"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference." - Elie Wiesel
I am glad that Singaporeans are no longer indifferent about politics or issues or voting.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
29 April 2011
8 May 2010
British General Election
So it has come to be. Most of the media commentators had predicted a hung parliament, and I did as well. David Cameron needed a very big swing in his favour - almost all 80 odd marginals (with a 8 point swing to the Conservatives needed to gain the seat) and then somehow conjuring up another 30 odd seats from somewhere. While the Conservatives did well enough in winning back seats in their own heartlands of the South-West (and to a lesser extent the South-East) they failed singularly in making any significant dent in Scotland, much of a dent in Wales (though they did pick up 5 seats), and in any major urban area in the UK. While David Cameroon has made significant strides in a Conservative Party revival, the fact that his party still remains toxic to many voters and his failure to penetrate much into Labour strongholds is a significant cause of concern for his party.
If there was one advantage that Gordon Brown brought to this election, it was strangely enough his Scottishness, and it clearly showed. The Conservatives managed to retain their only seat in Scotland but made absolutely no inroads anywhere else, and all of the marginal Labour (and Lib Dem) seats there returned their MPs with larger majorities on the whole. It will be interesting to see how much of the poor showing in Scotland is down to genuine antipathy towards the Conservatives (as opposed to nationalistic support for Brown and former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy). The Scottish vote, with only 1 in 59 seats going Conservative, renews questions about devolution and the West Lochlian problem. The Conservatives would have a clear majority in Commons excluding Scotland and with a number of key bills in the Commons that do not pertain significantly to Scotland (Blair's raising of University tuition fees comes to mind) passed only due to Scottish MPs, this is an interesting constitutional question that has reared it head more significantly in the context of this election.
The Conservatives have always relied predominantly on the rural vote, but their inability to make almost any inroads in the cities and industrial areas in this election is still noteworthy. Apart from winning back the marginals in their Southern base such as Hove, Portsmouth North, Watford and Bristol, they were fairly unsuccessful in making much inroads into any of the Northern or North-Central cities. They did win Cardiff North, and took back Southampton, and succeeded in wresting Oxford West and Abingdon in a big swing away from the Lib Dems but even in the Southern heartlands the Conservatives embarrassingly lost Brighton Pavilion to the Greens and Eastbourne to the Lib Dems. In an election when they needed to win literally everything in the South West and South East, the fact that even Southern cities like Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Colchester and Bristol are fairly ambivalent in what should have been big Conservative wins, does not bode well for Cameroon and his party.
For the Lib Dems this election revealed that much of the hype surrounding them and their leader was merely just that - hype. Given the economic uncertainties and a deeply unpopular standing Government, the electorate was hardly likely to favour a third party, which despite Nick Clegg's rhethoric, was never remotely considered a credible party for Government. While in certain cases, anger against Labour translated into Lib Dem gains, the scalping of Charles Clarke a notable case, more often the Lib Dems also suffered from the anti-Labour backlash, particularly in the South-West and also in losing two significant MPs in Lembit Opik and Dr Evan Harris. Opik, certainly one of the most colourful characters in Parliament, found himself decapitated by the masterful conservative strategy of finding a plain spoken local Welshman to run against him in Montgomeryshire. A more stark contrast to the celebrity dating, chat show regular Opik would be hard to imagine.
My personal sympathies go out to Dr Harris. I voted for him in the last general election when I was a student living in Central Oxford. He was the victim of redistricting (which reduced the student vote he so relied on) in part, but his loss was still quite a shock. I certainly hope he runs for parliament again, and given the marginal loss he suffered (it went to a recount), one should not bet against him winning back his seat the next time around.
As for Labour, this is almost certainly the end of the road for Gordon Brown. In taking the most seats, and the popular vote, the Conservatives clearly have the mandate to govern, hung parliament or no. Given that the electorate had clearly turned against Labour, the best they could have hoped for was that the Conservatives would be prevented from attaining a clear victory, which is what transpired. Brown must almost certainly make way for someone else to be Leader of the Opposition, most likely David Milliband. Labour still maintain a big stranglehold on Scotland, Wales, the North West and most of the big cities (including large swathes of London) and with most of their power base intact, they will continue to be the other major player in UK politics. In many ways, the bigger threat to Labour might have been a major Lib Dem breakthrough, with the Lib Dems gaining 20 or even 30 seats and approaching the 100 seat mark. This would be similar to the situation with the rise of Labour and the decline of the Liberal Party at the turn of the last century. As it stands, Labour can regroup and bide its time as Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
The fascinating question will be how the hung parliament will pan out. It is almost certain that the Conservatives will have to make common cause with the Lib Dems. They could just about form a majority with the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and assorted Northern Irish parties, but it would not be a stable base for governing. Ruling with the Lib Dems could mean giving them cabinet positions and more vitally, giving ground on Lib Dem demands for more proportional representation in Parliament and some modification to the first past the post system. Once again, it has been shown that the first past the post system is not at all friendly to the third biggest party except in the case of hung parliaments where they tip the balance. As such, while this election has been a disaster for Nick Clegg in every other respect, in this one regard the Lib Dems have made their most significant stride in their party's history. How they use this opportunity will likely determine the next cabinet, and the future of the party itself.
If there was one advantage that Gordon Brown brought to this election, it was strangely enough his Scottishness, and it clearly showed. The Conservatives managed to retain their only seat in Scotland but made absolutely no inroads anywhere else, and all of the marginal Labour (and Lib Dem) seats there returned their MPs with larger majorities on the whole. It will be interesting to see how much of the poor showing in Scotland is down to genuine antipathy towards the Conservatives (as opposed to nationalistic support for Brown and former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy). The Scottish vote, with only 1 in 59 seats going Conservative, renews questions about devolution and the West Lochlian problem. The Conservatives would have a clear majority in Commons excluding Scotland and with a number of key bills in the Commons that do not pertain significantly to Scotland (Blair's raising of University tuition fees comes to mind) passed only due to Scottish MPs, this is an interesting constitutional question that has reared it head more significantly in the context of this election.
