I refer to the article: "Photo of bag-carrying ambassador charms China"(http://sg.news.yahoo.com/photo-bag-carrying-ambassador-charms-china-184349082.html)
This article shows a photo of Gary Locke, the first Chinese-American ambassador to China, and a former governor of Washington state. The photo shows him paying for his own coffee. After this photo was posted on Sina-Weibo, it generated 40000 reposts and thousands of comments.
The huge response meant that it was something that we probably do not see often, if not at all. Officials, despite how low ranking they are, will still have a personal assistant to serve them coffee; therefore it was very surprising that the Chinese-American ambassador was buying his own drink.
Doing their own "dirty work" without the help of an assistant seems to portray a humble image in many leaders. If I imagined President Obama was in the White House, in his room, and was hungry and wanted to eat, what would I expect him to do? Would I expect him to drive alone to a hawker centre to eat? Of course not. Instead, I would expect him to pick up the phone on his desk and call for an assistant to get him some food. Such is our impression of leaders; they always have someone to help them get what they want, in which they can just sit around and wait for their orders to arrive. As such, Gary Locke buying his own drink resulted in such a large amount of response; it was something that people hardly see.
After this incident, I am sure Gary Locke's popularity will increase, as people enjoy having a leader, or a high ranking official that can empathize with them. For example, a while ago, there was a picture of then new Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew taking the public bus. People were impressed and started showing their support for Minister Lui Tuck Yew. They were happy with having a minister that could actually empathize with their daily lifestyle, such as taking bus.
However, I would like to say to leaders: Do not "do your own dirty work" just for the sake of your image. Do it only if you really want to. Many people have also said that Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew is just putting on an act to get the support of citizens. Whether or not it really is remains to be seen. Of course, I feel that leaders should do it only from the bottom of their heart; what comes from the bottom of one's heart reflect one's true character.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Pair jailed in inciting disorder in England
I refer to the article: "Two jailed for inciting disorder"(http://sg.news.yahoo.com/two-jailed-inciting-disorder-182231949.html):
Two men made use of facebook to incite disorder in England. The first man, Jordan Blackshaw, created a facebook event named "Smash Down Northwich Town", and the other man, Sutcliffe-Keenan, set up a facebook page titled "Let's have a riot in Latchford".
We can see in this example that the impact of social-networking sites are not to be underestimated. In social-networking sites, such as twitter, facebook and so on, people can connect with others. People can also, regardless of their age, meet up together and unite. If used for a noble cause it can be very beneficial, but when used in situations such as inciting disorder, the consequences would be dire.
One person alone is not enough to start a riot. It will have to take many people with the same ideas or ideologies to unite and come together in order to start a riot. Social-networking sites is one such place where they could unite. Perhaps there are individuals in various parts of the world with an ideology, who feel that there is a need to do a certain thing, but they feel they cannot do it because they are alone. However, after connecting with many other people all over the world through social-networking sites, they will realize and say:"Hey! I am not alone! There are so many people out there with the same thinking as me!" Then, these group of people, will now come together and discuss what they want to do. My guess is that this is one of the starting points of the whole of the England Riots.
The police are fearful of a mass gathering in real life as they know that riots and other forms of trouble could arise from there. However, they do not know that such a mass gathering need not take place in real life anymore: everyone has gone online nowadays.
Once again, I reiterate my stand that social-networking sites are a very powerful tool in connecting people. When put to good use, it can be beneficial, but when used improperly, will result in disasters.
Two men made use of facebook to incite disorder in England. The first man, Jordan Blackshaw, created a facebook event named "Smash Down Northwich Town", and the other man, Sutcliffe-Keenan, set up a facebook page titled "Let's have a riot in Latchford".
We can see in this example that the impact of social-networking sites are not to be underestimated. In social-networking sites, such as twitter, facebook and so on, people can connect with others. People can also, regardless of their age, meet up together and unite. If used for a noble cause it can be very beneficial, but when used in situations such as inciting disorder, the consequences would be dire.
One person alone is not enough to start a riot. It will have to take many people with the same ideas or ideologies to unite and come together in order to start a riot. Social-networking sites is one such place where they could unite. Perhaps there are individuals in various parts of the world with an ideology, who feel that there is a need to do a certain thing, but they feel they cannot do it because they are alone. However, after connecting with many other people all over the world through social-networking sites, they will realize and say:"Hey! I am not alone! There are so many people out there with the same thinking as me!" Then, these group of people, will now come together and discuss what they want to do. My guess is that this is one of the starting points of the whole of the England Riots.
