Korea’s actions may defy reason, there are underlying reasons which are perfectly rational.
The first reason is that N Korea, unlike the other countries involved in the six-party talks, has a different outlook on the global system. N Korea still lives in the Cold War, which it has the right to believe that it is the only survivor from the old communist bloc. Any interference by the US is interpreted through the lens of the Cold War.
Its actions appear irrational to the outside world because the rest of the world have already consigned the Cold War to history. When the Cold War was at its nadir, the US and the Soviet Union was still doing what N Korea did, albeit on a much larger scale.
To N Korea, nuclear weapons was thought to be the best guarantee for security, as the Soviet Union, as the Chinese, as the Indians and Pakistanis thought decades ago.
Secondly, it is interesting to note that nuclear weapons aren’t so much to be used as a tactical weapon against N Korea’s enemies, real or imagined, but more as a political weapon to be used on the people and on the regime itself.
It can placate the military, putting them in a position of great power and prestige, and augment the pride of their people in their state being elevated into the ranks of the nuclear powers, however empty that status may be.
Of course, N Korea suffered a horrible miscalculation.
While the domestic objectives might have been achieved, coupled with material incentives (imported cars and wine, etc) for the top brass in the military, and a powerful propaganda machine, the foreign policy aims of N Korea horribly backfired on itself.
Instead of gaining more security, it became the target of intense international pressure, mitigated (barely) only by the intervention of China.
Instead of admission into the “nuclear club”, it came to be seen as a pariah, a threat to regional peace.
So the dream of international acceptance by the formal recognition of its military power on the part of the N Korean regime turns out to be, well, a dream, and a dream that becomes ever more distant with the provocative course of action it has taken since the crisis began.
And to make things worse, N Korea has trapped itself in a vicious circle, being more defiant each time the international community exerts yet more pressure on the regime.
However, it is doubtful that Kim Jong Il, or the military, or whoever has real power in N Korea now, will be affected by the now immense pressure on the regime.
This is because, to them, it’s not the welfare of the people that’s important; it’s the survival of the regime that mattered.
It’s sad when one realises from this episode, that N Korea has reached a stage where the suppression of its people has become a means not to some idyllic communist utopia, but an end in itself, where the survival of the regime DEPENDS on the suppression of the populace.
Having conducted a second nuclear test in May, it has proceeded to launch a further seven missiles from various sites just last Saturday.
The outburst of anger and condemnation at N Korea’s actions is understandable, given the provocative nature of its actions and the threat to international peace, not to mention having spent an estimated 700 million dollars on those tests, which could have paid for its food shortage for a good two years.
This creates the impression that N Korea’s actions defy logic.
But, is N Korea truly irrational?
I think that although N Korea’s actions may defy reason, there are underlying reasons which are perfectly rational.
The first reason is that N Korea, unlike the other countries involved in the six-party talks, has a different outlook on the global system. N Korea still lives in the Cold War, which it has the right to believe that it is the only survivor from the old communist bloc. Any interference by the US is interpreted through the lens of the Cold War.
Its actions appear irrational to the outside world because the rest of the world have already consigned the Cold War to history. When the Cold War was at its nadir, the US and the Soviet Union was still doing what N Korea did, albeit on a much larger scale.
To N Korea, nuclear weapons was thought to be the best guarantee for security, as the Soviet Union, as the Chinese, as the Indians and Pakistanis thought decades ago.
Secondly, it is interesting to note that nuclear weapons aren’t so much to be used as a tactical weapon against N Korea’s enemies, real or imagined, but more as a political weapon to be used on the people and on the regime itself.
It can placate the military, putting them in a position of great power and prestige, and augment the pride of their people in their state being elevated into the ranks of the nuclear powers, however empty that status may be.
Of course, N Korea suffered a horrible miscalculation.
While the domestic objectives might have been achieved, coupled with material incentives (imported cars and wine, etc) for the top brass in the military, and a powerful propaganda machine, the foreign policy aims of N Korea horribly backfired on itself.
Instead of gaining more security, it became the target of intense international pressure, mitigated (barely) only by the intervention of China.
Instead of admission into the “nuclear club”, it came to be seen as a pariah, a threat to regional peace.
So the dream of international acceptance by the formal recognition of its military power on the part of the N Korean regime turns out to be, well, a dream, and a dream that becomes ever more distant with the provocative course of action it has taken since the crisis began.
And to make things worse, N Korea has trapped itself in a vicious circle, being more defiant each time the international community exerts yet more pressure on the regime.
However, it is doubtful that Kim Jong Il, or the military, or whoever has real power in N Korea now, will be affected by the now immense pressure on the regime.
This is because, to them, it’s not the welfare of the people that’s important; it’s the survival of the regime that mattered.
It’s sad when one realises from this episode, that N Korea has reached a stage where the suppression of its people has become a means not to some idyllic communist utopia, but an end in itself, where the survival of the regime DEPENDS on the suppression of the populace.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Should politics be limited to the clever people?