The Conservatives have always relied predominantly on the rural vote, but their inability to make almost any inroads in the cities and industrial areas in this election is still noteworthy. Apart from winning back the marginals in their Southern base such as Hove, Portsmouth North, Watford and Bristol, they were fairly unsuccessful in making much inroads into any of the Northern or North-Central cities. They did win Cardiff North, and took back Southampton, and succeeded in wresting Oxford West and Abingdon in a big swing away from the Lib Dems but even in the Southern heartlands the Conservatives embarrassingly lost Brighton Pavilion to the Greens and Eastbourne to the Lib Dems. In an election when they needed to win literally everything in the South West and South East, the fact that even Southern cities like Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Colchester and Bristol are fairly ambivalent in what should have been big Conservative wins, does not bode well for Cameroon and his party.
For the Lib Dems this election revealed that much of the hype surrounding them and their leader was merely just that - hype. Given the economic uncertainties and a deeply unpopular standing Government, the electorate was hardly likely to favour a third party, which despite Nick Clegg's rhethoric, was never remotely considered a credible party for Government. While in certain cases, anger against Labour translated into Lib Dem gains, the scalping of Charles Clarke a notable case, more often the Lib Dems also suffered from the anti-Labour backlash, particularly in the South-West and also in losing two significant MPs in Lembit Opik and Dr Evan Harris. Opik, certainly one of the most colourful characters in Parliament, found himself decapitated by the masterful conservative strategy of finding a plain spoken local Welshman to run against him in Montgomeryshire. A more stark contrast to the celebrity dating, chat show regular Opik would be hard to imagine.
My personal sympathies go out to Dr Harris. I voted for him in the last general election when I was a student living in Central Oxford. He was the victim of redistricting (which reduced the student vote he so relied on) in part, but his loss was still quite a shock. I certainly hope he runs for parliament again, and given the marginal loss he suffered (it went to a recount), one should not bet against him winning back his seat the next time around.
As for Labour, this is almost certainly the end of the road for Gordon Brown. In taking the most seats, and the popular vote, the Conservatives clearly have the mandate to govern, hung parliament or no. Given that the electorate had clearly turned against Labour, the best they could have hoped for was that the Conservatives would be prevented from attaining a clear victory, which is what transpired. Brown must almost certainly make way for someone else to be Leader of the Opposition, most likely David Milliband. Labour still maintain a big stranglehold on Scotland, Wales, the North West and most of the big cities (including large swathes of London) and with most of their power base intact, they will continue to be the other major player in UK politics. In many ways, the bigger threat to Labour might have been a major Lib Dem breakthrough, with the Lib Dems gaining 20 or even 30 seats and approaching the 100 seat mark. This would be similar to the situation with the rise of Labour and the decline of the Liberal Party at the turn of the last century. As it stands, Labour can regroup and bide its time as Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
The fascinating question will be how the hung parliament will pan out. It is almost certain that the Conservatives will have to make common cause with the Lib Dems. They could just about form a majority with the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and assorted Northern Irish parties, but it would not be a stable base for governing. Ruling with the Lib Dems could mean giving them cabinet positions and more vitally, giving ground on Lib Dem demands for more proportional representation in Parliament and some modification to the first past the post system. Once again, it has been shown that the first past the post system is not at all friendly to the third biggest party except in the case of hung parliaments where they tip the balance. As such, while this election has been a disaster for Nick Clegg in every other respect, in this one regard the Lib Dems have made their most significant stride in their party's history. How they use this opportunity will likely determine the next cabinet, and the future of the party itself.
28 October 2008
Bradley in Singapore
I had the opportunity to catch up with Bradley Perrett, an old friend, for drinks today. Bradley, who currently writes for Aviation Weekly magazine, was stopping by Singapore for a week and I felt duty bound to take him out for a few drinks, especially given his love of Tiger Beer.
My family literally stumbled upon Bradley while on a holiday to London in December 2000. We had met, quite by accident, two other Singaporeans who overheard my comments (as well as my accent) regarding the musical Starlight Express during the intermission. They later introduced us to Bradley, who lived on a wonderfully cosy apartment on Charing Cross Street, a virtually heaven for both him and myself, given our shared love of books.
It is always enlightening talking to Bradley. On this occasion, we talked about airplanes and ships (a great passion of his), but also about the threat of nuclear proliferation. Bradley took the alarmist line, viewing nuclear weapons as a great danger, particularly its proliferation to states such as North Korea and Iran. I tried to argue from a viewpoint of limited deterrence, and the view that nuclear weapons actually help to limit conflicts by making escalation so costly that states automatically alter their behaviour (the recent Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan as a prime example).
Anyhow, it is always lovely talking to Bradley, and I would greatly welcome the opportunity to converse and meet up with him again.
In a subsequent MSN conversation we had, Bradley sent me his views on the Cuban Missile Crisis. He had read (and I was reading) a new account of the crisis by Michael Dobbs titled One Minute to Midnight. Bradley took the interesting line that Nikita Krushchev was the man primarily responsible for bringing the world back from the brink of nuclear annihilation. Far from it being an excellent example of successful decision making by an American administration, Bradley argues that Kennedy and his advisers were largely irresponsible, and nearly brought about nuclear armageddon. After thinking further on the matter, I have come round more towards Bradley's point of view.
My family literally stumbled upon Bradley while on a holiday to London in December 2000. We had met, quite by accident, two other Singaporeans who overheard my comments (as well as my accent) regarding the musical Starlight Express during the intermission. They later introduced us to Bradley, who lived on a wonderfully cosy apartment on Charing Cross Street, a virtually heaven for both him and myself, given our shared love of books.
