Its been a 2-week slump. Glad its finally over. Things were rather overwhelming really, with the veritable mountain of law readings to do. And 2 project papers. And ... well the list goes on. The odd thing is people randomly telling me, "But you're Mike" and therefore "no problem one!", to which I must say, "I'm sorry, but that REALLY doesn't help." Being me doesn't actually reduce the amount of work.
But I have to thank God for single-handedly pulling me out of that funk. Best part of it? It was only 2 weeks, and I spent 1 of those ill. So not too bad. Enough time to put everything back in order. The even better part? I get a whole new set of lyrics (to which I can't attach a tune, since I still can't play any instrument to ANY degree of competency) to go with the shift in outlook (for those of you who are curious, its UPWARD). Great thing that God isn't against rock music (sorry conservative folk, you're still wrong), or I might never have stepped up my game (God isn't against rap music either. sorry again if you're conservative about these things. You still happen to be wrong. But its ok 'cos I didn't expect a change a heart over a full stop.)
So here's the new song (without a score 'cos, well, see above), partly inspired by listening to lots of Guns & Roses. Its called 'keys'.
Disclaimer: The first bit is copyright of Mr Bob Dylan, unless its been assigned to some other folk, then they 'own' it, assuming of course the assignment is valid and so on. If it doesn't seem familiar, I only have this to ask: where ya been the last 30 years? Hiding in a cave? If you have, you better have awesome kung fu to show for it or else ... man ... you really wasted all your time.
Right. Enough of my flippant sarcastic humour. On with the lyrics.
Knock knock, knockin' on heaven's door
Knock knock, knockin' on heaven's door
Knock knock, knockin' on heaven's door
Knock knock, knockin' on heaven's door
[abrupt break and some speech]
"Why are we knocking on heaven's door again?"
"Times are tough, man. Need a breakthrough. Damn it, I need a miracle!"
"Still, why are we knocking?"
"Door's closed."
"Got the keys, don't we?"
[music restarts]
[verse 1]
Though a thousand fall beside me
And ten thousand at my right hand
I rest in the arms of The Almighty
No it will not ... come near me
Through the waters and scorching fires
I cast my fears to the side
Your rod and staff, they comfort me
I will soar with eagles over seas
Yes, these keys I have received
In Messiah ... I believe ...
[chorus]
What I bind on Earth, will be bound in Heaven
What I loose on Earth, my Father sets free
No problem too great, nor need to small
No voice too weak, He will hear your call
No eye has seen, nor ear has heard
What the Lord has prepared, for His church
Above and beyond what man can conceive
The love of the Father will meet your need
[verse 2]
All it take is, a bit of faith
Tiny as a mustard seed
Place tomorrow in His hands
Trust in your Passover Lamb
Your Great High Priest upon the throne
Merciful and gracious, so be bold
Run to Him in times of need
Sweet relief, you will receive
A promise was made to us
And in God ... we trust ...
[chorus]
[bridge]
Oh I have the keys to heaven's gates
Yes His Kingdom ... is at hand
On this Rock I place my life
And having done all .... I'll stand
Yep. That took a while to write down and play with a little. But I'm quite happy with the raw version all the same.
Till next time, whenever,
mike.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Really hilarious lyrics ...
From a Guns 'N Roses Song .... Used to Love Her
Absolutely cracked me up ... WARNING! its kinda morbid though ...
I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I had to put her
Six feet under
And I can still hear her complain
I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I knew I'd miss her
So I had to keep her
She's buried right in my back yard.
... like a scene outta CSI
Absolutely cracked me up ... WARNING! its kinda morbid though ...
I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I had to put her
Six feet under
And I can still hear her complain
I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I knew I'd miss her
So I had to keep her
She's buried right in my back yard.
... like a scene outta CSI
Friday, August 01, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
On Myanmar, Weeks On
I refrained from writing about Myanmar's disaster situation too soon after Cyclone Nargis. This is not because I wanted to avoid causing more pain to the thousands of Burmese people who read my blog daily, since those Burmese people are a mere figment of my over-active imagination. No, my reticence was borne of a desire to see what Yangon would do, and how ASEAN would react. I held myself back even when the Secretary General of ASEAN gave an interview on ChannelNewsAsia, believing that something positive could come of all of this talk.
I am sorely disappointed.
There are many divergent philosophies to political legitimacy. Democracy advocates see legitmacy as flowing from the will of the people. In a nutshell, if the people choose you to lead, you are legitimately their ruler. This may surprise some people, but there are other schools of thought. Most significantly in Asia, is the concept of "the mandate of heaven".
Before someone decries this as no more than a label for arbitrary tyranny, the concept needs to be established in its full detail. Being a largely Asian concept, it is often misunderstood and misconstrued in Western media. The mandate of heaven is a derivation of the divine right to rule. However, it carries with it a heavy burden of caring for the populace. Failure to do so results in a revocation of that mandate.
The very idea of a mandate implies that it is given by another entity, and similarly can be withdrawn. In ancient China, the advent of multiple natural disasters was in itself considered a sign of the loss of mandate.
