Reference Article:
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080813/tap-oly-china-lip-synched-song-bb10fb8.html
As the 2008 Beijing Olympics finally draw to a close, this edition of the Games will always be remembered fondly by many, not only for the numerous world and Olympic records that have been shattered in the short duration of 16 days, but especially for the lasting impression China has left with Olympic viewers around the world. True, the Olympics has indeed be a celebration of our athletes’ amazing abilities, but more than that, the 2008 Games have been a celebration of China’s speedy rise up the world order. In the past month or so, China has come under more public scrutiny than any other nation, partly due to record global audience expected to tune in, and the high expectations to deliver a memorable Olympics.
For the 1.3 billion Chinese Nationals, the Olympics symbolized China’s belated “coming-out party” as a global superpower, and fulfils what has been termed “a 100-year dream”. To achieve its ambitious targets of hosting the best ever Olympic Games and leaving a good impression on the world, in addition to topping the gold medal tally for the first time ever, China has left no stone unturned in its efforts, going to extreme lengths to create a “perfect Games” - to the extent that certain decisions taken have made the world sit up and take notice, albeit in a different kind of way.
Perhaps one of the greatest controversies shrouding these Games has been the lip-synching incident during the Opening Ceremony, where 9-year old Lin Miaoke mouthed “Ode to the Motherland”, which was in fact sung by 7-year old Yang Peiyi. When officials came clean a couple of days after the ceremony, it was revealed that the last minute switch had been made because Yang, with her chubby face and slightly crooked baby-teeth, had been deemed not pretty enough to be showcased to the world. Music director Chen Qigang even added "The audience will understand that it’s in national interest", with others echoing his view that there was nothing wrong with picking “the prettier-looking kid over the not so pretty one”. In response to comments that this was a fair deal, Yang said that “just having her voice used was an honour”, but perhaps as a young child, she has yet to understand the impact this decision may have on both the kids in the future. Psychologists say that Yang could possibly grow up with a poor self-image and develop an inferiority complex, while Lin may be continuously perceived by others as a fraud. In addition to the lip-synching revelation, it was also confirmed that the 29 footprints fireworks shown walking towards the Bird’s Nest stadium were pre-recorded digital images, “for convenience and theatrical effects”, a move which has raised ethical and moral questions regarding China’s extensive preparation for the Games.
Looking at the numerous instances in retrospect, it is perhaps sensible to ponder, is China simply getting carried away with its “image-obsession”?
The Olympics effectively began two years ago for China, with various campaigns to prepare the city for the Games such as designating the 11th day of the month as “Queue Up Day” to encourage civic-mindedness, driving away homeless vagabonds and immigrants from urban areas, and cleaning up its foul and polluted air, apart from a major overhaul of the city’s infrastructure and transport systems. A heated debate has also ensued regarding China’s “women” gymnasts, who appear suspiciously underage, a claim which China denies. However, with records of these gymnasts having registered in previous competitions under a much later birth-date, it remains to be seen whether China will be stripped of its first ever gold medal in women’s team gymnastics.
In order to breach new sporting frontiers and achieve dominance in sports not their forte, China has built up an impressive sporting programme which has bore fruit at these Games, raking in couple of gold medals in swimming, boxing and gymnastics – not typical Chinese strongholds. Yet over time, many reports have surfaced regarding the brutality of China’s training programme, which gives little time for leisure and in some cases, only allow athletes to visit their parents once a year. Indeed, no effort has been spared in the quest for the “perfect Olympics”, with strict requirements even for volunteers hoping to serve as flower girls at prize presentation ceremonies during the Games.
It appears this sense of “image-obsession” has gripped the Chinese government and its people, ever so eager to put on a good show for the world, to the extent that Beijing has undergone a complete makeover. For the sake of “national image”, no sacrifices have been spared in ensuring China looks good on TV, regardless of whatever compromises that have to be made within this process. But then again, these sorts of things are not exactly new to China.
Of course, this image obsession is not all bad for China, given that it has helped improve the mannerism of the Chinese society, and aided efforts for a superb Olympics. Yet, I believe certain actions may have crossed the line, particularly the Opening Ceremony’s lip-synching and digital footage incidents. The world had been waiting in eager anticipation to see the real China, not the elusive, deceptive one trying so desperately hard to impress the world. For all we know, China’s controversial ways may have backfired, rubbing some people the wrong way and leaving with them a tainted impression of the world’s most populated nation. How far is ‘enough’ for China?
