Saturday, October 20, 2007
imagine,

to be one with sin and indulgence,

the world your palace of desire,

the elixir to all your deepest cardinal wants.

a world where nothing is unabiding...

and you cast away your clinging conscience because,

you are indebted to no earthly or heavenly creatures.

your pleasurable experiences are not averse to boundaries and conditions,

but limited only to your imagination...

the invisble man, a boyhood fantasy?

the most exalted awe inspiring status you envisage,

bequeathed upon you,

luxury, fortune, and ample abundance of wealth..

all you dreams materialising.

the liberty to indulge in the most raptuous sex,

intercourse with multiple partners in the most delectable of settings,

all who seek to fulfill your deepest fantasies,

and succumb to your dominion,

confounding your senses and bewildering the corners of your mind with the most penetrating pleasures.

society at the feet of the world you call for your private amusement

no one would blame you because all deeds in time are reversible,

propriety and reason eclipsed and relegated in this sequested domain,

guilt will abscound you to open the floodgates to paradise.

and you could wish it all away when disenchantment has glutted you.

would you fear and refuse it, perceive the offer to be diabolically dark,

or would you renounce god and ties,

for a taste of what this might be if only for a fleeting moment?






if so are we innately good?

"Philosophy teaches us to feel uncertain about the things that seem so self evident"



period



YS
by ~me~ at 2:13 AM ©

---

Tuesday, October 09, 2007
'Strindent calls to bring down the regime showed a lack of understanding of the problem. It cannot be assumed that, out of the ashes, a new resplendent Myanmar will automatically rise. That the old way persisted in by the military governement since 1988 cannot work is clear. But the way forward is not so clear.'
-George Yeo, Singapore's Foreign Minister

hear hear ! i found this in the review section in Straits Times today. It really brought to my attention the complexity of the stand-off between the militarised govenment and the people. It also very briefly outlined why we should not act rashly just because of our judgemental values. Myanmar cannot do without the strong arm of the military. The entire structure of the state is held together because of its resolute military stance. In order to facilitate a peaceful and smooth transition, there must be a reconciliation between the military and the civilians. If not, the occurence of another Iraq may be possible.

But i like the start of the above mentioned para. For most to keep calling for strindent action taken against Myanmese government would be detrimental to the state's health since it's so precarious already. Yes, the Junta are opressive rulers but they are also key to the survival of the state because of the different disillusioned and disgruntled ethnic minorities in Myanmar. It should be something that is solved diplomatically, not dramatically.

Taking a look around the intenet and in the newspapers. I see the outrageous comments from many in the international community. Outraged at the Junta, outraged at the international watchdogs, outraged at even their own governments. Again, i question - Are you so sure that what you have is that best solution to the problems ? or better yet, do you even have a plausible solution ? Before we get so disillusioned with the UN, ASEAN and etc. have we understood the problem in Myanmar and weighed all the possible repurcussions of any reaction ? We are probably not the best of people to criticise the instituitions because we have never been in their shoes before. They may have been creations based on global ideals, but even ideals can be halted in front of obstacles.

Saying that, it is not that we have no rights to voice our opinions. We should vocalise our disapproval of certain issues pertaining to human rights etc. but when we do so, we must simultaneously check ourselves that we do not get too emotional and lose our objectivity. If we lose our objectivity, our voices becomes dull and we lose credibility. And then we become a nuisance, something which we never thought we'd become.

'We want Democracy'. Is it something we can decide for them ? Is it something they can handle based on their level of mental maturity ? Democracy is theorectically good. It provides the sense of peace and security, enables the people to start enforcing changes that will benefit the majority. Is that true ? Who is clamoring for Democracy ? The ordinary people, but is it by their own volition ? Aung Sun Suu Kyi and the political monks are the two most featured characters behind all the protests and idealism. Thus far, we have not even established the legitimacy of their ideal of a democratic government. It may not be truly what the majority wants but what they blindly rally behind because they may not understand the underlying politics. So how are we going to justify any means of intervenation ?

Provision of support directly in any channel could be seen as imposing our will upon the state and infinging on their sovereignity. How best then can we stick our hand into this beehive ? We speak of Democracy, but is political or military intervenvation morally right ? Democracy by itself is an ideal, but to enforce Democracy on another state (even if it's because we sincerely want to help) can be a form of imperialism. It is irony.

There are so many political, economical, social and moral backlash if we were to consider serious action against the Myanmese government. In what position are we to have considered all the possible options, reasons and ramifications to decide on any form of reaction ? However, we cannot forever remain hesitant about our views. From whatever limited knowledge we garner, we should still be vocal and if we truly believe in ourselves, then be persistent. The important thing we should take note is to always be objective and keep an open mind.

alson
by ~me~ at 12:04 PM ©

---

Monday, October 08, 2007
haha. i fianlly picked up a copy of the Straits Times after like months, ok , my father picked it up for me but i read it. sigh, there's so many issues in the world that are unresolved and more crops up or reveals itself almost everyday. but allow me to draw your attention to what a small group of youths think about crisises such as the Myanmar 'incident'.

