The IMF Descends: A Crystal Ball gazing...

By now, the story of how our local authorities here has handled public protests/demonstrations is well-known - both locally and internationally. In my opinion, getting the World Bank/IMF folks to town is a bad mistake - not so much for its security implications - but for the Singapore Brand Name (assuming we even have one).

Let's take a look at how this entire IMF/World Bank circus is generating a load of unnecessary - and unwanted- poor press from folks all around...

The Man on the Street

Let's be honest and admit that most Singaporeans do not actually care about what goes on inside those meeting halls. Transport fare hikes, English Premiership results and how-much-money-I-made-last-month are more likely to resonate with local folks rather than whether the third-world debt is reduced or not. With the IMF folks descending to town, most of us - directly or indirectly - are caught up in this. From incurring extra ERP charges to four million smiles, these 10 days have never been more exciting...

The Journalist

Coming from a journalistic background, its obvious what the news of the day is for foreign correspondents. Assuming that the IMF-World Bank meeting don't turn up any breaking news (such as erasing all the debts of the third-world countries), the general take-home news is likely to be more of the same. This is where - in my opinion - allowing protests would be useful. By allowing outdoor protests, it diverts attention from more critical issues at hand, and after all, protestors do regurtitate the same old arguments after a while. However, by prohibiting outdoor protests, the Government has only ironically opened a pandora can of worms for foreign journalists (who are not paid by SPH or MC) to have a field day with.

The Rest of the World

Now I don't have to remind you that the rest of the world does not read our beloved Straits Times nor do they tune in faithfully to Channelnews Asia. Chances are, they are likely to read The Guardian, The New York Times and Washington Post...so unless Temasek has some MOU with them, it is unlikely that their stories will sound like our local press... after all, as Journalism 101 teaches, bad news is always good news.

Next, let's take a look at what could possibly happen regarding this entire issue of outdoor protests. Below are four possible scenarios (not exhaustive):

1. The authorities do a last minute u-turn and allow outdoor protests to go on. This is what I hope will happen - for the good of our international image (as earlier mentioned). Knowing our Government, this is very unlikely to happen, because in order to do so, we'll have to first admit that we made a mistake - and we all know how our MIW don't like to do so.

2. Retaining the status quo. This means that protests will go on - indoors - under the comfort of air-condition and Starbucks (when the protestors get thirsty). Everything goes on as planned, and Singapore gets a lousy reputation, once the pen of the journalist gets itchy. Those who are not allowed to come in will go to Batam to carry out their protests.

3. Indoor protests spill outdoors. This may very well happen if 500 CSOs all turn up at the same time in their designated location. As most of these guys are not schooled in the Singapore doctrine of law and order, things may really get out of hand...

4. Boycott of meetings by CSO. This will have disastrous consequences for the organisers... as it renders the entire function of such a meeting irrelevant. What we don't need is to make news for the wrong reasons (imagine the NYT Headline: Civil Societies Boycott Singapore Meetings). Our reputation of being an inclusive society and a intellectual hub will be wrecked beyond recognition.

There's a fifth, actually, and it goes by the name of Chee Soon Juan. Now the police would probably have no problems containing him and his teammates should they embark on their protest march...but if foreign CSOs start thinking creatively, things may really get interesting...imagine a Singaporean opposition leader (CSJ no less) rallying a troop of 200 ang-mohs... that would really be a sight. Will our law enforcement officers open fire... would a second Tiananmen take place?

By the way, I do not think that the terrorism factor is a terribly convincing reason for banning outdoor protests. As Gayle Goh astutely points out, "terrorist attacks... do not occur at maximum-security occasions. They do not occur at WTO rounds, APEC summits, or ASEAN meetings. They occur on buses in London. They occur on an average workday, 9/11, in New York City. They occur on trains in Madrid. They occur when tourists least expect it in Bali." I would also like to add that should someone somehow manage to smuggle a bomb in, it doesn't matter where the explosives are detonated - Orchard Road or Suntec City - the consequences will be equally disastrous.

The more understandable reason would be the fear that riots would take place (like in the past). To that, I would say, that riots can take place in doors as well - ever heard of a stampede - and things may get even worse. Unless one considers a little pushing and shoving as a riot - which in this case, Zoukout and your average campus orientation camps are full of...

In addition, the reason cited by the authorities of the significance of such an event (in being able to generate more tourism and investment dollars) is a really bad one. Come on, if the IMF/World bank folks need duck tours like these to let them know how good we are, then our STB is doing a lousy job. If we are good enough (which I think we are), then we are good enough. An extra flower pot on the ECP isn't go to change public and international opinion; if we have too much reserves to burn, then I suggest that our authorities go upgrade the lifts at Potong Pasir and Hougang (note: I have nothing against planting flowers and trees, in fact, I think we should plant more greenery instead of mining our land to build shopping complexes...but that's for another post).

