The Cluster Bomb Ban Treaty - this was agreed on recently by over 100 nations. Unfortunately, I simply cannot find any information on which of these nations supported the treaty, only the big names that *did not* (oh and Kudos to Britain for signing on!).
Specifically, I wanted to know if Singapore signed up. My current belief is that she did not, we are a strong ally of the US and in the course of trying to find this list of nations, I also found out on a Human Rights Watch page that Singapore possesses and markets some types of cluster munitions as well, though it is unclear exactly which types.
It just bugs me that such information cannot easily be found. I hope we will (or did) sign up to the treaty and destroy our stockpiles just like Britain will be doing. Cluster munitions are just an abomination in its current form (well, ideally, we should consider all weapons an abomination ... but this is the real world, so ...). Official dud rates are something below 1%, but as Dan Rather reported, in practice these are something like 10% or as high as 70%. Even at 1% ... it was reported that the US has 1 billion of these bomblets, that's right ... 1,000,000,000. Take 1% of that and you have 10 million of these that will linger on dangerously after they have been dropped. Reports say that the UN has already cleared 130,000 of these from Southern Lebanon after the Israel-Hezbollah conflict recently.
Finally, a thought. Now we have a ban that half the world is queasy about signing-up to ... perhaps for this other half, we could make sign up to a "responsibility clause". If these countries are so confident about their dud rates, then they should be responsible for them:
1) at the end of war, be forced to pay for cleanup operations in affected locations.
2) be forced to attend trials and litigation proceedings against them in case of post-war damage or injury resulting from such weapons provably attributed to them.
3) be forced to provide "strike details", so cleanup crews know where to go look.
4) be forced to mark these bomblets clearly, large danger symbols. This might be a two-edged sword since children who do not understand may be attracted by such symbols. Nonetheless, it would certainly help bomb disposal units who do not have to hunt through landscape where such bomblets may hide and be camouflaged.
I think these will make nations who believe that cluster bombs are "essential" to their military operations to think and plan carefully before the use of such weapons. This should also provide a way for innocents to seek justice should such weapons be used indiscriminately.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Passing the buck on Maids in Singapore ...
On the issue of mandating a rest-day for maids, I am disappointed with the response from acting Minister for Manpower, Gan Kim Yong. Instead of acknowledging the issues and problems faced by our guest workers, he is passing the buck to people employing maids, claiming they are "responsible for their wellbeing", including adequate rest.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/STIStory_241519.html
If the nature of domestic help demands flexibility, why not mandate rest-hours or hours of work per week with extra-hour work pay like the rest of the workforce? I think it is just terrible the way we have one set of standards for "normal" workers in Singapore and a complete disregard for domestic workers. Just a terrible disgrace.
On the issue of mandating a rest-day for maids, I am disappointed with the response from acting Minister for Manpower, Gan Kim Yong. Instead of acknowledging the issues and problems faced by our guest workers, he is passing the buck to people employing maids, claiming they are "responsible for their wellbeing", including adequate rest.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/STIStory_241519.html
If the nature of domestic help demands flexibility, why not mandate rest-hours or hours of work per week with extra-hour work pay like the rest of the workforce? I think it is just terrible the way we have one set of standards for "normal" workers in Singapore and a complete disregard for domestic workers. Just a terrible disgrace.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Politics: Some wise quotes from Ex-Czechoslovakia President Vaclav Havel about being an artist (he is a renowned playwright) and a politician. These are from the BBC interview article:
Havel: I want to be free
I think the above is a fundamental truth as a (good) leader. Diplomacy is necessary on the world stage. The variety of people with all their different cultures and perspectives on the world (orthogonal to whether or not they are sincere, scheming or evil) have to be handled with diplomacy and an open mind. Well, in general, this is a good thing to have when dealing with any people, IMHO.
This comment really resonates with my last post.
Personally, I think this ideal would be possible only if some maturity enters the human race in general. We are still too easily threatened and react badly to differing views.
This is a comment that is particularly appropriate to Singapore opposition politicians. I have disliked J. B. Jeyaratnam because he always seems to come across as a "complainer", opposing for the sake of opposing. I also feel that he, almost single-handedly, made the PAP (to be fair, they are not blameless in this matter) react to any opposition in that same light ... essentially dismissing or crushing any opposing view without properly evaluating their merits. I was very glad when he announced his retirement (which apparently may be reversed soon if he forms his own party ... *shudder*) but just as that happened, Chee Soon Juan showed up ... *sigh* (I think he is even worse than J.B.J.).
Nails it on the head. I have always felt uncomfortable when PAP leaders talk about grooming the next generation of "Singapore" leaders, when they really ought to be talking about grooming the next generation of "PAP" leaders. Just reinforces my views that they are getting more and more high-handed and presumptuous. Also makes me worried that they will also get more and more out-of-touch to the point they eventually fail, with no reasonable alternative to take over reins of power in Singapore should Singaporeans decide one day that "enough is enough".