Despite all these side-line distractions, the Beijing Games has certainly been a remarkable and breathtaking one to behold – one that will always be remembered for the amazing 8 gold feat of Michael Phelps, the world record breaking performances of Usain Bolt, and back home in Singapore, the conquest of our first Olympic medal in 48 long years. China’s report card has without doubt not been too bad overall, with numerous glowing reports from the 204 participating nations, and while the world’s eyes have been glued in support of their favourite athletes on TV screens all over, the host nation has not been forgotten either. In essence, Beijing 2008, with all its ups and downs, will forever be etched in our memories for being a, quote Jacque Rogge (IOC President), “a truly exceptional Games”.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
"Democracy can create stability in society": Theory vs Reality
Democracy, commonly understood as the ‘rule of the majority’, is quoted by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address to be the “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, in which all citizens are treated fairly before the law, have their rights respected, and are given freedom of choice and speech, amongst other key conditions.
As to whether democracy is able to create stability in society, it is crucial to examine it from the perspective of two fundamental criteria: Time and Scale & Impact. For the statement to hold true, it must maintain that stability in the long-run and should have significant benefits to a great majority of the people.
In my view, democracy does possess that ability to a large extent, though this is not always the case in reality.
Firstly, democracy grants power over the state away from ruling elites and into the hands of the common-folk, who make up the majority of any nation, giving them freedom in choosing the authority they wish to submit to, and the leaders that will eventually go on to make policies and decisions that affect everyone. The government is effectively decided by a comparatively peaceful process of voting, instead of by violence or through coercion, as seen in the past, whereby the victors formed the next head of state, exempli gratia, the 18th century French Revolution in which the peasants eventually succeeded in removing the unpopular aristocrats after a hostile rebellion. All these contribute to a government placed in power by the majority, working to appease them and meet their needs, hence resulting in a higher chance of stability.
Clean and fair elections in democracies often lead to a transparent government, which is directly answerable to the people, who invested them with authority to make collective decisions. Should the present government neglect its duty or become corrupted, a democracy allows the people to remove them in the next elections and install a new party they believe will work for their interests, thereby keeping those in power always on their toes.
Also, freedom of speech in a democracy promotes the above, allowing various forms of media to openly criticize the government, exposing its faults so that it can continuously improve to cater to the people’s needs, and giving the people the opportunity to make informed decisions and review those they have placed in authority, instead of overly relying on propagandistic government-controlled media that might cloud their judgment. Thus, the element of liberty of expression helps monitor policy-making and keeps the conduct of the government officers in check, therefore ensuring a healthy progressive society.
On the other hand, democracy can, in fact, bring about more chaos than stability. In every democracy, some form of ‘tyranny of the majority’ is bound to happen. In my opinion, democracy unfettered means the minority can actually fall prey to the majority. Democracy is man-made and man, beset with lust, greed and bias, will never be able to be fair, even to himself – thus we cannot assume that the majority will necessarily be obliged to look after the interests of the minority. While in theory, democracy does seek to accomplish that, it is rarely the case in reality, as can be seen from examples dating as far back to the ancient Greeks to the racial conflict in the US during the Jim Crow era, and most notably Nazi-Germany’s attempted annihilation of the Jews. This is because once in control of the state and the majority, the government can deceive the people into believing its ideals and manipulate policies to suit its agendas and prolong its hegemony, all of which were skilfully accomplished by Hitler in his insane scheme to create the Third Reich, after he was voted into power via democratic elections. Such is the power of the majority vote.
However, this is not to say that every democratic nation will result in the majority neglecting the minority group, but rather, in every democratic process, there will be a losing side, and the amount of protection and welfare this minority group is given, if often a key determining factor in the stability of the society – and if violated can lead to dire consequences due to limited ways in reversing the damage done. For instance the African-Americans in the US, the self-proclaimed model of democracy – even after they were allowed to vote, the blacks were still out numbered, and their rights were consequently neglected for many decades. Racism still exists today, it is a fact we cannot escape from – the minority will, to varying extents, always be undermined.
In addition, a democracy assumes the decision by the majority to be right, and should their judgment have been flawed or blinded by false promises, instability may result from their erroneous choices. Looking at the Holocaust, which Hitler instigated and convinced the people to carry out – it was accepted by the majority, but does it mean that it was of benefit to society? Of course not – Nazi-Germany’s attempts to create the superior Aryan race only led to the disastrous World War II, setting Germany further back in recession in the aftemath!