The police are fearful of a mass gathering in real life as they know that riots and other forms of trouble could arise from there. However, they do not know that such a mass gathering need not take place in real life anymore: everyone has gone online nowadays.
Once again, I reiterate my stand that social-networking sites are a very powerful tool in connecting people. When put to good use, it can be beneficial, but when used improperly, will result in disasters.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Vandalism
I refer to the article "SMRT Bishan depot breached, train vandalized"
( http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/vandals-breach-bishan-depot-smrt-train-vandalised-155409194.html )
On Wednesday morning, a northbound MRT train was found vandalized; graffiti was discovered on the train, and it was immediately pulled out of service. Checks later revealed a breach in the fence of the depot where the train was parked. This is the second time in two years which a train has been vandalized.
However, I do not understand the aims of these people vandalizing MRT trains. What do they do this for? Are they doing this out of mischief, because they thought it was fun, or are they just trying to impress their friends that they are capable of such things?
To all vandals: are you sure you want to do this? The punishment enforced by the Singapore Government is large: a jail term of 3 years, or a fine of $2000 and between 3 and 8 strokes of the cane. Let me just tell you: it hurts. There are many criminals, after getting caught for various crimes, who say: "Give me as long in jail as you want, just spare me the cane." They know it is extremely painful, such that it is even to the extent of torture. So, would you risk getting into such pain, just for the sake of impressing your friends, or just for a moment of fun?
Of course, I feel that SMRT should step up its security, and prevent such a thing from happening again. Such things causes inconvenience to passengers going to and fro about Singapore. Many of us depend on MRT trains to travel about. Every MRT train can hold about 1000 people at the maximum, thus every train is important.
Generally, I urge all vandals: think of the consequences before you act. I also urge SMRT: prevention is better than cure.
( http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/vandals-breach-bishan-depot-smrt-train-vandalised-155409194.html )
On Wednesday morning, a northbound MRT train was found vandalized; graffiti was discovered on the train, and it was immediately pulled out of service. Checks later revealed a breach in the fence of the depot where the train was parked. This is the second time in two years which a train has been vandalized.
However, I do not understand the aims of these people vandalizing MRT trains. What do they do this for? Are they doing this out of mischief, because they thought it was fun, or are they just trying to impress their friends that they are capable of such things?
To all vandals: are you sure you want to do this? The punishment enforced by the Singapore Government is large: a jail term of 3 years, or a fine of $2000 and between 3 and 8 strokes of the cane. Let me just tell you: it hurts. There are many criminals, after getting caught for various crimes, who say: "Give me as long in jail as you want, just spare me the cane." They know it is extremely painful, such that it is even to the extent of torture. So, would you risk getting into such pain, just for the sake of impressing your friends, or just for a moment of fun?
Of course, I feel that SMRT should step up its security, and prevent such a thing from happening again. Such things causes inconvenience to passengers going to and fro about Singapore. Many of us depend on MRT trains to travel about. Every MRT train can hold about 1000 people at the maximum, thus every train is important.
Generally, I urge all vandals: think of the consequences before you act. I also urge SMRT: prevention is better than cure.
Male Celebrities crossdressing at NDP
As we all know, National Day Parade (NDP) 2011 comprised of a skit, in which we see Gurmit Singh and Chua En Lai crossdressing to act as females in the skit. This has attracted a lot of comments from Singaporeans.
I feel that, male Singaporean actors acting as females in NDP, is extremely unacceptable. This is an event that is being viewed not just by Singaporeans, but by people all over the world. When they see and find out that the so called "female" actors on stage are actually male, what will they think of Singapore? Will they think of Singapore as a "gay country"?
NDP is a time to show off the might of the country, to show everyone what we can achieve and have achieve. The skit is also meant to characterize the typical Singaporean, thus adding fun to the NDP. However, I am sure a large part of Singaporeans would not like to be characterized by 2 "homosexual" actors on NDP! I feel that this decision to cast Gurmit Singh and Chua En Lai as female actors on the NDP stage significantly damaged the National Day Mood that day.
Of course, many people may think that this demonstrates Singapore's liberal attitude towards homosexuality. However, I ask you; is there any country whose statue, representation or avatar demonstrates homosexuality? I think not. Even countries that openly support homosexuality would not display it very outwardly towards other countries. Nothing wrong with homosexuality, but in this case, when this show is screened to all Singaporeans, it seems like an advertisement to become homosexual even.
I feel that NDP 2011 could have been better. NDP this time displayed poor taste on the organizers part. I hope they ask for the public's opinions on what would be a good NDP before they organize it.