Politics. That aspect of life some dive into, some avoid for their lives, and some just can’t be bothered.
Since we are a democracy, albeit the illiberal type, the question of political participation will be a critical question in the status of our democracy. The question I want to explore today, with advice from De Maitre is this: Should politics be limited to the clever people?
Of course, people will start questioning, what you mean by “clever people?”
Well, I’ll use a simple example to illustrate the difference between “clever”, as defined in this post, and “stupid”, its opposite.
Just imagine Sarah Palin beating Joe Biden to become Vice President of the US. Now that’s the triumph of stupidity.
Not putting down Palin, but here, stupidity clearly refers not to the politician’s IQ, but how aware the politician is with the local, regional and global issues affecting the country.
Someone who doesn’t even have the closest idea of the proximity between countries (Alaska and Russia), and the ideology of her commander-in-chief (the Bush Doctrine) can hardly be the first choice for a candidate in a vice-presidential election, but well, she was, but that’s beside the point.
So clearly, politics should be left to the clever people by this definition. Of course we want people who know their stuff to be handling the affairs of this country, especially when we are one of the most prosperous countries in the world today.
But extending the issue just a little further, the politicians certainly aren’t the only clever ones; there are people outside politics that are just as knowledgeable about the field they are in, or about the issues affecting the country. They may be even better than the MPs or ministers in the level of their understanding.
Yes, I’m talking about civic and civil society.
“Sounds the same to me.” You might think. There’s a subtle difference. Civic society refers to individuals who are actively involved in political or social participation. Writing letters to the press, or doing a blog post, like me now, are manifestations of the civic society.
Civil society refers to independent groups that actively promote a specific interest through cooperation or working with the government. In most democracies, trade unions, mass media, welfare groups will fall under this category,
But,
Singapore is unique. Trade unions, mass media, and some welfare groups are not considered civil society groups because they are controlled by the government. Therefore, in political science lingo, they are called para-political organizations.
So we are actually down to not many groups, most of which are not political at all.
The most (in)famous one for now: AWARE.
But the point is, these groups are constituted by people who are first, dedicated in their work, second, spent a great deal of time and effort on their work, doing research, submitting proposals to the government, third, and most importantly, they know their stuff.
That is, not “stupid”.
The difference between "clever" and "stupid" is a not a difficult one to acertain. but the problem is whether is fair to say that one is "stupid" because one doesn't wear the white shirt.
National issues should be the concern of every discerning Singaporean, and more important, the government can a good listener as well as a good doer.
Since we are a democracy, albeit the illiberal type, the question of political participation will be a critical question in the status of our democracy. The question I want to explore today, with advice from De Maitre is this: Should politics be limited to the clever people?
Of course, people will start questioning, what you mean by “clever people?”
Well, I’ll use a simple example to illustrate the difference between “clever”, as defined in this post, and “stupid”, its opposite.
Just imagine Sarah Palin beating Joe Biden to become Vice President of the US. Now that’s the triumph of stupidity.
Not putting down Palin, but here, stupidity clearly refers not to the politician’s IQ, but how aware the politician is with the local, regional and global issues affecting the country.
Someone who doesn’t even have the closest idea of the proximity between countries (Alaska and Russia), and the ideology of her commander-in-chief (the Bush Doctrine) can hardly be the first choice for a candidate in a vice-presidential election, but well, she was, but that’s beside the point.
So clearly, politics should be left to the clever people by this definition. Of course we want people who know their stuff to be handling the affairs of this country, especially when we are one of the most prosperous countries in the world today.
But extending the issue just a little further, the politicians certainly aren’t the only clever ones; there are people outside politics that are just as knowledgeable about the field they are in, or about the issues affecting the country. They may be even better than the MPs or ministers in the level of their understanding.
Yes, I’m talking about civic and civil society.
“Sounds the same to me.” You might think. There’s a subtle difference. Civic society refers to individuals who are actively involved in political or social participation. Writing letters to the press, or doing a blog post, like me now, are manifestations of the civic society.
Civil society refers to independent groups that actively promote a specific interest through cooperation or working with the government. In most democracies, trade unions, mass media, welfare groups will fall under this category,
But,
Singapore is unique. Trade unions, mass media, and some welfare groups are not considered civil society groups because they are controlled by the government. Therefore, in political science lingo, they are called para-political organizations.
So we are actually down to not many groups, most of which are not political at all.
The most (in)famous one for now: AWARE.
But the point is, these groups are constituted by people who are first, dedicated in their work, second, spent a great deal of time and effort on their work, doing research, submitting proposals to the government, third, and most importantly, they know their stuff.
That is, not “stupid”.
The difference between "clever" and "stupid" is a not a difficult one to acertain. but the problem is whether is fair to say that one is "stupid" because one doesn't wear the white shirt.