It is always enlightening talking to Bradley. On this occasion, we talked about airplanes and ships (a great passion of his), but also about the threat of nuclear proliferation. Bradley took the alarmist line, viewing nuclear weapons as a great danger, particularly its proliferation to states such as North Korea and Iran. I tried to argue from a viewpoint of limited deterrence, and the view that nuclear weapons actually help to limit conflicts by making escalation so costly that states automatically alter their behaviour (the recent Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan as a prime example).
Anyhow, it is always lovely talking to Bradley, and I would greatly welcome the opportunity to converse and meet up with him again.
In a subsequent MSN conversation we had, Bradley sent me his views on the Cuban Missile Crisis. He had read (and I was reading) a new account of the crisis by Michael Dobbs titled One Minute to Midnight. Bradley took the interesting line that Nikita Krushchev was the man primarily responsible for bringing the world back from the brink of nuclear annihilation. Far from it being an excellent example of successful decision making by an American administration, Bradley argues that Kennedy and his advisers were largely irresponsible, and nearly brought about nuclear armageddon. After thinking further on the matter, I have come round more towards Bradley's point of view.
5 October 2008
J.B Jeyaretnam (1926 - 2008)
I was extremely saddened to hear of the passing of J.B Jeyaretnam, stalwart Singaporean opposition politician, who died of a heart attack on 30th September. Even more saddening and shocking for me was the fact that I only realized the fact a good 4 days later, having failed to read of it in the papers. More stunning still to me, it had not come up in the course of my daily conversations on interesting happenings in the world with my friends. I stumbled upon the news randomly while surfing the web. It will be the greatest dereliction of duty, whether one agrees with him or not, to not pay some homage to JBJ's service as a public figure and his ceaseless quest to promote democracy and justice in Singapore.
I was thus tremendously pleased that The Economist choose to feature JBJ in their obituary for their October 11th-18th issue (they only feature an obituary for one notable individual per issue). JBJ also received mention in many famous newspapers around the world, including the New York Times, and most of the British dailies. The Economist perhaps put it best. Quoting Lee Kuan Yew's assertion that the government engaged all those multitudinous libel actions to protect the government's reputation and not to silence the opposition, the publication noted that "Certainly, Mr Jeyaretnam, most distinguished of that tiny band, was never silenced. Lee Kuan Yew may have been the infinitely greater statesman, but some would have judged Mr Jeyaretnam the infinitely bigger man." I am inclined to agree.
I was thus tremendously pleased that The Economist choose to feature JBJ in their obituary for their October 11th-18th issue (they only feature an obituary for one notable individual per issue). JBJ also received mention in many famous newspapers around the world, including the New York Times, and most of the British dailies. The Economist perhaps put it best. Quoting Lee Kuan Yew's assertion that the government engaged all those multitudinous libel actions to protect the government's reputation and not to silence the opposition, the publication noted that "Certainly, Mr Jeyaretnam, most distinguished of that tiny band, was never silenced. Lee Kuan Yew may have been the infinitely greater statesman, but some would have judged Mr Jeyaretnam the infinitely bigger man." I am inclined to agree.
2 September 2008
Palin and Pregnancy
As if her announcement as the VP candidate wasn't cause for enough surprise. It has just been revealed that Sarah Palin's 17 year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant. Bristol has decided to keep the baby and will soon be marrying the father. Both the McCain and Obama camps have rightly pointed out that this is a private matter that should be left to the discretion of the Palin family.
It is unlikely that Palin's appeal to the social conservatives will be damaged by news of the pregnancy given the decision of her daughter not only to keep the baby but to marry the father.
What Bristol Palin's pregnancy is bound to do is highlight once again the enormously high teenage pregnancy rate in the United States. What it should do is raise questions about the role that social conservatives (and the policies they advocate) have to play in creating this situation.
America has a startlingly high rate of teenage pregnancies. According to statistics cited by the BBC, around 750,000 teenage American girls get pregnant every year. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that keeps tabs on such statistics has revealed that about one third of American girls get pregnant before the age of 20. Of these pregnancies, 80% are 'undesired' or 'occurring sooner than desired'. These are shocking statistics to say the least.
One reason that has been cited for the high teenage pregnancy rate is the social conservatives insistence on advocating abstinence only sex education, a policy supported by current President George W. Bush. Critics suggest that the statistics have shown that teaching abstinence is not only ineffective but socially irresponsible. The evidence suggests that a huge majority (around 90% or greater) of teenagers break abstinence only pledges, and worse of all, those who make such pledges are much less likely to use any form of birth control or protection when they do end up having sex.
Sarah Palin herself is a strong proponent of abstinence only sex education. In fact, she pledged during her campaign for governor that she would categorically refuse any funding for sex education programs in Alaska. To her, teenagers should be encouraged not to have sex, not how to protect themselves when and if they do. This is highly unfortunate given that Alaska has one of the highest teenage STD transmission rates in the whole of the United States. It does seem perverse that Governor Palin would withhold funding for a policy designed to give teenagers information that might help them to protect themselves from infectious diseases (besides unwanted pregnancy).
Bristol Palin's pregnancy is certainly not unique among American teenagers her age. Republicans are trying to present this as yet another instance where Palin has shown herself to fit the typical soccer mom image she identified herself with when accepting the nomination. That this pregnancy is so commonplace as to resonance with the average everyday American must be cause to cast light on Sarah Palin's policies on sex education.
Bristol is 17 years old, and she will soon find herself a mother, a role many would agree no 17 year old is really ready to face. The fact is that American teenage girls are sexually active, many at a relatively young age. It will be delusional, and more than that, irresponsible, for Sarah Palin to pretend otherwise.
