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 ©

---