I feel that, male Singaporean actors acting as females in NDP, is extremely unacceptable. This is an event that is being viewed not just by Singaporeans, but by people all over the world. When they see and find out that the so called "female" actors on stage are actually male, what will they think of Singapore? Will they think of Singapore as a "gay country"?
NDP is a time to show off the might of the country, to show everyone what we can achieve and have achieve. The skit is also meant to characterize the typical Singaporean, thus adding fun to the NDP. However, I am sure a large part of Singaporeans would not like to be characterized by 2 "homosexual" actors on NDP! I feel that this decision to cast Gurmit Singh and Chua En Lai as female actors on the NDP stage significantly damaged the National Day Mood that day.
Of course, many people may think that this demonstrates Singapore's liberal attitude towards homosexuality. However, I ask you; is there any country whose statue, representation or avatar demonstrates homosexuality? I think not. Even countries that openly support homosexuality would not display it very outwardly towards other countries. Nothing wrong with homosexuality, but in this case, when this show is screened to all Singaporeans, it seems like an advertisement to become homosexual even.
I feel that NDP 2011 could have been better. NDP this time displayed poor taste on the organizers part. I hope they ask for the public's opinions on what would be a good NDP before they organize it.
Who really won?
Osama Bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2011, when US Navy SEALS stormed the compound he was living in and killed him in a gunfight. This was a significant victory; everyone came out of their homes to celebrate his death.
However, recently there was an article ( http://news.yahoo.com/10-years-9-11-did-bin-laden-america-013813783.html ). 10 years after the horrible 9/11 attacks, who actually won: America or Osama Bin Laden?
Most people feel that America lost. Some reasons why include the problematic Iraq War, homeland security, and other issues. And yes, there is substantial evidence that bin Laden got what he wanted. After the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden predicted that America would be involved in a war that would result in financial problems, a loss of credibility and loss of individual rights. And yes, these problems are already starting to show. Some people even interpret it in this way: bin Laden wanted to destroy America, yes, but he knew he could not do it himself, or even with Al- Qaeda. 9/11 was the pave the way for America's self destruction.
However, I have my own opinion about this matter. America is fighting a war, in this case, with terrorists. And, we know this famous quote: "No one wins a war." Yes, there can never be gain in a war. What is the most precious thing in all of the universe? A human life. None of the riches in the world can replace a human life. No matter how much gains a country can make from fighting a war, the end result is always casualties and loss of lives. Perhaps terrorists groups feel they have won because they treasure the aim of their mission more than others, and it does not matter to them that they lost a brother or a close friend in the course of this mission. However, I maintain my stand that a life is the most precious thing in the world, nothing else can compensate for it.
So, my conclusion once again: nobody won, neither the terrorists nor America.
So, my conclusion once again: nobody won, neither the terrorists nor America.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The History of China and its impacts in a nutshell
As of late, China has been coming up with all sorts of moral issues; firstly the baby milk powder case, where melamine was included in the milk powder, resulting in the deaths of many babies from kidney stones. A while later, we hear of the case of a boy selling his kidney to buy an iPad 2. It has been said that his health is deteriorating day by day. Most recently, we have a case of a woman in China trying to sell her virginity for an iPhone 4. Of course, we have the human rights cases that have been going on in China from the start; examples include the Falun Gong series.
Another side point:
As to why so many immoral issues spring up from China, I have a few speculations. Though they may be slightly far fetched, it is still a plausible reason to China's present predicament. I would like to share them with you today.
As we all know, China has a long history of almost 5000 years. At a point in China's history, we had the Tang Dynasty, which was considered to be a high point in China Civilization, a golden age of cosmopolitan culture, territory, and population. It surpassed all other dynasties, even the famous Han Dynasty. The moral values of the Chinese were at its greatest in that time. Many famous and great Chinese Emperors also came from that point.
The fall of the Tang Dynasty came in AD 907. From here, we now fast forward to the first time China was conquered and ruled by a foreign power. In AD 1271, the Mongolians, led by leader Kublai Khan, conquered and ruled China in the Yuan Dynasty. Somewhere along the Yuan Dynasty, the people in China (still mainly the traditional Chinese) were forced to transit from Confucian high culture to Mongolian imperial establishment. In other words, they were forced to give up their moral values, to end their beliefs on Confucius values and take after the Mongols. All those that refused were killed, and many refused. They were all killed. This was the first step in China losing its moral values.
Since the end of Yuan Dynasty till before present day China, it has been attacked many times by foreign powers, often losing, and having to give pieces of land away. This was especially the case after the Opium Wars. As such, China has been seen as weak. China is seen as a country that is easy to bully. As such, they are literally bullied mercilessly. Bit by bit, the culture of China has eroded.