Addendum: Nobody is questioning that the Palins gave Bristol all the support she needed when she found out she was pregnant. Still, feminists will be outraged at what to them is a shotgun marriage forced upon an unwitting 17-year old on the basis of throwback pre-women's liberation good as apple pie family values. There is of course also the possible influence that Sarah Palin, with her strongly avowed pro-life stance, had on her daughter with regards to keeping the pregnancy itself. Some commentators were highly bemused by the suggestion that Palin, a pro-life conservative, could win over Hilary Clinton supporters. There was little doubt she would really resonate with female voters. It was just a question whether the voters would delve deep enough to realize just how conservative she is. The pregnancy is bound to put that in the spotlight.
It is unlikely that Palin's appeal to the social conservatives will be damaged by news of the pregnancy given the decision of her daughter not only to keep the baby but to marry the father.
What Bristol Palin's pregnancy is bound to do is highlight once again the enormously high teenage pregnancy rate in the United States. What it should do is raise questions about the role that social conservatives (and the policies they advocate) have to play in creating this situation.
America has a startlingly high rate of teenage pregnancies. According to statistics cited by the BBC, around 750,000 teenage American girls get pregnant every year. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that keeps tabs on such statistics has revealed that about one third of American girls get pregnant before the age of 20. Of these pregnancies, 80% are 'undesired' or 'occurring sooner than desired'. These are shocking statistics to say the least.
One reason that has been cited for the high teenage pregnancy rate is the social conservatives insistence on advocating abstinence only sex education, a policy supported by current President George W. Bush. Critics suggest that the statistics have shown that teaching abstinence is not only ineffective but socially irresponsible. The evidence suggests that a huge majority (around 90% or greater) of teenagers break abstinence only pledges, and worse of all, those who make such pledges are much less likely to use any form of birth control or protection when they do end up having sex.
Sarah Palin herself is a strong proponent of abstinence only sex education. In fact, she pledged during her campaign for governor that she would categorically refuse any funding for sex education programs in Alaska. To her, teenagers should be encouraged not to have sex, not how to protect themselves when and if they do. This is highly unfortunate given that Alaska has one of the highest teenage STD transmission rates in the whole of the United States. It does seem perverse that Governor Palin would withhold funding for a policy designed to give teenagers information that might help them to protect themselves from infectious diseases (besides unwanted pregnancy).
Bristol Palin's pregnancy is certainly not unique among American teenagers her age. Republicans are trying to present this as yet another instance where Palin has shown herself to fit the typical soccer mom image she identified herself with when accepting the nomination. That this pregnancy is so commonplace as to resonance with the average everyday American must be cause to cast light on Sarah Palin's policies on sex education.
Bristol is 17 years old, and she will soon find herself a mother, a role many would agree no 17 year old is really ready to face. The fact is that American teenage girls are sexually active, many at a relatively young age. It will be delusional, and more than that, irresponsible, for Sarah Palin to pretend otherwise.
Addendum: Nobody is questioning that the Palins gave Bristol all the support she needed when she found out she was pregnant. Still, feminists will be outraged at what to them is a shotgun marriage forced upon an unwitting 17-year old on the basis of throwback pre-women's liberation good as apple pie family values. There is of course also the possible influence that Sarah Palin, with her strongly avowed pro-life stance, had on her daughter with regards to keeping the pregnancy itself. Some commentators were highly bemused by the suggestion that Palin, a pro-life conservative, could win over Hilary Clinton supporters. There was little doubt she would really resonate with female voters. It was just a question whether the voters would delve deep enough to realize just how conservative she is. The pregnancy is bound to put that in the spotlight.
24 August 2008
Obama's VP Choice
There is still considerable doubt in the minds of many commentators as to how important the choice of a running mate actually is to a prospective Presidential candidate. Nobody would dare suggest that it is a crucial life or death choice for a campaign. Still, there is a sense that it is vaguely important, and definitely warranting considerable attention. I believe that as much as Hillary Clinton supporters will be disappointed by Obama's decision, his choice of Joe Biden can hardly be considered a surprise.
To start with, in assessing Obama's pick, we have to first justify his non-choice. There was a significant portion of the Democratic party hoping for a 'dream ticket' of Obama and Clinton. Given that she took almost 48% of the vote in the Primary, is it a valid question to ask if Obama could even afford not to pick her. Will too many Hilary supporters be alienated to see her miss out? It is my opinion that it would have been a mistake for Obama to choose Clinton as his running mate. To begin with, the campaign was too long and too bruising for there not to have been genuine wounds and deep differences that have been exposed. Not grave enough to heal, but enough to make a joint ticket uncomfortable at the bare minimum.
Choosing Clinton would also have compromised Obama's core message, the basis on which he has driven his campaign irrepressibly forward - that of change - particularly given the Clinton ties to the political establishment. Change and Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton just does not sit at all well together, even if the latter Clinton were only to be the VP. Ultimately, Obama has to gamble on achieving party unity, and on Clinton being magnanimous enough in defeat. I am willing to gamble that after eight years of George W Bush and neoconservatives, the Democrats already have a powerful incentive to unity. Obama's ability to inspire will hopefully do the rest.
As for Biden, the pluses have already been noted right from the beginning. Huge foreign policy experience, including his position as the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, covering a major perceived weakness of Obama's campaign. A solid working class background that will appeal to a group whose support Obama needs to win. Biden's links to Pennsylvania, will be especially useful in what is widely considered a key state in the election. The negatives? Biden does have a reputation for shooting from the hip, but I believe that won't really matter all that much. The election is really about what the Presidential nominee says, not really his running mate, so long as the running mate does not make a completely outrageous statement or one that totally contradicts the candidate's stance. That won't happen with Biden - he and Obama agree on the fundamental issues (indeed more so than Obama and Clinton) and he is far too savvy and experienced a political operator to make a huge gaffe.
To start with, in assessing Obama's pick, we have to first justify his non-choice. There was a significant portion of the Democratic party hoping for a 'dream ticket' of Obama and Clinton. Given that she took almost 48% of the vote in the Primary, is it a valid question to ask if Obama could even afford not to pick her. Will too many Hilary supporters be alienated to see her miss out? It is my opinion that it would have been a mistake for Obama to choose Clinton as his running mate. To begin with, the campaign was too long and too bruising for there not to have been genuine wounds and deep differences that have been exposed. Not grave enough to heal, but enough to make a joint ticket uncomfortable at the bare minimum.
