I’ve been busy. My life has just entered a new stage, and I am slowly adjusting. Faced with new realities, confronted with plausibly unexciting prospects, I find myself pondering often about life choices. This is not necessarily a bad thing, though it makes one weary at times, especially when there aren’t that many exciting choices at one’s disposal. I only hope that things will improve, that I will settle into the present state soon enough and enjoy doing the stuff I enjoy, like writing for leisure. I also miss the long, idle hours spent reading books and doing sports like swimming – and the occasion run. These days, I am just too tired to do anything.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Monday, October 16, 2006
Re: MM Lee's remarks and his reply to Malaysian PM
This follows from my previous post on the issue.
MM Lee's reply to Malaysian PM Abdullah was published in the ST on 3 October. There are a few insights to be gleaned from the contents of his letter and its impressive annex.
MM Lee's reply to Malaysian PM Abdullah was published in the ST on 3 October. There are a few insights to be gleaned from the contents of his letter and its impressive annex.
It was obvious right from the start that MM Lee's remarks would not be to the liking of Singapore's neighbours. Yet, I believe, it was never MM Lee's intention to criticise them. (I am not saying this in defence of him; indeed i believe Singapore, in terms of its bilateral relations with its neighbours, would do better without those remarks from the MM.) He was being merely characteristically blunt and candid, and by pointing out (in his letter to Malaysian PM Abdullah Badawi) that he made those remarks in a "free-flowing dialogue", it was meant to convey the message that they were not made as criticism.
One may recall that MM Lee made those controversial remarks at a diaglogue on good governance. Though the ensuing controversy was in the main about race relations in Singapore's neighbouring states, relevant to the context in which he made those remarks, he made an important point on the kind of government Singapore needed owing to its geo-ethno environment: it was a government that was "really firm, stout-hearted, subtle and resolute". However, this message was ultimately drowned by the reasoning MM Lee provided to prove his point. In a somewhat ironic twist, the ensuing furore in Malaysia created a situation that seemed apt for MM Lee to demonstrate the essence of his remarks. His published reply to Malaysian PM Abdullah Badawi - made in a personal capacity, not government - seemed to bear out his advice.
At the dialogue session before a foreign audience who were in Singapore attending the IMF/World Bank meetings, MM Lee made reference to racial relations in neighbouring states to explain why Singapore needed a "firm, stout-hearted, subtle and resolute" government; such a government is needed in order to manage the Republic's relations with its neighbours. His view is that the attitude of Malaysia and Indonesia towards the Republic is shaped by their treatment of their minority Chinese. He had no need to make use of that occasion to pass those remarks as pointed criticism for a Malaysian or Indonesian audience, much less to court controversy or provoke anger - for he had merely repeated a position which he has always maintained, which is public knowledge. This was why in his letter he mentioned, significantly, that "I have not said anything more than what I have said many times before".
(But MM Lee more than anyone else should be acutely aware that for a topic as volatile and sensitive as racial politics, people are not given to cerebral and level-headed thinking. Aggrieved parties would likely find cause with his statement while those in power would vehemently refute it.)
More interestingly, his letter to Malaysian PM Abdullah Badawi reminded one of how much he is still the firm, legalistic and formidable politician who more than any Singaporean was personally and inextricably embroiled in bilateral politics between Singapore and Malaysia since their separation in 1965. His impeccable mind and steadfastly-held beliefs are apparent in his letter. He knew the Malaysian media well and knew that nothing short of an apology ("sorry") would ameliorate the damage his remarks had inadvertently caused. Indeed, Malaysian papers reportedly gave front-page prominence to his apology to PM Abdullah for causing him 'a great deal of discomfort'.
Yet, as most would have noted, MM Lee was 'sorry' for the discomfort that his remarks brought on the Malaysian PM, not for his view on how the Chinese minority were marginalised. He did not change his view, and PM Abdullah in his public reply noted that too. In fact, true to his lawyer credentials, his letter carried an impressive annex that produced evidence supporting his expressed position. For the discerning reader, the detailed information in the annex, presented in a matter-of-factly manner, was meant to address various charges, including but not limited to those that criticised MM Lee for interfering in Malaysia's politics.