National issues should be the concern of every discerning Singaporean, and more important, the government can a good listener as well as a good doer.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
The North Korean Crisis, The Issues, and a Post-war Korea
The recent provocative action by the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, or North (N) Korea, has been the subject of much international concern. The latest nuclear test, along with the radical and reckless rhetoric on the part of the N Korean government (if i can call that a government) has resulted in the UN Security Council passing Resolution 1874, slapping tougher sanctions on the reclusive Stalinist regime.
Here, I’ll talk about how the crisis escalated to the seriousness we witness now, the issues behind the crisis, the possibility and implications of a second Korean War, if war actually breaks out.
The predicament faced by the international community where the N Korean nuclear programme in concerned, is the result of two main factors. First, the inconsistency and lack of flexibility of the US policy, and the constraints and considerations of all the five parties (the six parties excluding N Korea) in the handling of the crisis.
First, the inconsistency and inflexibility of policy. The N Korean nuclear crisis began during the Clinton administration. Then the US still had some flexibility to handle the situation, as it had several policy options. It chose to adopt a policy of giving incentives in exchange for the abandonment of the nuclear programme. The most crucial features in the agreement included the export of petroleum and two light water reactors (the kind used for generating electricity, not for weapons-grade uranium). It was called the Agreed Framework, and it created potential for a peaceful resolution to the nuclear problem.
However, the Bush administration was against the Agreed Framework, and tried all means to kill the idea. Ultimately, the Agreed Framework was abandoned before its full implementation, particularly the delivery of the light reactors.
In addition, the Bush administration had strong predispositions about N Korea. It refused to engage in bilateral negotiations, adopted a very tough and inflexible approach, and refused anything less than the “complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantling” of N Korea’s nuclear facilities.
The result?
All of the policy options available to the US were closed off. Given N Korea’s provocative style, this meant that the US would not have any other option against N Korea if it succeeds in completing its nuclear programme.
Which was exactly what happened.
The situation we see now is that N Korea has completed the process of building and testing a weapons device. The nuclearisation of N Korea is a foregone conclusion, and the US has therefore failed in preventing N Korea from having nuclear weaponry.
Resolution 1874, while being a strong signal by the international community in its condemnation of N Korea’s actions, is also a manifestation of the frustration by the international community, particularly the US, S Korea and Japan at their lack of options against N Korea.
So, what about the other parties?
China has its own considerations. Actually, China is very dissatisfied with N Korea’s actions, firstly because it seriously threatens the peace in the region, and secondly, it marked the defiance of N Korea towards China, a country it recognizes as its “big brother”. But, the last thing China wants is the collapse of the N Korean regime. It will mean the massive exodus of N Korean refugees into China, a humanitarian crisis China is not willing and able to handle, and also the extension of S Korean and US influence in the Korean peninsula. So despite its anger, it has no wish to upset the status quo, and has therefore taken a restrained (read weak), conciliatory approach to the crisis.
Japan? That’s quite obvious. Japan is bound by its pacifist constitution, in which it permanently renounces the use of force as a solution to diplomatic issues. In addition, it takes on a secondary role as compared to that of the US.
Russia. Russia’s real interest in not in the Far East. It’s in Eastern Europe. The reason why Russia’s in the six party talks in the first place is because of its proximity and that the US wanted to leverage on Russia to exert pressure on N Korea in a multilateral approach to the crisis.
S Korea, like Japan, it does not play the leading role. Like the US, a change of government in S Korea also meant the change in stance. The approach by President Lee is a departure from the “Sunshine Policy” of President Kim and the conciliatory policy of President Roh. In addition, if a war does break out, S Korea will be first to face the full brunt of the conflict.
These considerations combine to create an overall approach that is inconsistent at best, weak at worst.
I will not go on detail the consequences of a nuclear N Korea, since it has been much explored. I’ll just do a quick list:
The Nuclearisation of Northeast Asia
The sale of nuclear technology by N Korea to threatening countries or groups
The increase in military buildup and deployment in the Korean peninsula
The change in Japan’s military posture to a more aggressive one
Among others.
Instead, let’s talk about something which might not happen but will interest most people.
Actually, the Korean War never ended. What was signed in 1953 was an armistice, a ceasefire. So technically, the two Koreas, and the US are still in a state of war. So to call a war, if it breaks out, the “Second Korean War” will be a misnomer.
N Korea can continue with its rhetoric, but can never launch a war. That’s because it knows it cannot win. But it also knows that the other parties will not be willing to fight that war, for the reasons I mentioned above. So it continues its reckless rhetoric, stirring up international sentiment, and amplifying the magnitude of the crisis.
But what if war does break out? What if N Korea lives up to its word? What if the US, S Korea and Japan orchestrate a pre-emptive strike at Yongbyon? What if China runs out of patience?
The “Second Korean War”, if I can call it that, will be the most destructive war of the early 21st century, and will also be the greatest humanitarian crisis of the early 21st century. It might not be exaggerating to call it WW3 instead.