Choosing Clinton would also have compromised Obama's core message, the basis on which he has driven his campaign irrepressibly forward - that of change - particularly given the Clinton ties to the political establishment. Change and Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton just does not sit at all well together, even if the latter Clinton were only to be the VP. Ultimately, Obama has to gamble on achieving party unity, and on Clinton being magnanimous enough in defeat. I am willing to gamble that after eight years of George W Bush and neoconservatives, the Democrats already have a powerful incentive to unity. Obama's ability to inspire will hopefully do the rest.
As for Biden, the pluses have already been noted right from the beginning. Huge foreign policy experience, including his position as the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, covering a major perceived weakness of Obama's campaign. A solid working class background that will appeal to a group whose support Obama needs to win. Biden's links to Pennsylvania, will be especially useful in what is widely considered a key state in the election. The negatives? Biden does have a reputation for shooting from the hip, but I believe that won't really matter all that much. The election is really about what the Presidential nominee says, not really his running mate, so long as the running mate does not make a completely outrageous statement or one that totally contradicts the candidate's stance. That won't happen with Biden - he and Obama agree on the fundamental issues (indeed more so than Obama and Clinton) and he is far too savvy and experienced a political operator to make a huge gaffe.
3 July 2008
Dear Madame Ambassador
Given that it is the Fourth of July and American Independence Day, I thought it appropriate that I could remind Americans that many other countries do not necessarily share the level of freedom and civil liberties that their country enjoys. Thus, I have crafted a mock letter addressed to the US Ambassador to Singapore, HE Patricia Herbold as follows:
Dear Madame Ambassador,
I write to you on the occasion on the 232nd anniversary of the founding of the United States of America. To begin with, I wish to offer my heartiest congratulations to your country on this occasion, which is indeed one that is worthy of celebration. In many ways, it has never been a better time to be American (sub-prime mortgage crisis and the high price of oil aside). The US is the predominant power in the world, it continues to be a key engine of innovation that fuels the world economy, and it is likely that America will retain this preeminence for some time to come.
Yet, my letter is not just meant to be one of congratulation, but also serves as a plea; it focuses not just on American military and economic prowess, but the inspiration that America provides in extolling the values of liberty and freedom, and the belief that they are a birthright for everyone. This clarion call was never more clearly stated than in your founding declaration of independence and in America's victory in the fight against British tyranny that we celebrate today.
Even as you celebrate the anniversary of your own momentous struggle against repression, I urge you to take heed of the many individuals who do not enjoy the same freedoms that are promised to you as a birthright. More specifically, Madame Ambassador, I urge you not to ignore the situation in the very country to which your government has appointed you as her representative.
I would, if I had the opportunity, speak out openly in public, extolling the virtues of liberty and freedom and the American example, but as you probably know, Madame Ambassador, I am unable to do so. My government chooses to disregard the right to assembly for purely peaceful means, and has passed legislation such that any gathering of more than five individuals, of whatever kind, can be considered illegal. Theoretically, Madame Ambassador, I could even be arrested for hosting a birthday party for myself.
Then there is the issue of freedom of the press. My government has always maintained a tight control of the press, believing in quelling dissenting opinions by deeming that the publication of any viewpoint or comment critical of the status quo as a possible interference in domestic politics. The importance of being free to voice your opinions (as enshrined in your first amendment) has been central to America's definition of itself. Indeed, the example of the Federalists and Thomas Paine whose pamphlets and writings were instrumental in rallying the colonists against the British shows the influence and importance of the free dissemination of viewpoints to America's founding history.
Then there is the basic element of freedom of speech, which is a right that is dearly held by many Americans. Voltaire, the famous French enlightenment writer and philosopher, is attributed to having said "I disagree with what you have said, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it", and that has very much been the American ethos. This freedom is tenuously held at best in Singapore, where there is always an existential risk of tripping over some invisible out of bounds marker discernible only to the government, with predictably dire consequences.
So Madame Ambassador, I hope that even as your celebrate the founding of a land of 'the brave and the free', you will do everything in your power to propagate the values that makes America so respected around the world, and voicing your support where freedoms and liberties are an aspiration, not a reality.
Sincerely,
A Singaporean Friend.
So Madame Ambassador, I hope that even as your celebrate the founding of a land of 'the brave and the free', you will do everything in your power to propagate the values that makes America so respected around the world, and voicing your support where freedoms and liberties are an aspiration, not a reality.
Sincerely,
A Singaporean Friend.
5 June 2008
My Take on DPM Wong
Following the farcical escape of Mas Selamat bin Kastari from the Whitley Road detention center over four months ago, there have been repeated calls for the government officials responsible for the lapse in security to be held to account. After a lengthy investigation, punishments have been meted out to the officials running the detention center, the guards who were responsible for securing Mas Selamat and the Ministry officials supervising the detention center itself. However, it is notable that senior officials in the Ministry, up to and including Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng himself, escaped unscathed.
The DPM has been quick to reject any calls for his resignation, stating that it was counterproductive to point the finger of blame, and arguing, somewhat disingenuously, that because those individuals who bore direct responsibility for the Mas Selamat escape were so many layers removed from him in the bureaucratic hierarchy, there is no way he could be held accountable for their actions. In a well-thought out Straits Times piece on the issue of ministerial responsibility, the writer pointed it out it was a rare rather occurrence, even in Britain, for politicians to resign due to a lapse or oversight (resignations due to a matter of principle is another thing altogether). Yet, at the same time, it is difficult to run away from the fact, personified by former US President Harry S. Truman, who had an ornament on his desk bearing the inscription 'the buck stops here', that as the ultimate decision maker, the Minister in charge must be responsible in a sense. The question is to what degree?