MM Lee said that Singapore needed a "really firm, stout-hearted, subtle and resolute" government to maintain relations with its neighbours. His letter, which underscores his response to an official reaction from neighbouring states, showed what and how it takes to be all that. He was 'firm' and 'stout-hearted' in that despite the unhappiness and furore that erupted in Malaysia, he held on to his position and explained the context in which he made those remarks, thereby registering the point that he, as a leader of Singapore, was not making remarks which had no basis whatsoever; he did not retreat. He was 'subtle' and 'resolute' in that he understood what is at stake - the possible jeopardising of bilateral relations - and made an apology without compromising his integrity. And thus he ended his letter saying, "after a decade of troubled relations with your predecessor, it is the last thing i wanted." This is an acknowledgement of the improved relations Singapore has enjoyed with Malaysia since PM Abdullah took over Dr Mahathir as Malaysian Prime Minister, and it also subtly reiterates the point he wanted to impress upon PM Abdullah Badawi and others: that he said those remarks not to provoke, nor to inflame feelings, and certainly not to undermine bilateral relations.
That the matter did not become yet another bilateral problem and is now closed is to the good of bilateral relations between both states.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Caged Indifference
The old man, easily in his late fifties and a little plump, shuffled into the train. Spotting an empty seat, he moved quickly to claim possession. He had a bird cage in one hand, which he put on his lap after he had comfortably settled down. A piece of cloth covered the cage completely, such that no part of the interior is exposed. He had two other similarly covered cages, which were kept inside a large rectangular HP carrier bag meant for storing a tower case. And what a perfect fit it was, the two cages fitting exactly into the bag, as though it was made specially for holding bird cages.
He kept the bag close to his legs, and he did this with little fuss. It was merely a few seconds from the time he sat down to his making some minor adjustments – indeed, it couldn’t have been more than five seconds. All this while, and after having settled down, he kept a curiously nonchalant look, never turning his head once to check if his neighbours might feel any discomfort with the unusual items in his possession. There’s a certain focus and swiftness about his actions that suggested that he carries those cages and travels on the train quite frequently, perhaps on a daily basis.
His neighbours were a middle-aged lady, seated to his right, and, on the other side, a young man who looks around thirty-years old. The latter was asleep, his arms folded and his head resting against the windowpane. The lady seemed unbothered by the bird cages at first, until a distinct chirping sound emanated from the cages. This caught her attention, and she started to glance discreetly, almost awkwardly, at the bird cage next to her, as though she were looking out for the flight of the chirping animal from its enclosure. She was guarded and restrained, looking out from the corner of her eye, conscious not to reveal to her stern-looking neighbour her sudden-found uneasiness.
As the chirping persisted, so did her furtive glances; it had her complete attention for the rest of the journey. Yet her silence and disconcerted gazes did not grow into any overt displeasure. She seemed uncomfortable having to travel alongside an unexpected creature on an afternoon train ride, but it must have been bearable - for she had continued to remain where she was, even if she were silently suffering.
Meanwhile, the old man had the bird cage firmly held on his lap, his countenance impassive, body erect. He was oblivious of the sideward glances his neighbours had been casting by all this while. Whereas the lady was visibly affected by the bird cages and the sounds that came from them, he, placidly still in his seat throughout, was her perfect foil. Or, one wonders, was this a practiced indifference? The young man next to him was undisturbed, indulging in a nap that was uninterrupted by chirping sounds next door.
A few stations later, the lady got up and disembarked, finally relieved of the indignity of having to sit next to some birds on a train. At this moment, the old man sprang into action, as if suddenly awakened from a spell. He moved quickly to his left to occupy the lady’s seat, which was at the corner of the row. Displaying the same swiftness as he did when he first sat down, this time he could afford more room to move his legs. He looked around for a while, and appeared satisfied in his new seat.
No one took the seat next to him after that, at least not until I got off the train a few stops later. I wonder how many stations more would it be before the old man finally alighted – with the bird cages and the chirping bird(s) inside them.
He kept the bag close to his legs, and he did this with little fuss. It was merely a few seconds from the time he sat down to his making some minor adjustments – indeed, it couldn’t have been more than five seconds. All this while, and after having settled down, he kept a curiously nonchalant look, never turning his head once to check if his neighbours might feel any discomfort with the unusual items in his possession. There’s a certain focus and swiftness about his actions that suggested that he carries those cages and travels on the train quite frequently, perhaps on a daily basis.