Therefore, in conclusion, I personally believe that democracy does have the ability to bring about stability in a society, by encouraging a fair and peaceful way of placing people into power, resolving differences between conflicting groups through voting, and keeping the government clean and transparent in its dealings to create a stable and progressive society. However, I believe a clear distinction must be drawn between theory and reality, as pure democracy left unfettered in the today’s context will eventually be overcome by dissension with minority groups, thereby limiting the extent to which the statement holds true.
As to whether democracy is able to create stability in society, it is crucial to examine it from the perspective of two fundamental criteria: Time and Scale & Impact. For the statement to hold true, it must maintain that stability in the long-run and should have significant benefits to a great majority of the people.
In my view, democracy does possess that ability to a large extent, though this is not always the case in reality.
Firstly, democracy grants power over the state away from ruling elites and into the hands of the common-folk, who make up the majority of any nation, giving them freedom in choosing the authority they wish to submit to, and the leaders that will eventually go on to make policies and decisions that affect everyone. The government is effectively decided by a comparatively peaceful process of voting, instead of by violence or through coercion, as seen in the past, whereby the victors formed the next head of state, exempli gratia, the 18th century French Revolution in which the peasants eventually succeeded in removing the unpopular aristocrats after a hostile rebellion. All these contribute to a government placed in power by the majority, working to appease them and meet their needs, hence resulting in a higher chance of stability.
Clean and fair elections in democracies often lead to a transparent government, which is directly answerable to the people, who invested them with authority to make collective decisions. Should the present government neglect its duty or become corrupted, a democracy allows the people to remove them in the next elections and install a new party they believe will work for their interests, thereby keeping those in power always on their toes.
Also, freedom of speech in a democracy promotes the above, allowing various forms of media to openly criticize the government, exposing its faults so that it can continuously improve to cater to the people’s needs, and giving the people the opportunity to make informed decisions and review those they have placed in authority, instead of overly relying on propagandistic government-controlled media that might cloud their judgment. Thus, the element of liberty of expression helps monitor policy-making and keeps the conduct of the government officers in check, therefore ensuring a healthy progressive society.
On the other hand, democracy can, in fact, bring about more chaos than stability. In every democracy, some form of ‘tyranny of the majority’ is bound to happen. In my opinion, democracy unfettered means the minority can actually fall prey to the majority. Democracy is man-made and man, beset with lust, greed and bias, will never be able to be fair, even to himself – thus we cannot assume that the majority will necessarily be obliged to look after the interests of the minority. While in theory, democracy does seek to accomplish that, it is rarely the case in reality, as can be seen from examples dating as far back to the ancient Greeks to the racial conflict in the US during the Jim Crow era, and most notably Nazi-Germany’s attempted annihilation of the Jews. This is because once in control of the state and the majority, the government can deceive the people into believing its ideals and manipulate policies to suit its agendas and prolong its hegemony, all of which were skilfully accomplished by Hitler in his insane scheme to create the Third Reich, after he was voted into power via democratic elections. Such is the power of the majority vote.
However, this is not to say that every democratic nation will result in the majority neglecting the minority group, but rather, in every democratic process, there will be a losing side, and the amount of protection and welfare this minority group is given, if often a key determining factor in the stability of the society – and if violated can lead to dire consequences due to limited ways in reversing the damage done. For instance the African-Americans in the US, the self-proclaimed model of democracy – even after they were allowed to vote, the blacks were still out numbered, and their rights were consequently neglected for many decades. Racism still exists today, it is a fact we cannot escape from – the minority will, to varying extents, always be undermined.
In addition, a democracy assumes the decision by the majority to be right, and should their judgment have been flawed or blinded by false promises, instability may result from their erroneous choices. Looking at the Holocaust, which Hitler instigated and convinced the people to carry out – it was accepted by the majority, but does it mean that it was of benefit to society? Of course not – Nazi-Germany’s attempts to create the superior Aryan race only led to the disastrous World War II, setting Germany further back in recession in the aftemath!
Therefore, in conclusion, I personally believe that democracy does have the ability to bring about stability in a society, by encouraging a fair and peaceful way of placing people into power, resolving differences between conflicting groups through voting, and keeping the government clean and transparent in its dealings to create a stable and progressive society. However, I believe a clear distinction must be drawn between theory and reality, as pure democracy left unfettered in the today’s context will eventually be overcome by dissension with minority groups, thereby limiting the extent to which the statement holds true.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
English Commentary (Term 1)
STANDING STRONG IN THE FACE OF TERROR
On the 26th of February 2008, Singaporeans returned home to the startling news that Mas Selamat Kastari, the former head of the Jemiaah Islamiah cell in Singapore and the republic’s most dangerous man, had escaped from the Whitley Detention Centre and is now on the loose.