It would be alright if the citizens of China were just the same as any other countries' citizens. However, that is not the case because:
It would be alright if the citizens of China were just the same as any other countries' citizens. However, that is not the case because:
Imagine China as a person. A person that is mercilessly bullied. The after effects of bullying are not to be underestimated. They will have low self esteem. This person who is bullied so horribly will have problems later on in life.
Take that and apply it to China now. I am not surprised, after suffering so much since the start of the Yuan Dynasty, that so many moral issues occur.
Another side point:
As we know, Japan is considered one of the best societies in the world now; their culture, philosophy and tradition are very well recognized in the world, and many countries aim to emulate this. For example, a scandal in any country is seen as something small, but to the Japanese, it could mean the whole world. Many of the people involved in scandals would step down and resign.
While researching, I discovered another interesting fact. Japan and its allies attacked China in AD 663, during the time of the Tang Dynasty. However, they fought and lost to Japan, resulting in a total failure. Following that, Japan underwent a widespread reform, to adopt the Tang Dynasty political structure, bureaucracy, culture, religion and philosophy. All these were adopted during the period of the Tang Dynasty, which was the high point of Chinese Civilization. All these cultures have not changed for over 13 centuries; the Japanese have never been forced to give up their methods of civilization.
In other words, the culture that Japan has today is a proportionate representation of the civilization in the Tang Dynasty. As such, Japan is seen as one of the best societies in the world.
Looking back, it seems that both China and Japan had the same high point - the civilization of the Tang Dynasty. Japan managed to maintain it. However, China was ravaged by war, and conquered at many points to the extent that it lost most of the original Tang philosophies and cultures. We can see the significant difference between China and Japan today.
The past will affect the present. However, no matter how much one tries to change the past, one cannot. It seems like the problems going on in China will continue to last for quite a long while.
England Riots
The start of the England Riots came in response to mainly the death of Mike Duggan, who was killed by police. In addition to that, the rioters were rioting about the economic crisis, resulting in poverty and unemployment. The initially peaceful protest soon turned into a violent riot, with much destruction throughout Britain.
I feel the actions of these violent rioters are the cause of what we term "ethical egoism". These rioters burned and looted shops and houses. They were doing it out of spite, out of anger, just to appease themselves. The actions of these rioters would ultimately result in a even greater economic crisis.
Let us take the death of Mike Duggan as an example: the rioters seek justice for this man, who is believed by many to be wrongfully killed. There are many conflicting views in this case; perhaps we will never know what actually went on that day he was killed, but let us assume Mike Duggan was really wronged in this case:
You seek justice for Mike Duggan, but when you get the justice you want through such means, how will you provide justice to those injured or killed in the riot? Apologies if this is rude, but I would really like to say this: Would you risk the lives of many just to save one life? Of course not! Then why can't you do it in this case; instead that in this case the one life is replaced by justice?
I would like to say this to the rioters of England: Why are you doing this? Why are you rioting as such when you know that it will produce nothing good but even more trouble? Many of you are just creating more problems when solving a problem, and probably you do not even realize it yourself. I hope that you reflect on yourselves: remember your aim in mind. Do not let your heart rule your head.
Truly, I am sure many of the youths in England do not even know how the riot was started, or maybe even the aim of the riot. They are just joining the riot because it is fun, or because many of their friends are. This we call "sheep thinking".
I feel the actions of these violent rioters are the cause of what we term "ethical egoism". These rioters burned and looted shops and houses. They were doing it out of spite, out of anger, just to appease themselves. The actions of these rioters would ultimately result in a even greater economic crisis.
Let us take the death of Mike Duggan as an example: the rioters seek justice for this man, who is believed by many to be wrongfully killed. There are many conflicting views in this case; perhaps we will never know what actually went on that day he was killed, but let us assume Mike Duggan was really wronged in this case:
You seek justice for Mike Duggan, but when you get the justice you want through such means, how will you provide justice to those injured or killed in the riot? Apologies if this is rude, but I would really like to say this: Would you risk the lives of many just to save one life? Of course not! Then why can't you do it in this case; instead that in this case the one life is replaced by justice?
I would like to say this to the rioters of England: Why are you doing this? Why are you rioting as such when you know that it will produce nothing good but even more trouble? Many of you are just creating more problems when solving a problem, and probably you do not even realize it yourself. I hope that you reflect on yourselves: remember your aim in mind. Do not let your heart rule your head.
Truly, I am sure many of the youths in England do not even know how the riot was started, or maybe even the aim of the riot. They are just joining the riot because it is fun, or because many of their friends are. This we call "sheep thinking".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)