His neighbours were a middle-aged lady, seated to his right, and, on the other side, a young man who looks around thirty-years old. The latter was asleep, his arms folded and his head resting against the windowpane. The lady seemed unbothered by the bird cages at first, until a distinct chirping sound emanated from the cages. This caught her attention, and she started to glance discreetly, almost awkwardly, at the bird cage next to her, as though she were looking out for the flight of the chirping animal from its enclosure. She was guarded and restrained, looking out from the corner of her eye, conscious not to reveal to her stern-looking neighbour her sudden-found uneasiness.
As the chirping persisted, so did her furtive glances; it had her complete attention for the rest of the journey. Yet her silence and disconcerted gazes did not grow into any overt displeasure. She seemed uncomfortable having to travel alongside an unexpected creature on an afternoon train ride, but it must have been bearable - for she had continued to remain where she was, even if she were silently suffering.
Meanwhile, the old man had the bird cage firmly held on his lap, his countenance impassive, body erect. He was oblivious of the sideward glances his neighbours had been casting by all this while. Whereas the lady was visibly affected by the bird cages and the sounds that came from them, he, placidly still in his seat throughout, was her perfect foil. Or, one wonders, was this a practiced indifference? The young man next to him was undisturbed, indulging in a nap that was uninterrupted by chirping sounds next door.
A few stations later, the lady got up and disembarked, finally relieved of the indignity of having to sit next to some birds on a train. At this moment, the old man sprang into action, as if suddenly awakened from a spell. He moved quickly to his left to occupy the lady’s seat, which was at the corner of the row. Displaying the same swiftness as he did when he first sat down, this time he could afford more room to move his legs. He looked around for a while, and appeared satisfied in his new seat.
No one took the seat next to him after that, at least not until I got off the train a few stops later. I wonder how many stations more would it be before the old man finally alighted – with the bird cages and the chirping bird(s) inside them.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
New books!
Two weekends ago, I bought two books from Borders and one from Kinokuniya @ Bugis:
1. Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation by Cherian George
2. The Harmony Silk Factory by Tash Aw
3. Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie
The last book is still wrapped in plastic. I haven’t torn away the plastic because I know it will be some time before I get on to it. So I might as well leave it as that, so that it will stay in its pristine condition. The other two, I have dutifully attached a protective plastic sheet over its exterior cover, as I do for all the books that I’ve bought.
1. Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation by Cherian George
2. The Harmony Silk Factory by Tash Aw
3. Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie
The last book is still wrapped in plastic. I haven’t torn away the plastic because I know it will be some time before I get on to it. So I might as well leave it as that, so that it will stay in its pristine condition. The other two, I have dutifully attached a protective plastic sheet over its exterior cover, as I do for all the books that I’ve bought.
My friend once remarked that it is wasteful to buy books. Why buy them, especially novels, storybooks, when you are only going to read them once? You can get them from the library.
Actually, she kind of replied her own questions. I buy books because I, as someone who enjoys reading, like to possess books. The library is a wonderful place, but past experiences have shown that the books that I want are somehow always on loan. I am too lazy to take note when the loaned book would be returned, too lazy to make another trip to the library to get the book if and when it’s available. More important, when I look for a particular book, it is most likely that I want to read it there and then, not some weeks or months later. I am that impatient.
And whoever says people only read books once? I make sure the books that I intend to buy are worthy keeps. And every now and then, I do browse my bookshelf, pick a book, flip the pages and perhaps read a few paragraphs. There are other books which I do read all over again, still others which I would read once more had I the time and the mood.
These are sufficient reasons for me to buy books. I told my friend that compared to buying clothes and fashion accessories, or indulging in other pastimes that can be equally, if not more, expensive, buying books is a worthy investment and hardly qualify as wasteful. The pages of a book yellow over time, yes, but the contents do not diminish in value, as compared to clothes and other things which depreciate in value after awhile. Instead, a great novelist’s work remains intact and is ripe for a revisit anytime.