P.S. In case anyone thinks that I am against the IMF/World Bank folks coming to town, let me flatly say that I am not. Chances are, if I see Paul Wolfowitz or Gordon Brown in the Suntec City toilet, I'll smile at them and say "welcome to Singapore". Its just the way our authorities have handled the entire situation that really leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

On Exploring the Origins of Man and logical loopholes

Came across an article exploring the origins of man. According to a Georgian palaeontologist, David Lordkipanidze, an early toothless human skull (supposedly 1.75 million years ago) indicated an early example of human compassion.

To quote Dr Lordkipanidze (Dr LK):

"The skull shows that an individual survived for a long time without consuming
solid foold that required heavy chewing...It is clear that he or she may not
have been able to do so without help from other individuals. It is conceivable
that we have recorded one of the earliest traces of compassion in human history"

Statements like the above ones are the reason why the naturalistic-Darwinian evolution concept continue to gain popular mileage among the masses - even though it has been philosophically and academically attacked.

To be fair to Dr LK, no where in the article does Dr LK claims that his explanation is the truth. In fact, the palaeontologist only "thinks" his explanation is plausible. Furthermore, it is possible that the report omits the necessary context upon which Dr LK statements could be construed as overly simplified. Nevertheless, I shall make do with what I know.

Now I have my doubts regarding the authenticity of such a finding and whether any meaningful inspection can be done on a skull that supposedly exist 1.75 million years ago. But even if we give Dr LK the benefit of the doubt, such an explanation nevertheless defies common sense and human logic.

Firstly, there is absolutely no way one can make the conclusion that humans are compassionate from the data of a toothless skull. Dr LK makes a logical fallacy in three aspects;

1. Equating a finding of a toothless skull with the conclusion that the skull never had teeth

2. That the diet of the individual then consists of meat-tearing activities like we do

3. That help from other individuals is an indication of compassion.

Now I have to say I don't have any problems agreeing that human beings (or individuals, as Dr LK wants to call it) have the ability to be compassionate. The fact that we are created in the image and likeness of God means that we are called to be compassionate, which etymologically speaking, is "to suffer with".

"Finally, [be ye] all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, [be] pitiful, [be] courteous" (1 Peter 3:8, KJV)

What I do have a problem with (in addition to the fact that naturalists would use his arguments as a defensive shield, without actually taking into account that values like compassion are in fact, contradictory with the basic principle of survival of the fittest) is that the above statement by Dr LK simply smacks of poor scholarship.

Point one is obvious. Haven't heard of old age or a saccharine-filled diet before? Just because a skull is found without teeth does not mean it never had teeth. It could also mean that the person had lost their teeth.

But maybe I am wrong somewhere and this individual had no teeth to start of with - which is what I think Dr LK is trying to assert (at least implicitly) in order to back his claims.

Which brings me to point two. A major problem in the field of such studies is that researchers often extrapolate their cultural worldview backwards while in the course of their work. As such, the assumption that the skull could not eat because it had no teeth is clearly false. Furthermore, the assumption that the individual was living on a chew-heavy diet is without any proper basis (or at least it was not reported). I am sure we all have relatives (because of old age) who could swallow food. While I am no dentist, I also do think that it is possible to "chew" food with the inner muscles of the mouth.

Last but not least is Dr LK's third point, that help from other individuals is a sign of compassion. This depends on how one defines the meaning of the word help. Here is why semantic confusion reigns; and linguistic ambiguity is often covered through the popular use of word. It is probably Dr LK's intention to use to word "help" in the way it is often understood and socially perceived. Interestingly Webster's Online Dictionary, in its helpful definition on "help", does not mention anything about compassion at all...as such, simply offering assistance in a mechanical, instinctive sense (i.e. ants helping fellow ants to carry food) cannot be equated to the presence of compassion, which goes further than just offering physical assistance. You don't call someone who helps the teacher to carry books a compassionate person...

Mainstream media under siege...not unless

Its been more than a year since the Acid Flask days... and folks in Singapore - from food-lovers to top-level politicians - no less our PM - are starting to take note. Blogging - the phenomena that just won't go away (at least for now) - as Hugh hewitt argues, is the next big information revolution that will change the world - in a manner no less catalysmic than the Gutenberg revolution some five hundred years ago.

Yeah, maybe Hewitt's exaggerating (after all that's how authors sell books)... but is there some truth in his words? It is my opinion that for digital media to challenge or even replace mainstream media, the following scenarios (in paralleling the present with the past) must first be seen:

1. The Presence of a Meta-Authority.

Throughout the Middle-ages, the Church (Roman Catholic) was the final governing authority. Even the coronation of a king had to be done in the presence of the Pope - who was seen as the Vicar of Christ on earth. The sanctions of the church were final- to the extent that excommunication from the church meant the straight road to hell.

In extrapolating this example to SG society, the Government plays the role of the PAPacy (no pun intended), its Bhavani commandments are etched in gold. The media cringes at the thought of being struck by (divine) lightning... as folks like Catherine Lim, Mr Brown and even Cherian George can testify to.