I believe that many would never have, in their wildest dreams, imagined the possibility of such a wanted terrorist breaking out from a ‘high-security’ detention centre, especially given the hard-line stance Singapore adopts on anti-terrorism.
Mas Selamat Kastari had been detained under the Internal Security Act since 2006 for allegedly plotting to hijack and crash a plane from Bangkok into Changi Airport. According to various news reports, he had slipped out of the detention centre at approximately 4.05pm that eventful day after visiting the toilet.
Without a doubt, one of the pressing questions that must be racing through the minds of Singaporeans and the global community alike, would be how Mas Selamat, being such a threat to public security, was able to achieve this ‘feat’ completely undetected? At such a ‘high-security’ prison, security obviously had to be top-notch and constant vigilance maintained at all times. Why was Mas Selamat allowed to visit the toilet alone, and how long did it take for the guards to discover that he had disappeared?
Of colossal importance is how this incident has affected our society, and the greater implications it may have on Singapore’s reputation within the international community. Globally reputed for its low crime rate and tight security, as well as its firm approach against terrorism in the region and the world around, this unexpected glitch will certainly tarnish the shine in our record somewhat.
Nonetheless, Singapore society, though anxious for the capture of this wanted fugitive, has been taking matters in its stride and cooperating fully with the government’s all-out efforts to locate and arrest Mas Selamat. In fact, it is heartening to see how the nation has instead bonded together as one through this ‘calamity’. As the government ordered a massive island-wide manhunt for Mas Selamat, many citizens, while understandably worried, were extremely obliging as army units conducted spot-checks on passing vehicles and households. Police also tightened security along the borders, resulting in hour-long traffic jams for those heading into Johor and overseas, but many who were interviewed expressed their understanding for the rationale behind such checks.
Grassroots leaders and MPs such as Mdm. Cynthia Phua and Dr. Fatimah Lateef, amongst an army of volunteers from all walks of life, all eager to play their part in the search effort, have all chipped in to distribute posters with Mas Selamat’s face to passers-by at MRT stations and shopping malls. The three major Telco operators here have also very willingly sent out free MMSes to all mobile phone users in Singapore, reminding them to remain vigilant and be on the lookout for Mas Selamat. Virtually every public place in Singapore has been splashed across with the face of the escaped terrorist, and with the search for him reaching down even to the community level, it will be interesting to see how long Mas Selamat Kastari can remain in hiding here on our beloved island.
While this freak, out-of-the-blue incident has exposed Singapore’s vulnerability to moments of negligence, I echo the hope of everyone that it will not be long before this thorn to society is arrested and locked away safely. Amid the ongoing hullabaloo around us, it is definitely heartening to see Singapore society stand so strong in a united front in such times of trouble. It will without doubt reflect how much we have progressed over the years as a country, and give us the confidence to go through thick and thin, come whatever may!
Singapore’s response to this crisis will be extremely crucial as it will reflect the strength of our little nation as a unified society and test our ability to respond to such situations. Nevertheless, I am fully confident that Singapore will be able to bounce back from this global embarrassment, and emerge stronger and readier to tackle such terror issues.
On the 26th of February 2008, Singaporeans returned home to the startling news that Mas Selamat Kastari, the former head of the Jemiaah Islamiah cell in Singapore and the republic’s most dangerous man, had escaped from the Whitley Detention Centre and is now on the loose.I believe that many would never have, in their wildest dreams, imagined the possibility of such a wanted terrorist breaking out from a ‘high-security’ detention centre, especially given the hard-line stance Singapore adopts on anti-terrorism.
Mas Selamat Kastari had been detained under the Internal Security Act since 2006 for allegedly plotting to hijack and crash a plane from Bangkok into Changi Airport. According to various news reports, he had slipped out of the detention centre at approximately 4.05pm that eventful day after visiting the toilet.
Without a doubt, one of the pressing questions that must be racing through the minds of Singaporeans and the global community alike, would be how Mas Selamat, being such a threat to public security, was able to achieve this ‘feat’ completely undetected? At such a ‘high-security’ prison, security obviously had to be top-notch and constant vigilance maintained at all times. Why was Mas Selamat allowed to visit the toilet alone, and how long did it take for the guards to discover that he had disappeared?