Finally, I suspect that buying and maintaining a shelf of books is also something egoistical, to satisfy a book lover’s sense of snobbish pride, as in, ‘I read all these books, you know.’ So yes, I read all those books I have, you know...except that quite a couple of them are, err, half-read. Ah, all pretences fall apart…
On another note, I’ve started reading Tash Aw’s The Harmony Silk Factory, and it certainly looks promising. The front cover has a quotation from the respectable writer, Doris Lessing who writes, ‘What a storyteller Tash Aw is. Unputdowntable.’ I got acquainted with the writer through a Straits Times feature quite a long time back and I recalled that his first novel was quite well-received. Then I came across the book at Borders that day – I was specially there to utilize two 30% discount coupon which I ravenously cut out from the papers – I flipped a few pages, found it rather interesting after reading the synopsis and a few paragraphs, decided that I shall buy it. And you know what, walking out from a bookstore with a good book that one has just paid for and is now its proud new owner, makes one silently jubilant, as if one had just surreptitiously witnessed the embarrassment of a foe and delighting in the fact. All right, I’m not sure if this is exactly the best of analogy though. Whatever.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Singapore Media's silence on MM Lee's remarks
Background
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on 15th September, at a dialogue session held on the sidelines of the IMF/World Bank Meetings in Singapore, made some comments which critiqued the treatment of Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia. He said: “My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They were successful, they're hardworking and therefore they are systematically marginalised, even in education. And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese, compliant. So every time we say 'no' to some scheme to knock down the Causeway and build a bridge, he says 'Oh, you are not cooperative' You are only thinking of yourself.”
His comments were construed as alleging that both Malaysia and Indonesia deliberately discriminate against their minority Chinese by holding them in a subordinate position. The comments have since earned the ire of politicians of Malaysia, with Indonesia apparently lodging complaints later than the former. Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohammed has hit out at the remarks, while other UMNO politicians have similarly expressed indignation over Lee’s remarks on the treatment of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia.
According to the Straits Times Thursday (28 September), KL and Jakarta have asked for explanation for MM Lee’s remarks (‘KL and Jakarta ask for explanation for MM’s remarks’). Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has written to MM Lee seeking an explanation while Singapore’s Ambassador in Jakarta had been asked by the foreign ministry to give an explanation. Meanwhile, debate rages on in Malaysia not only over MM Lee’s making of those inflammatory remarks, but also over the truth, or untruth, of his opinion.
ST – Reports but no analysis
It is instructive to note that whereas Malaysian papers (from what I understand) have all given prominent attention to the issue, the Singapore Press in comparison have been relatively silent, with the ST filing reports on the issue under its Malaysia section instead of under prime news. The ST does report on the developments of the issue in Malaysia – who and which politician says what as well as the response of the public, for example, the Chinese – but these have strictly been presented as news reports, not commentary nor analysis articles by its columnists. Certainly, the establishment press has not joined in the fray by openly discussing the veracity of MM Lee’s remarks, not to mention their political ramifications. This is not surprising, and there are two reasons that may explain why.
Firstly, there has been no official reply from MM Lee with regard to the controversy that his remarks generated in Malaysia and Indonesia. It is just as expected that no cabinet ministers or government officials have made any comments, at least not which the public know of. The ST, being the national daily that reflects (or is deemed to reflect) the Republic’s position on matters of national importance, is unlikely to be ahead of the government in commenting MM Lee’s remarks or in examining the issue. For what it says and how it frames and reports the issue – as with other sensitive national and foreign policy issues – can affect how foreign governments and their citizens perceive the national and government attitude towards the issue.
Certainly, the ST would not want to add fuel to fire by commenting on the implications of MM Lee’s remarks ahead of clarifications from the latter himself or the Singapore Government. This would ensure that it does not run the risk of aggravating matters, especially with regard to a topic that is perhaps best left to academics and not discussed in the public sphere. By and large, the establishment press and the government play mutually cooperative role when it comes to issues relating to foreign policy: the media understands the gravity and sensitivity of foreign relations and do not – is expected not to – run afoul of the government’s authority and position on foreign affairs by purveying a separate or contradictory position.
Secondly, the Straits Times conscientiously avoids presenting every putatively minor bilateral spat or unhappiness raised by Malaysia as front-page news, so as not to elevate their importance and thereby politicizing the issue. The political consideration underlying this unspoken practice is simple, and a sensible one: given the political sensitivity of bilateral relations and the ST’s national role, it is almost imperative not to give prominence and focus to every piece of news relating, even if relatively significant, to Singapore-Malaysia relations, which are perennially delicate. Doing so could invite unnecessary scrutiny and inadvertently provide fodder for interested parties to impute political motivations.