2. The Monopoly over Truth

Truth was what the Pope, or his representatives claimed. The papacy was infallible, its pronouncements were the propositions of absolute truth.

Similarly, the PAPacy in SG, to quote a certain senior member, "is incorruptible". Its verdict and decisions often stood as final truth.

3. The Ability to Censure

The Church had the power, or so they claimed, to excommunicate a member for various reasons. A person who was excommunicated by the church means that he was going to hell. Needless to say, thousands trembled...

The version of censorial mechanisms in SIngapore can take place in two forms: the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act and the Bhavani Commandments.

4. The Indulgence in Excesses

To make matters worse, the Roman Catholic Church (note: this does not mean all RCC churches then were equally guilty) started to indulge themselves in excesses and added extra-Biblical prescriptions to their dogma. For instance, the collection of indulgences for the construction of churches, the using of Church sacraments as a foundation of grace etc...

The NKF scandal brought to light the possibility of deeds done in the dark and the possibility of "legalized corruption" (as some critics put it). While most members of the ruling party remain generally innocent of misdeed; knowing human nature, it is not entirely impossible...

5. The Pain of the People

As the power of the Church grew, its enforcement powers grew too - to the extent that the common folk placed under the anvil of punishment, for fear of transgression. Human freedom was only allowed - as far as it did not contradict the rules of the papacy.

In Singapore, the Weberian iron-cage continues to grow; economic progress comes at a price...

6. The Character of Revolution

Finally in 1517, a certain individual - Martin Luther - nailed his 95 theses to the gate of Wittenberg Church, thus beginning the Reformation that would change church history.

The presence of such an individual as yet to emerge. From JBJ to Tang LH to CSJ, their actions have been limited.

Which brings me back to my original point:

Any media student should be able to tell you that paper was actually discovered long before

Gutenberg (by the Chinese, no less), however what catalyzed the revolution were cultural factors, not technological ones.

The birth of the Renaissance was followed by the challenge to the authority of the Church (Roman Catholic) which resulted in the common folk wanting to read for themselves the Word of God (and not blindly follow church dogma).

It is my opinion that in SIngapore, points one to three are largely fulfilled. Mainstream media - if it continues to align itself with the pro-Government stance - would find itself increasingly being isolated and Stomped out of relevancy once the dynamics of power changes

Book Review: The Betrayal of the West

Just finished reading The Betrayal of the West by Jacques Ellul. Below is a book review I posted on Amazon (after discovering that no one had done so before).

Its almost 30 years since Ellul wrote Betrayal of the West, nevertheless some of his words remain prophetic - chiling to the core. Ellul's thesis is clear: The West and its ideals have been betrayed - ironically by the West itself. The price the West has to pay for progress is the betrayal of the values that brought the West progress.

Ellul writes at his passionate best in this book, as one senses his conviction and pain in articulating the decline of Western civilization. The book is essentially divided into three main categories.

In Chapter 1, Ellul starts of by articulating the various reasons the West has had a bad name over the past 200 years (slavery, colonialism etc...). Unlike postmoderns however, Ellul does not buy into the argument upon which many anti-Western advocates take, simply because those who oppose the West - rightly - are only able to do so because of the freedom that the West has originially conferred upon them.

2. In Chapter 2, Ellul enters into a magnificent discourse on the relevancy of the Left, and takes the argument into a never-seen before level with his stunning discussion of why those who are truly betrayed are those who have no means of articulating their sufferings. Terming them as the "truly poor", this group of people include the Tibetans, the Kurds and the Harki tribe in North Africa.

3. Finally Ellul concludes his treatise with his analysis of how the West has been betrayed. This takes place at three levels (and as usual, stamped with the mark of Ellul's originality): i) The Betrayal of Reason of History: The Utopist, the Geometer and the Technician, ii) The Betrayal of the Individual: The Executioner and iii) The Betrayal of Love and Freedom: The Grand Inquisitor...

In Ellul's words:

"Our speed is constantly increasing, and it does not matter whither we are
going. We are caught up in the madness and hybris of the dance of death: the
important thing is the dance, the saturnalia, the bacchanalia, the
lupercalia. We are no longer worried about what will emerge from it or
about the void to which it points...there is no goal, nothing transcendent, no
value to light the way; the movement is enough"

"Fragmentary theater and deciphered Moliere, poetry without words and music
that is sheer noise, destructured language, Lacan, Derrida, and all their
second-rate imitators who think that absolute incomprehensibility offers a way
out, when in fact we have shut the door on all possibilities and hopes, and have
sunk into a resignation that knows no future"

And my personal fav, which sort of sums up the tension of his arguments:

"The West has always claimed to be on the side of David against Goliath, and
it continues to make this claim. The difficulty is that the West is now a
Goliath, one of the might of the earth, yet it cannot but still judge itself
according to its old values"

The book is no longer in print (unless you are willing to part with good money to get it ordered). I obtained my copy from NUS library. However, a pdf version is available here. Theology Today has also reviewed this book.