I had a conversation with a friend who defended DPM Wong, and suggested that it would be counter-productive for him to resign. On that front, I am in general agreement. One only need recall Japanese officers ordering their men to shoot themselves, or blow themselves up with grenades (so tragically portrayed in Letters from Iwo Jima) to underline the wastefulness, the futility and in some situations utter stupidity of throwing yourself on your own proverbial sword due to the loss of honour brought about by failure. Yet, at the same time, we do admire individuals, who when faced with a extremely severe situation of their own making, acknowledge their culpability and their mistakes, and take responsibility for it.
The analogy I wish to bring to bear on this situation is that of a corporate CEO. This is particularly apt given that our Ministers earn massive salaries which are specifically linked to what top tier executives from the private sector are making. If a large corporation, such as a bank, suffers a massive loss or general poor performance for a period of time, the CEO will have to resign. The recent sub-prime mortgage crisis is a case in point. In many ways, it was a one-off, and in a sense it was an unpredictable occurrence. Surely a CEO could not have anticipated it, and should not be held directly responsible for the losses? Shareholders beg to differ - as evidenced by the resignation of a number of CEOs from some of the top banks that have suffered big losses in the crisis.
So, we come back to DPM Wong. Yes, the Mas Selamat escape was an unpredictable one-off occurrence, and of course he could not have direct control over the detention center, the staff, and the specific circumstances in which the escape took place. But so it is with corporate CEOs during the sub-prime crisis with their own staff. The rule in the cut throat world of business is simple - you captain the ship, you bear the consequences. In adopting the corporate model for salaries to our top ministers, we cannot just offer the high rewards inherent in a demanding job with a high degree of responsibility - we must also adopt the high risks inherent in such a position in the event of failure, as the two are inextricably interlinked.
The conclusion for me is inescapable. If DPM Wong had been a corporate CEO, and the equivalent of a corporate Mas Selamat had occurred, I have little doubt that he would have had to resign. Given that, it is hard to argue against the fact that the buck has to stop firmly at his feet.
The DPM has been quick to reject any calls for his resignation, stating that it was counterproductive to point the finger of blame, and arguing, somewhat disingenuously, that because those individuals who bore direct responsibility for the Mas Selamat escape were so many layers removed from him in the bureaucratic hierarchy, there is no way he could be held accountable for their actions. In a well-thought out Straits Times piece on the issue of ministerial responsibility, the writer pointed it out it was a rare rather occurrence, even in Britain, for politicians to resign due to a lapse or oversight (resignations due to a matter of principle is another thing altogether). Yet, at the same time, it is difficult to run away from the fact, personified by former US President Harry S. Truman, who had an ornament on his desk bearing the inscription 'the buck stops here', that as the ultimate decision maker, the Minister in charge must be responsible in a sense. The question is to what degree?
I had a conversation with a friend who defended DPM Wong, and suggested that it would be counter-productive for him to resign. On that front, I am in general agreement. One only need recall Japanese officers ordering their men to shoot themselves, or blow themselves up with grenades (so tragically portrayed in Letters from Iwo Jima) to underline the wastefulness, the futility and in some situations utter stupidity of throwing yourself on your own proverbial sword due to the loss of honour brought about by failure. Yet, at the same time, we do admire individuals, who when faced with a extremely severe situation of their own making, acknowledge their culpability and their mistakes, and take responsibility for it.
The analogy I wish to bring to bear on this situation is that of a corporate CEO. This is particularly apt given that our Ministers earn massive salaries which are specifically linked to what top tier executives from the private sector are making. If a large corporation, such as a bank, suffers a massive loss or general poor performance for a period of time, the CEO will have to resign. The recent sub-prime mortgage crisis is a case in point. In many ways, it was a one-off, and in a sense it was an unpredictable occurrence. Surely a CEO could not have anticipated it, and should not be held directly responsible for the losses? Shareholders beg to differ - as evidenced by the resignation of a number of CEOs from some of the top banks that have suffered big losses in the crisis.
So, we come back to DPM Wong. Yes, the Mas Selamat escape was an unpredictable one-off occurrence, and of course he could not have direct control over the detention center, the staff, and the specific circumstances in which the escape took place. But so it is with corporate CEOs during the sub-prime crisis with their own staff. The rule in the cut throat world of business is simple - you captain the ship, you bear the consequences. In adopting the corporate model for salaries to our top ministers, we cannot just offer the high rewards inherent in a demanding job with a high degree of responsibility - we must also adopt the high risks inherent in such a position in the event of failure, as the two are inextricably interlinked.
The conclusion for me is inescapable. If DPM Wong had been a corporate CEO, and the equivalent of a corporate Mas Selamat had occurred, I have little doubt that he would have had to resign. Given that, it is hard to argue against the fact that the buck has to stop firmly at his feet.
6 February 2008
My Thoughts on Super Tuesday
After watching a few hours of CNN coverage of Super Tuesday, I decided to post my general impressions of the race for the Presidential nomination for both parties:
To begin with, it is clear to everyone that John McCain is the Republican front-runner. He said so himself, acknowledging that as much as he "enjoys being the under-dog and relishes come from behind victories" everyone, himself included would have to "get used to the idea that we are the front runners for the Republican nomination to be President". However, it is also abundantly clear that he does not have the support of the conservative core of the party, which hurt him back in 2000 against George Bush and continues to hurt him. He hasn't won a single Southern state (apart from Florida earlier) and trails in support from voters that define themselves as "conservative" or "attending church regularly". Crucially, a significant portion of his support came from independent voters. Many of his wins have also come in states which typically vote Democrat come November.