One example would be the reporting of crimes in Johore by local newspapers during a certain period in the past. Some officials from across the causeway have at one point in time suggested that the media here were pursuing a hidden agenda by what they deemed as biased reporting on crime reports in Johore Bahru involving Singaporeans. While it is in all likelihood that newspapers here have a sensible reason to give greater prominence to such crime reports – they are sensational and thus commercially newsworthy – this may not be what officials in Malaysia think.
On the other hand, positive bilateral developments or news are often given front-page prominence to foster positive atmospherics. (Think, for example, Singapore ministers’ visits to Malaysia during various festive occasions.) Thus, the reports of Malaysians’ response to MM Lee’s remarks have so far been dutifully filed under the less conspicuous Malaysia section and not under prime news. The truth of the matter is that Singapore-Malaysia relations are delicate and the media on both sides have a tremendous capacity to influence opinion and bilateral relations, for better or for worse.
Media and its political role in foreign policy issues
The ST, as well as other media, is acutely aware of the troublesome nature of MM Lee’s remarks. They can neither come out in support of his remarks by commenting on race relations in neighbouring states, nor are they any likely to comment on the wisdom of making those remarks, which, one should note, were intended for a foreign audience whom the senior statesman wish to draw attention to the geo-ethno realities confronting Singapore (and hence their supposed connection to governance in the Singapore case).
Doing either would be politically precarious and would most inevitably aggravate the situation and lead to a possible quick deterioration in bilateral ties. It is therefore expected that local newspapers have since the onset maintained a neutral stance, reporting disinterestedly on the reactions from Malaysia and Indonesia instead of publishing any commentary pieces by its own journalists. (It also bears mentioning that thus far, ST Forum has only published a letter relating to the issue from one of its readers.)
Politically speaking, the government and the media know that MM Lee’s remarks, whether justified or not, have the potential of making yet another diplomatic fiasco, and the best they can hope for now is that the issue would die away over time, after MM Lee makes his response. (The Malaysian Government is not wrong in saying that MM Lee’s remarks can incite racial feelings in Malaysians, particularly amongst the minority Chinese, and MM Lee’s making of those remarks cannot but force his Malaysian counterpart to make an official response.)
Note: With regard to the above discussion, one may wish to draw parallel to another figure’s remarks which have engendered world-wide reaction. Pope Benedict XVI’s recent speech on faith and reason had quoted a line from an obscure 14th-century Byzantine emperor, which earned the ire of Muslims world-wide. The ST has since reproduced his entire speech (ST Review, 25 September) and carried articles of academics and its journalists alike.
Arguably, the controversy involved sensitive religious matters just as MM Lee’s remarks touched on sensitive racial relations. However, unlike the prominent commentary and analyses given to the Pope’s speech and its consequences, the ST gave inconspicuous coverage of MM Lee’s remarks and the furore which ensued in Malaysia and, to a lesser extent, in Indonesia. This only underscores the nexus between bilateral relations between Singapore and its immediate neighbours and the media in the sensitive foreign policy arena
Addendum: This was written before MM Lee made his response to Malaysia PM Abdullah Badawi. MM Lee's reply, understandably, has been filed under Prime News in the ST, though not given front-page coverage. As it is, his reply and PM Abdullah's response were reported in a straightforward manner, without any commentary. The Malaysian Government have decided not to pursue the issue, after the PM said to the Press that he has 'noted' MM Lee's reply.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on 15th September, at a dialogue session held on the sidelines of the IMF/World Bank Meetings in Singapore, made some comments which critiqued the treatment of Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia. He said: “My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They were successful, they're hardworking and therefore they are systematically marginalised, even in education. And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese, compliant. So every time we say 'no' to some scheme to knock down the Causeway and build a bridge, he says 'Oh, you are not cooperative' You are only thinking of yourself.”
His comments were construed as alleging that both Malaysia and Indonesia deliberately discriminate against their minority Chinese by holding them in a subordinate position. The comments have since earned the ire of politicians of Malaysia, with Indonesia apparently lodging complaints later than the former. Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohammed has hit out at the remarks, while other UMNO politicians have similarly expressed indignation over Lee’s remarks on the treatment of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia.