Havel: I want to be free
Personally I do not think that I have somehow abandoned myself and my nature and principles and that I have somehow changed fundamentally. Many things had to change, but these are more superficial things.
I have to speak in a diplomatic manner, carefully, I cannot always say, straight out, that I think someone is a fool. I have to wear a tie. The office ties me down in a thousand ways and the specific nature of the Czech presidency no less.
I think the above is a fundamental truth as a (good) leader. Diplomacy is necessary on the world stage. The variety of people with all their different cultures and perspectives on the world (orthogonal to whether or not they are sincere, scheming or evil) have to be handled with diplomacy and an open mind. Well, in general, this is a good thing to have when dealing with any people, IMHO.
I think it would perhaps be really good if politicians did not allow themselves be governed by the particular interests of their parties and the rhythm of elections - the need to devote themselves to the technology of power and maintenance of power.
This comment really resonates with my last post.
They should take a broader, longer-term outlook. These are perhaps characteristics of intellectual or spiritual people... it would be good if more so-called intellectuals entered politics.
Personally, I think this ideal would be possible only if some maturity enters the human race in general. We are still too easily threatened and react badly to differing views.
One of the reasons I became president is that I was being told: "You have been criticising all the time, so show us how to do better."
This is a comment that is particularly appropriate to Singapore opposition politicians. I have disliked J. B. Jeyaratnam because he always seems to come across as a "complainer", opposing for the sake of opposing. I also feel that he, almost single-handedly, made the PAP (to be fair, they are not blameless in this matter) react to any opposition in that same light ... essentially dismissing or crushing any opposing view without properly evaluating their merits. I was very glad when he announced his retirement (which apparently may be reversed soon if he forms his own party ... *shudder*) but just as that happened, Chee Soon Juan showed up ... *sigh* (I think he is even worse than J.B.J.).
BBC Question: A big criticism of you is that you have not groomed a successor, and it might turn out to be someone you don't like at all.
I have perhaps taken democracy too seriously, but imagine that President Clinton would groom President Bush or the old President Bush would groom President Clinton. This is not how it works. In democracy one does not groom one's successor.
Nails it on the head. I have always felt uncomfortable when PAP leaders talk about grooming the next generation of "Singapore" leaders, when they really ought to be talking about grooming the next generation of "PAP" leaders. Just reinforces my views that they are getting more and more high-handed and presumptuous. Also makes me worried that they will also get more and more out-of-touch to the point they eventually fail, with no reasonable alternative to take over reins of power in Singapore should Singaporeans decide one day that "enough is enough".
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Opposition member votes PAP: Sincere exercise of democracy or Wayang?
This fact came from a ST forum article which then got me interested. Here's a blog entry from none other than this Worker's Party member himself, Mr. Yaw Shin Leong:
http://yawshinleong.blogspot.com/2008/05/vote-for-other-side.html
I like his explanation. It is a plain and simple fact, vote for whom you think is the best person running for your constituency.
Of course, as with all political actions, there are people who agree with you as well as your critics. Here's some of the discussion on this topic at Sammyboy's forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sammyboymod&msg=176554.1&maxT=4
In it, there are some valid (under some circumstances) criticism that Mr. Yaw:
1) did this out of spite against the SDP (which chose to run in Mr. Yaw's planned GRC, forcing the WP team to challenge the Prime Minister in his ward instead)
2) was "Wayanging", since he brought it up after the election was over, presumably to score points as an "underdog"
3) was a hypocrite for doing so in the first place because he was simultaneously asking voters to vote opposition in his contest
So, just how valid are these complaints? Firstly, I do not know Mr. Yaw, so I have no clear understanding of the man at the personal level. Taking things at face value and the fact that he is a politician (playing the political game), all three claims are possible (as you can see, I don't think very highly of politicians in general). However, such a biased view does not do us justice if we wish to move into an era of enlightened politics as Singaporeans. Where 1) goes, all I can say is that it is possible. Who can know what he was thinking? On the flip side, he could also sincerely feel the lack of quality in the SDP team. Mentioning it in his blog (I'll get to that later) kinda counted against him on this point, since it reinforced the negative aspects of this view. On 2), I do not agree with the criticism on two counts ... one, I felt Mr. Yaw did not make a big deal out of it. He merely mentioned it. So, either he was making a sincere observation (which I believe he was), or he was so deviously cunning and subtle that he believed Singaporeans would feel an outpouring of sympathy for him because of his act. NOBODY, especially not Singaporeans, responds in an overwhelmingly positive manner to such a subtle gesture in politics. A bunch (including myself) may be impressed, but to believe the act would make people fall in love with him is futile as a political gesture. He might as well go on a hunger strike like Chee Soon Juan. Two, it is foolish to think the act will be received positively. Given my perceptions of Singaporean mentality, I think it more likely (as in the posts on Sammyboy) it would be interpreted as an act of treachery. So, given this fact, why would a politician stick his neck out in such a risky fashion? Mr. Yaw does not appear to be a madman maverick like Chee Soon Juan, so I think it unlikely and unreasonable that he engineered this. On to 3), was he a hypocrite? You could say so for all politicians and their supporters when they get "emotional" in general. Someone commented that Mahatir desired to drive a wedge between Malaysia and Singapore, spouting rhetoric saying all the economic deals will "force Malaysians to live in the forest". What about the time Goh Chok Tong said if the residents of Potong Pasir continued to vote for Chiam See Tong that the constituency would "become a slum"? I do not know if Mr. Yaw was actively saying (in general) that "people should vote opposition" while campaigning, but that's his job while campaigning. It sounds kinda wierd in a campaign to say "vote for the best person, even if you don't think it's me" even though frankly, I think that's the proper thing to do (of course, one has to follow up and say "I believe I'm the best person and I can prove it to you!").