Does anyone else besides me think that Mike Huckabee has an uncanny resemblance to the actor Kevin Spacey both physically and in the way he speaks? Huckabee shares some of Spacey's charisma and the former Baptist pastor swept the South, winning Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Georgia, Tennessee and also West Virgina as well as running a very close second in a three way race for Missouri (winning almost all of the districts in the State's rural, bible belt South). That was very impressive considering his lack of funds and the expert opinion that Super Tuesday would end his Presidential bid. But his poor performance in California and anywhere outside the South is indicative of his lack of visibility and influence outside of the bible belt. Nobody is giving Huckabee any hope at winning the nomination, but he has cemented his status as a serious Vice-Presidential candidate.
Huckabee's success meant that Mitt Romney's attempts to portray himself as the choice of the conservative core has more or less fallen flat. Super Tuesday was disappointing for Romney and the continued presence of Huckabee in the race will be a major blow. Romney, despite his large war chest seems to be seriously losing momentum and it will be a struggle for him to mount a serious challenge to McCain given the gap that has opened up between them, his optimistic Super Tuesday speech notwithstanding.
The Democratic race has been unbelievably close, and now it couldn't be any closer. Clinton took a number of the key states, those with large numbers of delegates including her home state of New York, New Jersey, California and crucially Massachusetts. She also won in Tennessee, Nevada and Arizona and of course Arkansas. Barack Obama however won a total of 13 states including Georgia, Illinois, Delaware, Alabama, Utah, North Dakota, Kansas, Connecticut, Minnesota, Colorado, Idaho, Alaska and a very close fought race in Missouri. New Mexico was too close to call. As it stood, Super Tuesday was balanced on a knife edge 540 to 539 pledged delegates to Clinton and Obama respectively.
There is little doubt in my mind that Obama is by far the more charistmatic candidate after seeing both of them speak. Some may accuse me of falling for the typical jingoism of "changing America" and his profoundly (un)original crowd rousing tactic of getting everyone to shout "yes we can". But Hilary's speech was nothing more than a stump speech, a repetition of the issues. I hadn't paid much attention to the nomination race up to know, but after Super Tuesday I can safely throw my support behind Obama.
My decision is twofold. Firstly, Obama has proven after Super Tuesday that he will be better able to contest the traditionally non-blue states and the swing states. He won in the South, the Midwest, the Rockies. Clinton's core support came from traditionally Blue states - California, New York, Mass. - which are likely to vote Democrat in Novemember whomever is chosen. The Democrats have to learn that they need a candidate that can win challenge in the midwest and also make a dent in the South. It is repeatedly harped upon fact that the last two Democratic occupants of the White House were Jimmy Carter (from Georgia) and Bill Clinton (from Arkansas).
Secondly, it is crucial in any Presidential bid, to win over the neutrals (or indeed to be able to sustain enough interest to get the neutrals out to the polling booths in the first place). Obama is by far the more charistmatic and personable individual, with a message that has the capacity to inspire (even if for all his talk of an inclusive campaign across age, gender and race the Latinos and Chinese and the elderly seem to favour Clinton by some margin). Clinton, on the other hand, is a far more divisive figure, seen as not only too liberal by many, but also tied to the establishment.
Given how finely balanced the nomination race is, here is my assessment of the 'way forward', so to speak. It will be almost immediately back to the campaign trail for both candidates with upcoming primaries in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska (Feb 9); Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia (Feb 12). It is crucial that Obama does well in the so-called Potomac Primaries (Maryland, DC, and Virginia) where he is seen to have the edge over Clinton. He is already seen to have a large edge in Washington and Louisiana (the latter state having a large black population). The big prize is Texas and Ohio (March 4) which Clinton must win (she is seen to have an edge with the large Latino population in Texas and the working class population in Ohio). Obama must hope to cause an upset there but at the bare minimum run Clinton close (particularly given the large number of delegates that Texas holds). Wisconsin will be a tightly contested battleground which will give crucial momentum and bragging rights to the winner there.
The Democratic race could well go right down to the wire - even to the point of it having to be decided on Superdelegates at the convention. Clinton currently has the advantage in terms of the number of Superdelegates that have announced in her favour but if Obama does have the lead come convention time in terms of pledged delegates there will be immense pressure on the party elite to give him the nomination and a probably public outcry if that is not the case. For him to win more pledged delegates than Clinton, the upcoming primaries mentioned above are crucial, all the more so because the subsequent primaries in Mississippi, Pennsylvania and Indiana will favour Clinton (particularly due to the large number of blue collar workers in the latter two states).
One immediate danger is that a long drawn out candidate race could adversely affect the chances of whichever candidate emerges as the victor in their bid for the Presidency come November. Both Clinton and Obama will have to decide how much of their war chest to spend in the upcoming primaries and how much to withhold for a future race for the Presidency. The longer the nomination process drags on, the less time the eventual winner will have to consolidate his/her support in the party and to appeal to the independents and undecideds before the Presidential polls. All this will be exacerbated if the Republicans manage to rally behind a candidate early on.
How likely is this to happen? Almost nobody doubts that John McCain is likely to secure the nomination, it is just a question of when. And that depends on the determination of his opponents Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee not to pull out of the race and to continue fighting. It is likely that if either Romney or Huckabee were to pull out of the race, the other candidate would soon follow suit, leading to the anointment of McCain. Given the Super Tuesday results it is Romney who will have to thing long and hard about his continuned role in the primary race. He has already spent a massive amount of money, a large portion of it his own, and Super Tuesday must be seen as a fatal blow to his attempts to be the conservative candidate of the party. Huckabee on the other hand, succeeded against the odds and will have much less cause to pull out.
To begin with, it is clear to everyone that John McCain is the Republican front-runner. He said so himself, acknowledging that as much as he "enjoys being the under-dog and relishes come from behind victories" everyone, himself included would have to "get used to the idea that we are the front runners for the Republican nomination to be President". However, it is also abundantly clear that he does not have the support of the conservative core of the party, which hurt him back in 2000 against George Bush and continues to hurt him. He hasn't won a single Southern state (apart from Florida earlier) and trails in support from voters that define themselves as "conservative" or "attending church regularly". Crucially, a significant portion of his support came from independent voters. Many of his wins have also come in states which typically vote Democrat come November.