According to the Straits Times Thursday (28 September), KL and Jakarta have asked for explanation for MM Lee’s remarks (‘KL and Jakarta ask for explanation for MM’s remarks’). Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has written to MM Lee seeking an explanation while Singapore’s Ambassador in Jakarta had been asked by the foreign ministry to give an explanation. Meanwhile, debate rages on in Malaysia not only over MM Lee’s making of those inflammatory remarks, but also over the truth, or untruth, of his opinion.
ST – Reports but no analysis
It is instructive to note that whereas Malaysian papers (from what I understand) have all given prominent attention to the issue, the Singapore Press in comparison have been relatively silent, with the ST filing reports on the issue under its Malaysia section instead of under prime news. The ST does report on the developments of the issue in Malaysia – who and which politician says what as well as the response of the public, for example, the Chinese – but these have strictly been presented as news reports, not commentary nor analysis articles by its columnists. Certainly, the establishment press has not joined in the fray by openly discussing the veracity of MM Lee’s remarks, not to mention their political ramifications. This is not surprising, and there are two reasons that may explain why.
Firstly, there has been no official reply from MM Lee with regard to the controversy that his remarks generated in Malaysia and Indonesia. It is just as expected that no cabinet ministers or government officials have made any comments, at least not which the public know of. The ST, being the national daily that reflects (or is deemed to reflect) the Republic’s position on matters of national importance, is unlikely to be ahead of the government in commenting MM Lee’s remarks or in examining the issue. For what it says and how it frames and reports the issue – as with other sensitive national and foreign policy issues – can affect how foreign governments and their citizens perceive the national and government attitude towards the issue.
Certainly, the ST would not want to add fuel to fire by commenting on the implications of MM Lee’s remarks ahead of clarifications from the latter himself or the Singapore Government. This would ensure that it does not run the risk of aggravating matters, especially with regard to a topic that is perhaps best left to academics and not discussed in the public sphere. By and large, the establishment press and the government play mutually cooperative role when it comes to issues relating to foreign policy: the media understands the gravity and sensitivity of foreign relations and do not – is expected not to – run afoul of the government’s authority and position on foreign affairs by purveying a separate or contradictory position.
Secondly, the Straits Times conscientiously avoids presenting every putatively minor bilateral spat or unhappiness raised by Malaysia as front-page news, so as not to elevate their importance and thereby politicizing the issue. The political consideration underlying this unspoken practice is simple, and a sensible one: given the political sensitivity of bilateral relations and the ST’s national role, it is almost imperative not to give prominence and focus to every piece of news relating, even if relatively significant, to Singapore-Malaysia relations, which are perennially delicate. Doing so could invite unnecessary scrutiny and inadvertently provide fodder for interested parties to impute political motivations.
One example would be the reporting of crimes in Johore by local newspapers during a certain period in the past. Some officials from across the causeway have at one point in time suggested that the media here were pursuing a hidden agenda by what they deemed as biased reporting on crime reports in Johore Bahru involving Singaporeans. While it is in all likelihood that newspapers here have a sensible reason to give greater prominence to such crime reports – they are sensational and thus commercially newsworthy – this may not be what officials in Malaysia think.
On the other hand, positive bilateral developments or news are often given front-page prominence to foster positive atmospherics. (Think, for example, Singapore ministers’ visits to Malaysia during various festive occasions.) Thus, the reports of Malaysians’ response to MM Lee’s remarks have so far been dutifully filed under the less conspicuous Malaysia section and not under prime news. The truth of the matter is that Singapore-Malaysia relations are delicate and the media on both sides have a tremendous capacity to influence opinion and bilateral relations, for better or for worse.
Media and its political role in foreign policy issues
The ST, as well as other media, is acutely aware of the troublesome nature of MM Lee’s remarks. They can neither come out in support of his remarks by commenting on race relations in neighbouring states, nor are they any likely to comment on the wisdom of making those remarks, which, one should note, were intended for a foreign audience whom the senior statesman wish to draw attention to the geo-ethno realities confronting Singapore (and hence their supposed connection to governance in the Singapore case).
Doing either would be politically precarious and would most inevitably aggravate the situation and lead to a possible quick deterioration in bilateral ties. It is therefore expected that local newspapers have since the onset maintained a neutral stance, reporting disinterestedly on the reactions from Malaysia and Indonesia instead of publishing any commentary pieces by its own journalists. (It also bears mentioning that thus far, ST Forum has only published a letter relating to the issue from one of its readers.)