Of colossal importance is how this incident has affected our society, and the greater implications it may have on Singapore’s reputation within the international community. Globally reputed for its low crime rate and tight security, as well as its firm approach against terrorism in the region and the world around, this unexpected glitch will certainly tarnish the shine in our record somewhat.
Nonetheless, Singapore society, though anxious for the capture of this wanted fugitive, has been taking matters in its stride and cooperating fully with the government’s all-out efforts to locate and arrest Mas Selamat. In fact, it is heartening to see how the nation has instead bonded together as one through this ‘calamity’. As the government ordered a massive island-wide manhunt for Mas Selamat, many citizens, while understandably worried, were extremely obliging as army units conducted spot-checks on passing vehicles and households. Police also tightened security along the borders, resulting in hour-long traffic jams for those heading into Johor and overseas, but many who were interviewed expressed their understanding for the rationale behind such checks.
Grassroots leaders and MPs such as Mdm. Cynthia Phua and Dr. Fatimah Lateef, amongst an army of volunteers from all walks of life, all eager to play their part in the search effort, have all chipped in to distribute posters with Mas Selamat’s face to passers-by at MRT stations and shopping malls. The three major Telco operators here have also very willingly sent out free MMSes to all mobile phone users in Singapore, reminding them to remain vigilant and be on the lookout for Mas Selamat. Virtually every public place in Singapore has been splashed across with the face of the escaped terrorist, and with the search for him reaching down even to the community level, it will be interesting to see how long Mas Selamat Kastari can remain in hiding here on our beloved island.
While this freak, out-of-the-blue incident has exposed Singapore’s vulnerability to moments of negligence, I echo the hope of everyone that it will not be long before this thorn to society is arrested and locked away safely. Amid the ongoing hullabaloo around us, it is definitely heartening to see Singapore society stand so strong in a united front in such times of trouble. It will without doubt reflect how much we have progressed over the years as a country, and give us the confidence to go through thick and thin, come whatever may!
Singapore’s response to this crisis will be extremely crucial as it will reflect the strength of our little nation as a unified society and test our ability to respond to such situations. Nevertheless, I am fully confident that Singapore will be able to bounce back from this global embarrassment, and emerge stronger and readier to tackle such terror issues.
Article Sources:
1. “Manhunt”, Rosnah Ahmad, Leong Wee Keat, Esther Fung and Tan Hui Leng, Today, Thursday 28 February 2008
2. “The one question on the mind of Netizens”, Claire Huang, MyPaper, February 29 2008
3. “Community leaders help with search”, Diana Othman, The Straits Times, March 1 2008
4. "Posters & leaflets of fugitive helpful, says S’poreans”, Mavis Teo and Jessica Jaganathan, The Straits Times, March 1 2008
5. “Elite cops blanket Bt. Batok”, Chong Chee Kin, The Sunday Times, March 2 2008
6. “The face that launched 5.5million cell phone alerts”, Ben Nadarajan, The Sunday Times, 2 March 2008
7. “Kampung Boy, bus mechanic, bomb maker, wanted terrorist”, Nur Dianah Suhaimi, The Sunday Times, 2 March 2008
8. “Telcos rally to help alert all residents”, Jamie Ee, The Sunday Times, 2 March 2008
9. “Man hunt for terrorist chief goes into 5th day: He’s still in Singapore”, MyPaper, 3 March 2008
1. “Manhunt”, Rosnah Ahmad, Leong Wee Keat, Esther Fung and Tan Hui Leng, Today, Thursday 28 February 2008
2. “The one question on the mind of Netizens”, Claire Huang, MyPaper, February 29 2008
3. “Community leaders help with search”, Diana Othman, The Straits Times, March 1 2008
4. "Posters & leaflets of fugitive helpful, says S’poreans”, Mavis Teo and Jessica Jaganathan, The Straits Times, March 1 2008
5. “Elite cops blanket Bt. Batok”, Chong Chee Kin, The Sunday Times, March 2 2008
6. “The face that launched 5.5million cell phone alerts”, Ben Nadarajan, The Sunday Times, 2 March 2008
7. “Kampung Boy, bus mechanic, bomb maker, wanted terrorist”, Nur Dianah Suhaimi, The Sunday Times, 2 March 2008
8. “Telcos rally to help alert all residents”, Jamie Ee, The Sunday Times, 2 March 2008
9. “Man hunt for terrorist chief goes into 5th day: He’s still in Singapore”, MyPaper, 3 March 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)