This leads me to a slightly off-topic thought I had while considering "honest and sincere" politicians I have witnessed. I wanted to use the word "encountered", but frankly, I've never actually met nor interacted with a politician or political activists and while I enjoy talking about politics, I get uncomfortable when I have to deal with people with partisan backgrounds and avoid it then.
A politician has a "job" to do. That is, they are tasked to convince people to vote for them. What I find sad about being a politician, is that they have to "pander" to these people. It becomes the "math" of populations. They are forced to take a multi-hued world where people possess individual blends of colors, and "squeeze" specific colors out of groups of these people to find the issues that resonate with the biggest blotch of these colors they can find, then making a stand based on those colors while spinning your stand to offend as few of the 2nd biggest blotch, 3rd biggest blotch ... etc ... that's how I think politicians become successful in politics, at least in the US. Which is what made me so interested in Barack Obama because I liked the way he makes stands based on his belief yet they resonate with the people in general while at the same time, reminding people and himself (he's doing less of that now)less of that now, which worries me) that things are not black and white and that many things require careful thought.
Of course, "the game" is very different in Singapore. I think in Singapore, the number of "colors" has been limited, due to our smaller population size and our close proximity to one another (it's really wierd, seeing how different US states vote so very differently just based on geographical clustering). Also, I think this pool of "colors" has grown smaller in part due to the constant feedback of economic fears and pressures emphasized by the PAP government over the many years they have been in power. So, in Singapore, I believe the predominant "color" for voting criteria amongst Singaporeans is that of economic progress and worldly comforts. I believe we see that played out every single recent election (I was too young to have paid attention to any election before 1988). It is a worrying trend. The PAP has done a good job of managing Singapore's problems so far. However, they have also swept a number of other problems under the carpet. Problems like ethnicity, unfair treatment of maids, treatment of homosexuals, etc ... these are tough problems, but are swept aside with discussion of them "forbidden", always with the claim people are not ready for it. It may be true, but if we are not ready for them, why can't the government get people ready for them? I see few if any signs that the PAP are helping Singaporeans (in general, including the Bengs and Sengs) mature politically and get them ready to express views and accept views without getting angry or emotional about them. You see this form of political maturity often here in the US. A conservative Republican can tell me "he respectfully disagrees with my views" without becoming an enemy or even losing my friendship. He has gay friends (mine too) whom he is close to, yet disagrees with their lifestyles. In Singapore, somehow, disagreement often gets perceived as a threat.
I hope this changes and improves, no matter how slowly in Singapore. All I appear to see is mostly the reverse happening.
Ok, end of rant. I just realized I've gone fairly random hehehe.
This fact came from a ST forum article which then got me interested. Here's a blog entry from none other than this Worker's Party member himself, Mr. Yaw Shin Leong:
http://yawshinleong.blogspot.com/2008/05/vote-for-other-side.html
I like his explanation. It is a plain and simple fact, vote for whom you think is the best person running for your constituency.