Politically speaking, the government and the media know that MM Lee’s remarks, whether justified or not, have the potential of making yet another diplomatic fiasco, and the best they can hope for now is that the issue would die away over time, after MM Lee makes his response. (The Malaysian Government is not wrong in saying that MM Lee’s remarks can incite racial feelings in Malaysians, particularly amongst the minority Chinese, and MM Lee’s making of those remarks cannot but force his Malaysian counterpart to make an official response.)
Note: With regard to the above discussion, one may wish to draw parallel to another figure’s remarks which have engendered world-wide reaction. Pope Benedict XVI’s recent speech on faith and reason had quoted a line from an obscure 14th-century Byzantine emperor, which earned the ire of Muslims world-wide. The ST has since reproduced his entire speech (ST Review, 25 September) and carried articles of academics and its journalists alike.
Arguably, the controversy involved sensitive religious matters just as MM Lee’s remarks touched on sensitive racial relations. However, unlike the prominent commentary and analyses given to the Pope’s speech and its consequences, the ST gave inconspicuous coverage of MM Lee’s remarks and the furore which ensued in Malaysia and, to a lesser extent, in Indonesia. This only underscores the nexus between bilateral relations between Singapore and its immediate neighbours and the media in the sensitive foreign policy arena
Addendum: This was written before MM Lee made his response to Malaysia PM Abdullah Badawi. MM Lee's reply, understandably, has been filed under Prime News in the ST, though not given front-page coverage. As it is, his reply and PM Abdullah's response were reported in a straightforward manner, without any commentary. The Malaysian Government have decided not to pursue the issue, after the PM said to the Press that he has 'noted' MM Lee's reply.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Book meme
I don’t usually do such stuff but this one got me interested enough to do it without any prompting.
Taken off: Trisha Reloaded
1. One book you have read more than once
Geroge Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. It’s a classic, and rightly deserves to be read more than once. The book’s famous for the totalitarian state that Orwell so brilliantly depicted, providing insights into the nature of (state) power, which can subvert reason and human passion. It is also a good work of fiction – Orwell’s lucid writing, as with his other works, makes for a good read.
2. One book you would want on a desert island
Life of Pi by Yann Martel. I don’t know, but this is a book whose amazing story would likely be able to provide psychological comfort, optimism and strength to one on a desert island. On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind having The Orwell Reader: Fiction, Essays and Reportage – I can never get enough of Orwell’s excellent prose.
3. One book that made you laugh
Pride and Prejudice. Thankfully there ever was a Jane Austen, who wrote this extremely delightful book. I can’t recall another writer who displays such immense wit in his/her writing, so elegant and vivacious, dripping with irony at every turn of the page. She gave us the ridiculous Mr Collins and lively Elizabeth Bennet, both of which characters one will always recall with pleasure.
4. One book that made you cry
Angela’s Ashes by Frank McCourt. McCourts’ autographical account of his childhood is at once funny and poignant, stirring at one’s heart with his self-deprecating humour. His writing is heartfelt and draws great empathy from the reader who feels for his remarkable Irish childhood years.
5. One book you wish you had written
Immortality by Milan Kundera. Though Kundera wrote in Czech and it is the translated version that I read, I am drawn by his power to weave a story and tell it from the perspectives of his different protagonists. His novel, and the way he writes, makes you ponder about life; it is through his writing that I learn to see how life is strung together by events and coincidences that play out and link with one another. One incident, one inconsequential act, begets another, and another – eventually, they assume a course and become the narrative of one’s life.
I would also have wished I had the genius of story-telling like Roald Dahl, who, in his book Tales of the Unexpected, wrote in a compelling manner and with subversive wit.
6. One book you wish had never been written
I would like to think that I read books only after ascertaining that they are more or less worthy reads, so I can’t think of one which I wish hadn’t been written. In truth, I am hardly a well-read person, so it means I am not acquainted with a large pool of known works to be able to submit one for this. In any case, if a book (in my opinion) is boring or poorly written, I wouldn’t have gone on to finish reading.