What about after the war? What happens next? Questions abound, but here’s what I think:
The international community needs to act together to address probably the worst humanitarian crisis in our time. Millions of refugees, having starved for many years, trapped in a war zone more volatile than that of Sri Lanka, will start flooding towards Northeast China. Millions will die due to starvation and exposure. More will die in the cross-fire.
The creation of a new political system in N Korea. The N Korean people, having lived under that regime for so long, knows no other. Decades will have to be spent creating a new political, economic and social structure that is workable, or N Korea will fall back into a failed state. The effect of decades of propaganda and brainwashing will also be difficult to address. It’ll be foolish to suggest instituting democracy in post-war N Korea. Decades will have to be spent instead on creating strong and good government almost on the N Korean model itself. Decades will also have to be spent on a reverse-propaganda campaign to discredit the N Korean regime.
The problem of die-hards. What about those die-hards steadfastly loyal to the Kims and their regime? What if the Allies fail to capture Kim, his successor, and to destroy his leadership? Decades will again have to be spent fighting these remnants in a terrorist problem more serious than that faced by Pakistan and Afghanistan against the Taliban.
This is how I look at the N Korean crisis. However it develops, it doesn’t spell well for peace in the region, and the world.
Here, I’ll talk about how the crisis escalated to the seriousness we witness now, the issues behind the crisis, the possibility and implications of a second Korean War, if war actually breaks out.
The predicament faced by the international community where the N Korean nuclear programme in concerned, is the result of two main factors. First, the inconsistency and lack of flexibility of the US policy, and the constraints and considerations of all the five parties (the six parties excluding N Korea) in the handling of the crisis.
First, the inconsistency and inflexibility of policy. The N Korean nuclear crisis began during the Clinton administration. Then the US still had some flexibility to handle the situation, as it had several policy options. It chose to adopt a policy of giving incentives in exchange for the abandonment of the nuclear programme. The most crucial features in the agreement included the export of petroleum and two light water reactors (the kind used for generating electricity, not for weapons-grade uranium). It was called the Agreed Framework, and it created potential for a peaceful resolution to the nuclear problem.
However, the Bush administration was against the Agreed Framework, and tried all means to kill the idea. Ultimately, the Agreed Framework was abandoned before its full implementation, particularly the delivery of the light reactors.
In addition, the Bush administration had strong predispositions about N Korea. It refused to engage in bilateral negotiations, adopted a very tough and inflexible approach, and refused anything less than the “complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantling” of N Korea’s nuclear facilities.
The result?
All of the policy options available to the US were closed off. Given N Korea’s provocative style, this meant that the US would not have any other option against N Korea if it succeeds in completing its nuclear programme.
Which was exactly what happened.
The situation we see now is that N Korea has completed the process of building and testing a weapons device. The nuclearisation of N Korea is a foregone conclusion, and the US has therefore failed in preventing N Korea from having nuclear weaponry.
Resolution 1874, while being a strong signal by the international community in its condemnation of N Korea’s actions, is also a manifestation of the frustration by the international community, particularly the US, S Korea and Japan at their lack of options against N Korea.
So, what about the other parties?
China has its own considerations. Actually, China is very dissatisfied with N Korea’s actions, firstly because it seriously threatens the peace in the region, and secondly, it marked the defiance of N Korea towards China, a country it recognizes as its “big brother”. But, the last thing China wants is the collapse of the N Korean regime. It will mean the massive exodus of N Korean refugees into China, a humanitarian crisis China is not willing and able to handle, and also the extension of S Korean and US influence in the Korean peninsula. So despite its anger, it has no wish to upset the status quo, and has therefore taken a restrained (read weak), conciliatory approach to the crisis.
Japan? That’s quite obvious. Japan is bound by its pacifist constitution, in which it permanently renounces the use of force as a solution to diplomatic issues. In addition, it takes on a secondary role as compared to that of the US.
Russia. Russia’s real interest in not in the Far East. It’s in Eastern Europe. The reason why Russia’s in the six party talks in the first place is because of its proximity and that the US wanted to leverage on Russia to exert pressure on N Korea in a multilateral approach to the crisis.
S Korea, like Japan, it does not play the leading role. Like the US, a change of government in S Korea also meant the change in stance. The approach by President Lee is a departure from the “Sunshine Policy” of President Kim and the conciliatory policy of President Roh. In addition, if a war does break out, S Korea will be first to face the full brunt of the conflict.
These considerations combine to create an overall approach that is inconsistent at best, weak at worst.
I will not go on detail the consequences of a nuclear N Korea, since it has been much explored. I’ll just do a quick list:
The Nuclearisation of Northeast Asia
The sale of nuclear technology by N Korea to threatening countries or groups
The increase in military buildup and deployment in the Korean peninsula
The change in Japan’s military posture to a more aggressive one
Among others.
Instead, let’s talk about something which might not happen but will interest most people.
