You're fucked if you do and you're fucked if you don't
Singapore finds herself in "regrettable" positions again and again.
I can remember a few cases. Like in 1994, I'm sure everybody can remember the Michael Fay incident. It was so famous that the theme was made into an episode of the Simpsons depicting Bart in Australia and getting his bum booted. Clinton (old Bill of course) said then that the punishment was extreme and blah blah. Human rights issues were thrown about. Well America, I've got one word for you. "Guantanamera". Shit, I meant, "Guantanamo".
Hop to the following year, it was themaid domestic helper, Flor Contemplacion who, obviously not true to her name, failed to contemplate (seriously this is not funny) and killed fellow maid domestic helper, Delia Maga and her employer's 3 year old son, Nicholas Huang. Filipinos, instead of conserving what ever little resources they have, decided to protest and started burning fuel resources. They bascially burned the Singapore flag. Like, oh, oh, that's really really, really really, really really, realy really really....hurting. In a hurting-ly kinda way. *sob*. It was a big deal I guess. I cannot remember if they had the burning of effigies, you know, like in Guy Fawkes and Bonfire night in England. Well, Philippines, I've got one word for you. *momentarily silence* Well, make that 3 words. "No m'am, cannot (pronounced "khen nhawt" - typical tagalog fashion)!"
Fast forward to the new millennium, we see Howard (Australia PM) and other top Australian leaders saying it was barbaric, how Australian of Vietnamese descent, Nguyen Tuong Van was executed for smuggling of drugs. Weirdly, this is a different side of everyday Australia that I seldom see / hear about. I am not saying Australians are racists. You have to ask friends who studied or lived there, working...you know, extended periods for their opinions on this. I just rememeber Cronulla Beach, Sydney. I think they're not racists. I blame it on the genetic make up because of their ancestral bloodline. *ouch* I suppose I have to have a word or two for Australia. I'll come back to you on this one.
You see, the IMF chief speaks of how important it is to have discussions with NGOs. What else can he say? That NGOs are just people with too much time on their hands, some, though very rarely, laced with vengeance in their blood as they mount violent protests? Sure, the IMF / World Bank delegates might be secretly enjoying the relative peace that was provided by Singapore for this conference but will they come out and say, "Bloody good job yous peoples. Yeah, banning those muthafuckers was the best thing to do!"
Instead, what we're more likely to hear is how the IMF and World Bank genuinely are interested in discussions and hearing a multitude of views. So Singapore becomes the bogeyman, reinforcing the label that was tagged to us, "authoritarian", "repressive", what else?
Are we gonna hear Clinton say, "Yeah, cane that muthafucker! And please don't send him back to America, we've got 15 million of Michael Fays already!" Do Australians actually care about another gook being killed? They can't say that. Governments are equally pressured, by their objective of remaining in office, to please what is viewed as the "common view" although this might not be the view of the "silent majority". It's a case of public relations. Fidel Ramos was at the brink of his power and his country was in a mess. In comes Singapore and the Flor case. Convenient diversion.
Is there a chink in the leadership? Whatever happened to sovereignty? We've essentially bowed down to pressure. Sure, we can state all we want, that the decision was reversed with much contemplation. We didn't do so in the cases stated above. Neither did we bow down on land reclamation issues, water issues, Pedra Branca issues. So now just because we're providing 4 million freaking smiles to the world, we are backing down? That's bullshit.
I can remember a few cases. Like in 1994, I'm sure everybody can remember the Michael Fay incident. It was so famous that the theme was made into an episode of the Simpsons depicting Bart in Australia and getting his bum booted. Clinton (old Bill of course) said then that the punishment was extreme and blah blah. Human rights issues were thrown about. Well America, I've got one word for you. "Guantanamera". Shit, I meant, "Guantanamo".
Hop to the following year, it was the
Fast forward to the new millennium, we see Howard (Australia PM) and other top Australian leaders saying it was barbaric, how Australian of Vietnamese descent, Nguyen Tuong Van was executed for smuggling of drugs. Weirdly, this is a different side of everyday Australia that I seldom see / hear about. I am not saying Australians are racists. You have to ask friends who studied or lived there, working...you know, extended periods for their opinions on this. I just rememeber Cronulla Beach, Sydney. I think they're not racists. I blame it on the genetic make up because of their ancestral bloodline. *ouch* I suppose I have to have a word or two for Australia. I'll come back to you on this one.
You see, the IMF chief speaks of how important it is to have discussions with NGOs. What else can he say? That NGOs are just people with too much time on their hands, some, though very rarely, laced with vengeance in their blood as they mount violent protests? Sure, the IMF / World Bank delegates might be secretly enjoying the relative peace that was provided by Singapore for this conference but will they come out and say, "Bloody good job yous peoples. Yeah, banning those muthafuckers was the best thing to do!"
Instead, what we're more likely to hear is how the IMF and World Bank genuinely are interested in discussions and hearing a multitude of views. So Singapore becomes the bogeyman, reinforcing the label that was tagged to us, "authoritarian", "repressive", what else?
Are we gonna hear Clinton say, "Yeah, cane that muthafucker! And please don't send him back to America, we've got 15 million of Michael Fays already!" Do Australians actually care about another gook being killed? They can't say that. Governments are equally pressured, by their objective of remaining in office, to please what is viewed as the "common view" although this might not be the view of the "silent majority". It's a case of public relations. Fidel Ramos was at the brink of his power and his country was in a mess. In comes Singapore and the Flor case. Convenient diversion.
Is there a chink in the leadership? Whatever happened to sovereignty? We've essentially bowed down to pressure. Sure, we can state all we want, that the decision was reversed with much contemplation. We didn't do so in the cases stated above. Neither did we bow down on land reclamation issues, water issues, Pedra Branca issues. So now just because we're providing 4 million freaking smiles to the world, we are backing down? That's bullshit.
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
2 comments:
hardy har, har and a bottle of rum! ar i didnae realize there's another scurvy-ridden eloquent pirate bagload of barnacles in blogland.
I didn't like the U-turn either. I thought that they should have stuck to the decision they made after all that rationalising and defence.
Post a Comment