Of course, as with all political actions, there are people who agree with you as well as your critics. Here's some of the discussion on this topic at Sammyboy's forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sammyboymod&msg=176554.1&maxT=4
In it, there are some valid (under some circumstances) criticism that Mr. Yaw:
1) did this out of spite against the SDP (which chose to run in Mr. Yaw's planned GRC, forcing the WP team to challenge the Prime Minister in his ward instead)
2) was "Wayanging", since he brought it up after the election was over, presumably to score points as an "underdog"
3) was a hypocrite for doing so in the first place because he was simultaneously asking voters to vote opposition in his contest
So, just how valid are these complaints? Firstly, I do not know Mr. Yaw, so I have no clear understanding of the man at the personal level. Taking things at face value and the fact that he is a politician (playing the political game), all three claims are possible (as you can see, I don't think very highly of politicians in general). However, such a biased view does not do us justice if we wish to move into an era of enlightened politics as Singaporeans. Where 1) goes, all I can say is that it is possible. Who can know what he was thinking? On the flip side, he could also sincerely feel the lack of quality in the SDP team. Mentioning it in his blog (I'll get to that later) kinda counted against him on this point, since it reinforced the negative aspects of this view. On 2), I do not agree with the criticism on two counts ... one, I felt Mr. Yaw did not make a big deal out of it. He merely mentioned it. So, either he was making a sincere observation (which I believe he was), or he was so deviously cunning and subtle that he believed Singaporeans would feel an outpouring of sympathy for him because of his act. NOBODY, especially not Singaporeans, responds in an overwhelmingly positive manner to such a subtle gesture in politics. A bunch (including myself) may be impressed, but to believe the act would make people fall in love with him is futile as a political gesture. He might as well go on a hunger strike like Chee Soon Juan. Two, it is foolish to think the act will be received positively. Given my perceptions of Singaporean mentality, I think it more likely (as in the posts on Sammyboy) it would be interpreted as an act of treachery. So, given this fact, why would a politician stick his neck out in such a risky fashion? Mr. Yaw does not appear to be a madman maverick like Chee Soon Juan, so I think it unlikely and unreasonable that he engineered this. On to 3), was he a hypocrite? You could say so for all politicians and their supporters when they get "emotional" in general. Someone commented that Mahatir desired to drive a wedge between Malaysia and Singapore, spouting rhetoric saying all the economic deals will "force Malaysians to live in the forest". What about the time Goh Chok Tong said if the residents of Potong Pasir continued to vote for Chiam See Tong that the constituency would "become a slum"? I do not know if Mr. Yaw was actively saying (in general) that "people should vote opposition" while campaigning, but that's his job while campaigning. It sounds kinda wierd in a campaign to say "vote for the best person, even if you don't think it's me" even though frankly, I think that's the proper thing to do (of course, one has to follow up and say "I believe I'm the best person and I can prove it to you!").
This leads me to a slightly off-topic thought I had while considering "honest and sincere" politicians I have witnessed. I wanted to use the word "encountered", but frankly, I've never actually met nor interacted with a politician or political activists and while I enjoy talking about politics, I get uncomfortable when I have to deal with people with partisan backgrounds and avoid it then.
A politician has a "job" to do. That is, they are tasked to convince people to vote for them. What I find sad about being a politician, is that they have to "pander" to these people. It becomes the "math" of populations. They are forced to take a multi-hued world where people possess individual blends of colors, and "squeeze" specific colors out of groups of these people to find the issues that resonate with the biggest blotch of these colors they can find, then making a stand based on those colors while spinning your stand to offend as few of the 2nd biggest blotch, 3rd biggest blotch ... etc ... that's how I think politicians become successful in politics, at least in the US. Which is what made me so interested in Barack Obama because I liked the way he makes stands based on his belief yet they resonate with the people in general while at the same time, reminding people and himself (he's doing less of that now)less of that now, which worries me) that things are not black and white and that many things require careful thought.
Of course, "the game" is very different in Singapore. I think in Singapore, the number of "colors" has been limited, due to our smaller population size and our close proximity to one another (it's really wierd, seeing how different US states vote so very differently just based on geographical clustering). Also, I think this pool of "colors" has grown smaller in part due to the constant feedback of economic fears and pressures emphasized by the PAP government over the many years they have been in power. So, in Singapore, I believe the predominant "color" for voting criteria amongst Singaporeans is that of economic progress and worldly comforts. I believe we see that played out every single recent election (I was too young to have paid attention to any election before 1988). It is a worrying trend. The PAP has done a good job of managing Singapore's problems so far. However, they have also swept a number of other problems under the carpet. Problems like ethnicity, unfair treatment of maids, treatment of homosexuals, etc ... these are tough problems, but are swept aside with discussion of them "forbidden", always with the claim people are not ready for it. It may be true, but if we are not ready for them, why can't the government get people ready for them? I see few if any signs that the PAP are helping Singaporeans (in general, including the Bengs and Sengs) mature politically and get them ready to express views and accept views without getting angry or emotional about them. You see this form of political maturity often here in the US. A conservative Republican can tell me "he respectfully disagrees with my views" without becoming an enemy or even losing my friendship. He has gay friends (mine too) whom he is close to, yet disagrees with their lifestyles. In Singapore, somehow, disagreement often gets perceived as a threat.
I hope this changes and improves, no matter how slowly in Singapore. All I appear to see is mostly the reverse happening.
Ok, end of rant. I just realized I've gone fairly random hehehe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)