Actually, the Korean War never ended. What was signed in 1953 was an armistice, a ceasefire. So technically, the two Koreas, and the US are still in a state of war. So to call a war, if it breaks out, the “Second Korean War” will be a misnomer.
N Korea can continue with its rhetoric, but can never launch a war. That’s because it knows it cannot win. But it also knows that the other parties will not be willing to fight that war, for the reasons I mentioned above. So it continues its reckless rhetoric, stirring up international sentiment, and amplifying the magnitude of the crisis.
But what if war does break out? What if N Korea lives up to its word? What if the US, S Korea and Japan orchestrate a pre-emptive strike at Yongbyon? What if China runs out of patience?
The “Second Korean War”, if I can call it that, will be the most destructive war of the early 21st century, and will also be the greatest humanitarian crisis of the early 21st century. It might not be exaggerating to call it WW3 instead.
What about after the war? What happens next? Questions abound, but here’s what I think:
The international community needs to act together to address probably the worst humanitarian crisis in our time. Millions of refugees, having starved for many years, trapped in a war zone more volatile than that of Sri Lanka, will start flooding towards Northeast China. Millions will die due to starvation and exposure. More will die in the cross-fire.
The creation of a new political system in N Korea. The N Korean people, having lived under that regime for so long, knows no other. Decades will have to be spent creating a new political, economic and social structure that is workable, or N Korea will fall back into a failed state. The effect of decades of propaganda and brainwashing will also be difficult to address. It’ll be foolish to suggest instituting democracy in post-war N Korea. Decades will have to be spent instead on creating strong and good government almost on the N Korean model itself. Decades will also have to be spent on a reverse-propaganda campaign to discredit the N Korean regime.
The problem of die-hards. What about those die-hards steadfastly loyal to the Kims and their regime? What if the Allies fail to capture Kim, his successor, and to destroy his leadership? Decades will again have to be spent fighting these remnants in a terrorist problem more serious than that faced by Pakistan and Afghanistan against the Taliban.
This is how I look at the N Korean crisis. However it develops, it doesn’t spell well for peace in the region, and the world.
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Death of Democracy (in Asia) and Politics (in Singapore)
Speaking of politics in Singapore, I must say I have some stuff to talk about. It has been widely said that Singapore is a country of “yes-men”- what the government say, we accept without thinking. Why? For fear of reprisal- it seems many a Singaporean is afraid of saying anything against the government for fear of being arrested under the seditious act. To me, that’s bullshit. We live in a democratic country, to maintain peace; opposition has to be within a “reasonable” frame. Looking at Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines, they are democratic too! But why are they in such political turmoil?
Simple, it has to do with the concept of “unbridled opposition”. Opposition parties are having a good time holding rallies accusing the current coalition of being corrupt, not doing enough for the welfare of the people, etc. They hold mass protests and strikes that cripple their country’s economy, due to a industrial output decline and the death of tourism. Unbridled opposition can prove to be the death of democracy. The concept about democracy is about working together for the good of the country. Instead of that, democracy has been reduced to an all out personal war between the various fractions, each determined to hold onto as much power as possible and to tarnish their opponent’s reputation. That is NOT a democracy, it’s called anarchy.
From this, we can see that balance is essential. Opposition has to be constructive and restrained. The ruling coalition should also be open to challenges if they are constructive. After hearing stories of people being arrested for political posts in their blogs, I still prefer to believe in a judicial system based on reason. This blog is solely for the purpose to contemplate issues in Asia, it is not meant to cause any form of political upheaval or anything of that sort. The writers will do their utmost to remain neutral in all matters and remain as abstract as possible. We have no interest in participating in politics and are happy to remain as commentators and evaluators.
Minister Mentor Lee is undoubtedly one of the best politicians in this way. You can say negative things about him for all I care. To Machiavellian old me, the means justify the end. Unlike the other Southeast Asian countries, we are the most politically stable. LKY did a great job ushering us out of the age of Colonialism. Unfortunately, nothing is perfect, he created a legacy of a top down approach to governance- its by-product was the creation of a culture of deference to authority. It isn’t his fault entirely, our historical circumstances did not permit a free political culture (there were too many radical elements).
This culture of deference to authority played an important role in promoting the fear of reprisal, the Singapore government embarked on a campaign to promote political involvement among the younger generation. In my opinion, people lost the interest in politics ever since PAP came into power. News reports of people being arrested for seditious comments,and the arrest of opposition leaders, such Chee Soon Juan and J. B. Jeyaratnam, on the grounds of defamation have created an atmosphere of repression. Given Singapore’s nature as a group of kiasu individuals, no one dares to toe this invisible line between tolerance and offending the government. Naturally, over time, people just don’t bother about political participation for fear of reprisal. I was really surprised when I over-heard some comments from a bunch of old ladies at the kopi-tiam “Must vote for PAP la, later the government find out we never vote for them, they make life difficult for us”. I was really sad when I heard this. Voting is a system where anonymity is assured, yet, Singaporeans seem to have a set mentality that PAP has hidden cameras everywhere, watching them, waiting for them to make a wrong move and send a police squad out to arrest them for daring to be different. That’s really sad, what happened to the trust between the government and the common people? In most politically stable countries such as Switzerland, the trust between the people and the government is very much iron-clad. It is quite sad to see that we lack this element of trust here.