7. One book you are currently reading
I’m currently reading a non-fiction and a fiction work:
Contentious Journalism and the Internet: Towards Democratic Discourse in Malaysia and Singapore by Cherian George, and
The Namesake, by Jhumpa Lahiri
I first read Cherian George when I was doing research on Singapore politics. As an establishment journalist-turned-academic, he writes thoughtfully and offers some very lucid insights into local politics. The other book is a debut novel by its author. As The Times wrote of the book, ‘Extraordinary…a book that spins gold out of the straw of ordinary lives’ – I can’t agree more.
8. One book you have been meaning to read
The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway. Also, I have been meaning to pick up Lolita and finish reading where I left off. It’s been so long I think I need to start all over again.
9. One book that changed your life
No, I haven’t read any book which I can honestly say has changed my life. Different books I’ve read may have affected me in some way, but not to the extent of the sort that would qualify as life-changing. Perhaps, I’ve not yet met with any momentous events in life which could have just provided the occasion for a particular book to inspire me in a life-changing sort of way.
Taken off: Trisha Reloaded
1. One book you have read more than once
Geroge Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. It’s a classic, and rightly deserves to be read more than once. The book’s famous for the totalitarian state that Orwell so brilliantly depicted, providing insights into the nature of (state) power, which can subvert reason and human passion. It is also a good work of fiction – Orwell’s lucid writing, as with his other works, makes for a good read.
2. One book you would want on a desert island
Life of Pi by Yann Martel. I don’t know, but this is a book whose amazing story would likely be able to provide psychological comfort, optimism and strength to one on a desert island. On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind having The Orwell Reader: Fiction, Essays and Reportage – I can never get enough of Orwell’s excellent prose.
3. One book that made you laugh
Pride and Prejudice. Thankfully there ever was a Jane Austen, who wrote this extremely delightful book. I can’t recall another writer who displays such immense wit in his/her writing, so elegant and vivacious, dripping with irony at every turn of the page. She gave us the ridiculous Mr Collins and lively Elizabeth Bennet, both of which characters one will always recall with pleasure.
4. One book that made you cry
Angela’s Ashes by Frank McCourt. McCourts’ autographical account of his childhood is at once funny and poignant, stirring at one’s heart with his self-deprecating humour. His writing is heartfelt and draws great empathy from the reader who feels for his remarkable Irish childhood years.
5. One book you wish you had written
Immortality by Milan Kundera. Though Kundera wrote in Czech and it is the translated version that I read, I am drawn by his power to weave a story and tell it from the perspectives of his different protagonists. His novel, and the way he writes, makes you ponder about life; it is through his writing that I learn to see how life is strung together by events and coincidences that play out and link with one another. One incident, one inconsequential act, begets another, and another – eventually, they assume a course and become the narrative of one’s life.
I would also have wished I had the genius of story-telling like Roald Dahl, who, in his book Tales of the Unexpected, wrote in a compelling manner and with subversive wit.
6. One book you wish had never been written
I would like to think that I read books only after ascertaining that they are more or less worthy reads, so I can’t think of one which I wish hadn’t been written. In truth, I am hardly a well-read person, so it means I am not acquainted with a large pool of known works to be able to submit one for this. In any case, if a book (in my opinion) is boring or poorly written, I wouldn’t have gone on to finish reading.
7. One book you are currently reading
I’m currently reading a non-fiction and a fiction work:
Contentious Journalism and the Internet: Towards Democratic Discourse in Malaysia and Singapore by Cherian George, and
The Namesake, by Jhumpa Lahiri
I first read Cherian George when I was doing research on Singapore politics. As an establishment journalist-turned-academic, he writes thoughtfully and offers some very lucid insights into local politics. The other book is a debut novel by its author. As The Times wrote of the book, ‘Extraordinary…a book that spins gold out of the straw of ordinary lives’ – I can’t agree more.
8. One book you have been meaning to read
The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway. Also, I have been meaning to pick up Lolita and finish reading where I left off. It’s been so long I think I need to start all over again.
9. One book that changed your life
No, I haven’t read any book which I can honestly say has changed my life. Different books I’ve read may have affected me in some way, but not to the extent of the sort that would qualify as life-changing. Perhaps, I’ve not yet met with any momentous events in life which could have just provided the occasion for a particular book to inspire me in a life-changing sort of way.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Yesterday's ride
It's one of those rides where i wish time would come to a still, so that i can take forever to enjoy the beautiful scenery, soak in the atmosphere, enjoy the rare moment of being oblivious to all matters except the scenery that surrounds me. Photo courtesy of K.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)