'the people of Myanmar are a sincere group, grimly optimistic even as they struggle to work and survive in a tightly strained society. as the military tightens its iron grip on the monks and civilians, i am appalled by the way the global community is reacting.'
-danielle hong, 20

and pit this against

'to help the Myanmar people, we have to go beyond our superficial viewpoint of their country and fully understand their cultural perspective and grouses of all parties involved.'
-tabitha mok, 21

both are taken from 'youthlink', a forum in Straits Times for youths to voice their opinions. which of the above arguments would you agree with ? moral debates have never cease and probably would never since the start of human self-actualisation. my favourite topic of discussion always revolve the question of whether we are 'moral' enough to do this or comment on that. haha. i agree with tabitha. before we act on anything, we must make sure firstly that we are not acting on impuslse, it cannot be a reaction. if we react, we only direct our attention and foucs to the immediate source of concern and not the overall picture.

what we do when we react is that we are only satisfying our own worries. we are not doing the people in myanmar a favour. what we do is only to assuage our own guilty conscience. i am quite sure that instituitions like United Nations have thought of what we thought and consider the possible actions and ramifications even more thoroughly than any of us. but i believe they are hindered because of the obstacles most big organisations will face. it's all the political agendas and etc. it's a natural phenomenom, you cant stop it growing in such orgianisations.

lets say if we tighten sanctions. who would suffer ? the despotic government or the ordinary citizens ? yes. we can try and starve the place. we can tear their economy apart. there's so much the global community can do. but to what benefit of the people ? how many more must starve or die before the myanmar government finally feels the pinch ? for how long can we isolate them before it is deemed enough ?

on the extreme, what say we invade ? what if we pressure the government using military intervenation ? again, are we willing to risk the lives of our own people to help others ? imagine if your brother or father has to go into the battlefield in a war of 'liberation'. for instances like the war in iraq, what has singapore done ? we send supplies, we send our military in. but to do what ? support and security. yes, the element of danger is present, but have we sent our own guys to the front line ? how are we to argue in favour of such actions when we are helpless to provide the essentials.

so what are we to do ? are we going to sit back and let it become another piece of news. and carry on with the degeneration of our generation ? (bad pun =P) people always mention about wake up calls. like 'i also hope that internet activism in myanmar and the outpouring of support from all over the world will serve as a wake-up call to all governments who abuse their power' (i hope i am not misunderstanding his insinuation. haha.) the time for calling for governments to wake up their idea is past. governments are always awake, just that maybe their policies and what the people accept may not be aligned. i dont have any proposals or bright ideas, but i feel that i order for the people to pique the attention of the governments or global watchdogs, we must have something plausible to present in order to be taken seriously. if not, we'll just be taken as angsty, reactionary teens. or adults, for some. haha.

alson
by ~me~ at 11:20 AM ©

---

Monday, October 01, 2007
i will admit that i'm not a person who's like damn studious and likes to read everyday and thus keep in constant touch with the global situation. i only knew about the myanmar crisis like today. haha. but did a little reading into the situation because i felt guilty about not knowing what the hell was happenning.
it really opened up a lot of new things and perspectives which i never really bothered about these 2 years.

"It had never occurred to me before that Ghandi's political activity and the exit of the British from India might not be causatively related - we just assume that they are."
John Francis, Lauderdale, Tasmania

like it can even link to such issues which happened decades before. history never dies huh. i would think that alot of singaporeans are really ignorant of what goes on in the world. i take example from my immediate surroundings, which is my camp. if i put it into statistics, like 40% of the people in my camp doesnt know and care about the situation in myanmar and probably another 40% who wont treat this seriously.

'your best bet would be to ask the leadership of the United States and Britain to do another one of those "Invasions for Democracy" that they seem to specialise in. This time, because there is no oil in Myanmar, (did the name change escape your attention?), they may even have some credibility.'
annonymous

right. i see that there are still some people that are really disillusioned and skeptical about american policies. this brings about matters which i just want to bring up briefly. first is the idea of a government exploiting another state for its own selfish purposes. it is wrong ? i must agree with many others that it is. but if we take a look at america's ever burgeoning trade deficit and etc. would you fault them for making use of the situation for their own good ? if you had the power, would you be tempted to use your power for the good of your people, while of course, at the expense of others ? another point is that, how much of experience and knowledge would we have of the government ? of course we wont agree with certain issues, and certain consequences these issues created but are we in a position to argue with the guys in charge ? we are. but with that said, we do act in a advisory position that we are an indicator of what the government should do. ultimately, the choice should reside with the government because they have access to more knowledge than we do. they see in more perspective than we can. i must add that, this is the ideal situation of which the government works - that it takes into account different needs of the state and act after careful consideration.

its the same situation that happens again and again. like in the case of zimbabwe, darfur and etc. i read this line in an article online but cant find the source already, it said something about the sympathy and attention span of the world, generally. it uses a caravan as a metarphor for the above mentioned, because it travels and never stops at one point for long. so like now we're so focused on myanmar just like how aware we were of iraq some time ago, but it'll die and move on to another crisis happening on the globe. i'm not going to criticise this, but i'm just questioning the modern human mentality. i think we find comfort in critisizing certain unacceptable situation. and in doing so, we have done our job and can carry on with our daily lives ridden of guilt and responsiblity. we expect governmental and global bodies to take up the responsibilty and show results which match our expectations because by virtue they were charged with the power to enable changes. i feel this way la, dont know whether you will agree with me. haha.

alson
by ~me~ at 6:02 PM ©

---