I recall watching a seminar featuring LKY, a cynical student brought up the concept of free speech in Singapore. MM Lee said that there has always been free speech but it must be exercised with responsibility. I agree with him- words can make or break a man. In the world of politics, business and social interaction, reputation is very important.
Ever since Singapore achieved political stability, most Singaporeans are apathetic towards politics because of the concept of a paternalistic society. They expect the government to be there for them, this has been demonstrated in the latest AWARE issue. In fact, people expect the government to step in all the time. When there is a domestic conflict- apply for BPC (beyond parental control), apply for PO (protection order), etc. When people can’t get along with their neighbours, they run to the town council and demand their involvement. When they think the good they bought are not of their standard, they complain to case. Every government body has to throw out tons of rejected applications annually. It seems Singaporeans have lost the ability to resolve their personal problems WITHOUT depending of the government. With this mentality so prevalent on the masses, who would want to join the politics? Everyone wants to be taken care of and no one wants to be the next baby-sitter.
Simple, it has to do with the concept of “unbridled opposition”. Opposition parties are having a good time holding rallies accusing the current coalition of being corrupt, not doing enough for the welfare of the people, etc. They hold mass protests and strikes that cripple their country’s economy, due to a industrial output decline and the death of tourism. Unbridled opposition can prove to be the death of democracy. The concept about democracy is about working together for the good of the country. Instead of that, democracy has been reduced to an all out personal war between the various fractions, each determined to hold onto as much power as possible and to tarnish their opponent’s reputation. That is NOT a democracy, it’s called anarchy.
From this, we can see that balance is essential. Opposition has to be constructive and restrained. The ruling coalition should also be open to challenges if they are constructive. After hearing stories of people being arrested for political posts in their blogs, I still prefer to believe in a judicial system based on reason. This blog is solely for the purpose to contemplate issues in Asia, it is not meant to cause any form of political upheaval or anything of that sort. The writers will do their utmost to remain neutral in all matters and remain as abstract as possible. We have no interest in participating in politics and are happy to remain as commentators and evaluators.
Minister Mentor Lee is undoubtedly one of the best politicians in this way. You can say negative things about him for all I care. To Machiavellian old me, the means justify the end. Unlike the other Southeast Asian countries, we are the most politically stable. LKY did a great job ushering us out of the age of Colonialism. Unfortunately, nothing is perfect, he created a legacy of a top down approach to governance- its by-product was the creation of a culture of deference to authority. It isn’t his fault entirely, our historical circumstances did not permit a free political culture (there were too many radical elements).
This culture of deference to authority played an important role in promoting the fear of reprisal, the Singapore government embarked on a campaign to promote political involvement among the younger generation. In my opinion, people lost the interest in politics ever since PAP came into power. News reports of people being arrested for seditious comments,and the arrest of opposition leaders, such Chee Soon Juan and J. B. Jeyaratnam, on the grounds of defamation have created an atmosphere of repression. Given Singapore’s nature as a group of kiasu individuals, no one dares to toe this invisible line between tolerance and offending the government. Naturally, over time, people just don’t bother about political participation for fear of reprisal. I was really surprised when I over-heard some comments from a bunch of old ladies at the kopi-tiam “Must vote for PAP la, later the government find out we never vote for them, they make life difficult for us”. I was really sad when I heard this. Voting is a system where anonymity is assured, yet, Singaporeans seem to have a set mentality that PAP has hidden cameras everywhere, watching them, waiting for them to make a wrong move and send a police squad out to arrest them for daring to be different. That’s really sad, what happened to the trust between the government and the common people? In most politically stable countries such as Switzerland, the trust between the people and the government is very much iron-clad. It is quite sad to see that we lack this element of trust here.
I recall watching a seminar featuring LKY, a cynical student brought up the concept of free speech in Singapore. MM Lee said that there has always been free speech but it must be exercised with responsibility. I agree with him- words can make or break a man. In the world of politics, business and social interaction, reputation is very important.
Ever since Singapore achieved political stability, most Singaporeans are apathetic towards politics because of the concept of a paternalistic society. They expect the government to be there for them, this has been demonstrated in the latest AWARE issue. In fact, people expect the government to step in all the time. When there is a domestic conflict- apply for BPC (beyond parental control), apply for PO (protection order), etc. When people can’t get along with their neighbours, they run to the town council and demand their involvement. When they think the good they bought are not of their standard, they complain to case. Every government body has to throw out tons of rejected applications annually. It seems Singaporeans have lost the ability to resolve their personal problems WITHOUT depending of the government. With this mentality so prevalent on the masses, who would want to join the politics? Everyone wants to be taken care of and no one wants to be the next baby-sitter.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
How to Vote
Yes - this is a “political” blog. But political not because it is cause- based, but because I want to discuss the nature and quality of politics in a democracy, a democracy some people would not consider a democracy – Singapore.