Does anyone else besides me think that Mike Huckabee has an uncanny resemblance to the actor Kevin Spacey both physically and in the way he speaks? Huckabee shares some of Spacey's charisma and the former Baptist pastor swept the South, winning Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Georgia, Tennessee and also West Virgina as well as running a very close second in a three way race for Missouri (winning almost all of the districts in the State's rural, bible belt South). That was very impressive considering his lack of funds and the expert opinion that Super Tuesday would end his Presidential bid. But his poor performance in California and anywhere outside the South is indicative of his lack of visibility and influence outside of the bible belt. Nobody is giving Huckabee any hope at winning the nomination, but he has cemented his status as a serious Vice-Presidential candidate.
Huckabee's success meant that Mitt Romney's attempts to portray himself as the choice of the conservative core has more or less fallen flat. Super Tuesday was disappointing for Romney and the continued presence of Huckabee in the race will be a major blow. Romney, despite his large war chest seems to be seriously losing momentum and it will be a struggle for him to mount a serious challenge to McCain given the gap that has opened up between them, his optimistic Super Tuesday speech notwithstanding.
The Democratic race has been unbelievably close, and now it couldn't be any closer. Clinton took a number of the key states, those with large numbers of delegates including her home state of New York, New Jersey, California and crucially Massachusetts. She also won in Tennessee, Nevada and Arizona and of course Arkansas. Barack Obama however won a total of 13 states including Georgia, Illinois, Delaware, Alabama, Utah, North Dakota, Kansas, Connecticut, Minnesota, Colorado, Idaho, Alaska and a very close fought race in Missouri. New Mexico was too close to call. As it stood, Super Tuesday was balanced on a knife edge 540 to 539 pledged delegates to Clinton and Obama respectively.
There is little doubt in my mind that Obama is by far the more charistmatic candidate after seeing both of them speak. Some may accuse me of falling for the typical jingoism of "changing America" and his profoundly (un)original crowd rousing tactic of getting everyone to shout "yes we can". But Hilary's speech was nothing more than a stump speech, a repetition of the issues. I hadn't paid much attention to the nomination race up to know, but after Super Tuesday I can safely throw my support behind Obama.
My decision is twofold. Firstly, Obama has proven after Super Tuesday that he will be better able to contest the traditionally non-blue states and the swing states. He won in the South, the Midwest, the Rockies. Clinton's core support came from traditionally Blue states - California, New York, Mass. - which are likely to vote Democrat in Novemember whomever is chosen. The Democrats have to learn that they need a candidate that can win challenge in the midwest and also make a dent in the South. It is repeatedly harped upon fact that the last two Democratic occupants of the White House were Jimmy Carter (from Georgia) and Bill Clinton (from Arkansas).
Secondly, it is crucial in any Presidential bid, to win over the neutrals (or indeed to be able to sustain enough interest to get the neutrals out to the polling booths in the first place). Obama is by far the more charistmatic and personable individual, with a message that has the capacity to inspire (even if for all his talk of an inclusive campaign across age, gender and race the Latinos and Chinese and the elderly seem to favour Clinton by some margin). Clinton, on the other hand, is a far more divisive figure, seen as not only too liberal by many, but also tied to the establishment.
Given how finely balanced the nomination race is, here is my assessment of the 'way forward', so to speak. It will be almost immediately back to the campaign trail for both candidates with upcoming primaries in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska (Feb 9); Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia (Feb 12). It is crucial that Obama does well in the so-called Potomac Primaries (Maryland, DC, and Virginia) where he is seen to have the edge over Clinton. He is already seen to have a large edge in Washington and Louisiana (the latter state having a large black population). The big prize is Texas and Ohio (March 4) which Clinton must win (she is seen to have an edge with the large Latino population in Texas and the working class population in Ohio). Obama must hope to cause an upset there but at the bare minimum run Clinton close (particularly given the large number of delegates that Texas holds). Wisconsin will be a tightly contested battleground which will give crucial momentum and bragging rights to the winner there.
The Democratic race could well go right down to the wire - even to the point of it having to be decided on Superdelegates at the convention. Clinton currently has the advantage in terms of the number of Superdelegates that have announced in her favour but if Obama does have the lead come convention time in terms of pledged delegates there will be immense pressure on the party elite to give him the nomination and a probably public outcry if that is not the case. For him to win more pledged delegates than Clinton, the upcoming primaries mentioned above are crucial, all the more so because the subsequent primaries in Mississippi, Pennsylvania and Indiana will favour Clinton (particularly due to the large number of blue collar workers in the latter two states).
One immediate danger is that a long drawn out candidate race could adversely affect the chances of whichever candidate emerges as the victor in their bid for the Presidency come November. Both Clinton and Obama will have to decide how much of their war chest to spend in the upcoming primaries and how much to withhold for a future race for the Presidency. The longer the nomination process drags on, the less time the eventual winner will have to consolidate his/her support in the party and to appeal to the independents and undecideds before the Presidential polls. All this will be exacerbated if the Republicans manage to rally behind a candidate early on.
How likely is this to happen? Almost nobody doubts that John McCain is likely to secure the nomination, it is just a question of when. And that depends on the determination of his opponents Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee not to pull out of the race and to continue fighting. It is likely that if either Romney or Huckabee were to pull out of the race, the other candidate would soon follow suit, leading to the anointment of McCain. Given the Super Tuesday results it is Romney who will have to thing long and hard about his continuned role in the primary race. He has already spent a massive amount of money, a large portion of it his own, and Super Tuesday must be seen as a fatal blow to his attempts to be the conservative candidate of the party. Huckabee on the other hand, succeeded against the odds and will have much less cause to pull out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