Despite the claims of many in the west saying that Singapore is a long way from democracy, Singapore is a democracy. We have free and fair elections; and we have the institutions of democracy, such as a separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judiciary.
What makes the difference is that Singapore is an illiberal democracy. That is, it’s a democracy, but not of the liberal type experienced in the US or the UK, which aren’t truly democratic also. The political thinker Robert Dahl stated that no country in the world is a true democracy.
Why does that happen? That’s because we have a political system known as the dominant one-party system. Not a one-party state like China, where only one party, the CCP, can exist. This means in Singapore opposition parties are allowed to exist and contest in elections, but only one party – the Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) – dominates the government.
But in recent years, we have experienced the sands shifting. The younger electorate has raised demands for a greater presence of opposition in parliament, and for more alternative views in parliament as well.
This post of mine aims not to support any particular party, but simply to illustrate the things to consider when a person votes in a general election. This can apply to any democracy in the world.
There are four facets, in my opinion, to consider in the process of voting. They are namely:
Background of candidates,
Their moral character,
Their policies,
The party they represent.
These facets have to be analysed carefully in the process of voting. Here I will discuss the accessibility of the general public to these, and how it in turn affects voting behavior.
Background of candidates
Background refers to the educational and occupational background of the candidates. In Singapore, everyone knows that the PAP has all the top talent. Senior bureaucrats, lawyers, prominent businessmen…
But that does not mean the opposition have no talent, however few in number they may be.
In a way, both ruling and opposition parties face problems in recruiting talent. For the PAP, it’s getting the right people for the top jobs, the people whom Lee Kuan Yew, now Minister Mentor and father of modern Singapore calls his “generals”, the “A team”, or the “300 who mattered”. It’s the difficulty in finding true statesmen able to lead government in the long run.
For opposition, it’s the sheer dearth of people they are facing, because in Singapore, very few people join opposition.
So how to choose? It’s actually quite simple. People do know about the candidates’ backgrounds. The parties make it clear in their party publications; “so-an-so was a lawyer for how many years…” accessibility to this information is easy.
But my advice is: first, look at the other factors, like those I will discuss later. Second, ignore the personal attacks some candidates make to other candidates. A truly mature electorate must not buy the story behind electoral tactics and partisan politics.
That brings me to my second topic on moral character. I have a personal preference for this point, because the lack of grassroots experience can be built up, knowledge of policies or issues can be grasped slowly, as long as the prospective MP is willing to learn and accept advice. But if the person has a flawed moral character, he/she can’t be really serving in the interests of the people.
But how would people know whether the candidate has what it takes?
In most elections, it’s only the first-and-last impression that mattered.
For example, you sit in a coffee-shop during the campaigning period for breakfast, they come to you, shake your hand, chit-chat with you, and tells you to vote for them before moving on to the next table.
How much can we know about the candidates, especially when the PAP has a practice of bringing in new people every single election?
Other than that first impression, we don’t have much to fall back on. But that’s not to say it’s not important. The first impression matters for people with strong Emotional Quotients (EQ). Sometimes, people know when they are sincere and when they are not. That’s because people can reveal their socio-cultural predispositions in that few seconds of conversation.
Policies. I must admit, this is not for the average man-in-the-street. Because to debate policy, you must understand it. If you don’t, you seem inadequate at best and ignorant at worst. In Singapore, we have a problematic situation of the PAP packaging and marketing the policy outlines so well people just buy them, and the opposition not debating on policy because… because… well, they don’t have a policy.
So policy is out of the electorate’s frame of mind for now. But I feel that the only way for Singapore to improve is to move into such issues. You see, Singapore has a unique political culture in which we don’t debate on issues. We debate on outcomes. That’s why candidates talk about lift-upgrading and things like that in elections, which sounds silly in a modern democracy, but that’s the language the man-in-the-street could understand. I hope as society progresses, we can move on to issues with a more discursive quality.
Anyway, personally I feel they shouldn’t make lift-upgrading an issue as well. It’s the right of every citizen to have access to infrastructure improvements, so why should it become a party issue?
Last but not least, the parties. All the major political parties in Singapore had had their proud history. There’s no need to over-emphasise PAP’s heritage, but parties like the Workers’ Party (WP), and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had their heydays too. WP broke the PAP’s monopoly in parliament in 1981, and SDP was the leading opposition party in the 1980s.
Of course, specific developments led these parties to go downhill, but the fact remains that we should respect all parties as institutions of democracy.
To sum up, these is a long way for Singapore politics. This is my take on political life in Singapore, from the perspective of a humble citizen with views of my own. Here I express my wishes for a bright political future for Singapore, where everyone can participate actively and contribute to the country. For now, we can start on learning once again, how to vote.
Despite the claims of many in the west saying that Singapore is a long way from democracy, Singapore is a democracy. We have free and fair elections; and we have the institutions of democracy, such as a separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judiciary.
What makes the difference is that Singapore is an illiberal democracy. That is, it’s a democracy, but not of the liberal type experienced in the US or the UK, which aren’t truly democratic also. The political thinker Robert Dahl stated that no country in the world is a true democracy.
Why does that happen? That’s because we have a political system known as the dominant one-party system. Not a one-party state like China, where only one party, the CCP, can exist. This means in Singapore opposition parties are allowed to exist and contest in elections, but only one party – the Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) – dominates the government.
But in recent years, we have experienced the sands shifting. The younger electorate has raised demands for a greater presence of opposition in parliament, and for more alternative views in parliament as well.
This post of mine aims not to support any particular party, but simply to illustrate the things to consider when a person votes in a general election. This can apply to any democracy in the world.
There are four facets, in my opinion, to consider in the process of voting. They are namely:
Background of candidates,
Their moral character,
Their policies,
The party they represent.
These facets have to be analysed carefully in the process of voting. Here I will discuss the accessibility of the general public to these, and how it in turn affects voting behavior.
Background of candidates
Background refers to the educational and occupational background of the candidates. In Singapore, everyone knows that the PAP has all the top talent. Senior bureaucrats, lawyers, prominent businessmen…
But that does not mean the opposition have no talent, however few in number they may be.
In a way, both ruling and opposition parties face problems in recruiting talent. For the PAP, it’s getting the right people for the top jobs, the people whom Lee Kuan Yew, now Minister Mentor and father of modern Singapore calls his “generals”, the “A team”, or the “300 who mattered”. It’s the difficulty in finding true statesmen able to lead government in the long run.
For opposition, it’s the sheer dearth of people they are facing, because in Singapore, very few people join opposition.
So how to choose? It’s actually quite simple. People do know about the candidates’ backgrounds. The parties make it clear in their party publications; “so-an-so was a lawyer for how many years…” accessibility to this information is easy.
But my advice is: first, look at the other factors, like those I will discuss later. Second, ignore the personal attacks some candidates make to other candidates. A truly mature electorate must not buy the story behind electoral tactics and partisan politics.
That brings me to my second topic on moral character. I have a personal preference for this point, because the lack of grassroots experience can be built up, knowledge of policies or issues can be grasped slowly, as long as the prospective MP is willing to learn and accept advice. But if the person has a flawed moral character, he/she can’t be really serving in the interests of the people.
But how would people know whether the candidate has what it takes?
In most elections, it’s only the first-and-last impression that mattered.
For example, you sit in a coffee-shop during the campaigning period for breakfast, they come to you, shake your hand, chit-chat with you, and tells you to vote for them before moving on to the next table.
How much can we know about the candidates, especially when the PAP has a practice of bringing in new people every single election?
Other than that first impression, we don’t have much to fall back on. But that’s not to say it’s not important. The first impression matters for people with strong Emotional Quotients (EQ). Sometimes, people know when they are sincere and when they are not. That’s because people can reveal their socio-cultural predispositions in that few seconds of conversation.
Policies. I must admit, this is not for the average man-in-the-street. Because to debate policy, you must understand it. If you don’t, you seem inadequate at best and ignorant at worst. In Singapore, we have a problematic situation of the PAP packaging and marketing the policy outlines so well people just buy them, and the opposition not debating on policy because… because… well, they don’t have a policy.
So policy is out of the electorate’s frame of mind for now. But I feel that the only way for Singapore to improve is to move into such issues. You see, Singapore has a unique political culture in which we don’t debate on issues. We debate on outcomes. That’s why candidates talk about lift-upgrading and things like that in elections, which sounds silly in a modern democracy, but that’s the language the man-in-the-street could understand. I hope as society progresses, we can move on to issues with a more discursive quality.
Anyway, personally I feel they shouldn’t make lift-upgrading an issue as well. It’s the right of every citizen to have access to infrastructure improvements, so why should it become a party issue?
Last but not least, the parties. All the major political parties in Singapore had had their proud history. There’s no need to over-emphasise PAP’s heritage, but parties like the Workers’ Party (WP), and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had their heydays too. WP broke the PAP’s monopoly in parliament in 1981, and SDP was the leading opposition party in the 1980s.
Of course, specific developments led these parties to go downhill, but the fact remains that we should respect all parties as institutions of democracy.
To sum up, these is a long way for Singapore politics. This is my take on political life in Singapore, from the perspective of a humble citizen with views of my own. Here I express my wishes for a bright political future for Singapore, where everyone can participate actively and contribute to the country. For now, we can start on learning once again, how to vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