Why are we discussing sources of political legitimacy? Because without relying on a democratic philosophy as a framework, it can still be clearly shown that the military government has no legitimacy whatsoever. The writer is an admirer of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's labour for Myanmar, and is aware of the military coup that resulted in her unjustified imprisonment. Nonetheless, the military junta's lack of legitimacy is clearly established, even without reference to the coup.
Disavowing democratic philosophy for the moment, the military junta of Myanmar has no legitimacy because its actions directly increase the misery of the people. It has stymied international aid, failed to mobilise the army to provide support, and instead using it to drive refugees back to their 'homes'. The point is not that the junta has tried and failed to be a boon to the people. It is that the junta has deliberately acted in ways that are inevitably disastrous to its people.
The military junta is not the de jure government of Myanmar. This is not to say that some fictional democratic government most likely led by Ms Suu Kyi is the de jure government, as there could likely be no government at all at the present time.
So why does the international community, and ASEAN, continue to deal with the junta? As Chairman Mao once said, political power comes from the barrel of the gun, and the military junta has all the guns in Myanmar. In effect, it is the de facto government, and the international community needs to deal with it, but there is a limit to peaceful means.
It is estimated that millions of people are in danger of losing their lives from starvation and disease if humanitarian aid does not reach them soon. Many have already died. There is no ethnic cleansing. No apartheid, no Holocaust. But clearly, when the government through deliberate inaction and interference allows millions of its own citizens to die, it is genocide and there is good ground for direct military intervention.
There is a certain irony in this. This writer is proposing sending in military forces for the sole purpose of allowing humanitarian aid to flow into Myanmar. It is an emergency scenario, where delays literally cost lives. How many human lives are we willing to trade to give the junta's generals the time to consider how best to let aid in without relinquishing their grip on political power? This writer submits that one life is already one too many.
Will there be a Security Council veto if a proposal to intervene with force is raised? Perhaps. China may veto the motion. But this close to the Beijing Olympics, with memories of Sichuan and how well China acquitted itself in that disaster, perhaps not. And even if there is a veto, it could be time again for the General Assembly of the United Nations to Unite for Peace.
Mr George Yeo, Secretary General of ASEAN, noted that progress was slow because the junta was highly wary and skeptical of foreign aid. Translated, the junta is wary that they will lose political power. Unsurprising, given their abject lack of political legitimacy. Also, while the armed forces are capable of suppressing their own people, they are insufficient to resist any modern military force.
At the end of everything, here is the litmus test. How many more human lives are we willing to trade to assuage the junta's sensitivities, illegitimate as they are?
I am sorely disappointed.
There are many divergent philosophies to political legitimacy. Democracy advocates see legitmacy as flowing from the will of the people. In a nutshell, if the people choose you to lead, you are legitimately their ruler. This may surprise some people, but there are other schools of thought. Most significantly in Asia, is the concept of "the mandate of heaven".
Before someone decries this as no more than a label for arbitrary tyranny, the concept needs to be established in its full detail. Being a largely Asian concept, it is often misunderstood and misconstrued in Western media. The mandate of heaven is a derivation of the divine right to rule. However, it carries with it a heavy burden of caring for the populace. Failure to do so results in a revocation of that mandate.
The very idea of a mandate implies that it is given by another entity, and similarly can be withdrawn. In ancient China, the advent of multiple natural disasters was in itself considered a sign of the loss of mandate.
Why are we discussing sources of political legitimacy? Because without relying on a democratic philosophy as a framework, it can still be clearly shown that the military government has no legitimacy whatsoever. The writer is an admirer of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's labour for Myanmar, and is aware of the military coup that resulted in her unjustified imprisonment. Nonetheless, the military junta's lack of legitimacy is clearly established, even without reference to the coup.
Disavowing democratic philosophy for the moment, the military junta of Myanmar has no legitimacy because its actions directly increase the misery of the people. It has stymied international aid, failed to mobilise the army to provide support, and instead using it to drive refugees back to their 'homes'. The point is not that the junta has tried and failed to be a boon to the people. It is that the junta has deliberately acted in ways that are inevitably disastrous to its people.
The military junta is not the de jure government of Myanmar. This is not to say that some fictional democratic government most likely led by Ms Suu Kyi is the de jure government, as there could likely be no government at all at the present time.
So why does the international community, and ASEAN, continue to deal with the junta? As Chairman Mao once said, political power comes from the barrel of the gun, and the military junta has all the guns in Myanmar. In effect, it is the de facto government, and the international community needs to deal with it, but there is a limit to peaceful means.
It is estimated that millions of people are in danger of losing their lives from starvation and disease if humanitarian aid does not reach them soon. Many have already died. There is no ethnic cleansing. No apartheid, no Holocaust. But clearly, when the government through deliberate inaction and interference allows millions of its own citizens to die, it is genocide and there is good ground for direct military intervention.
There is a certain irony in this. This writer is proposing sending in military forces for the sole purpose of allowing humanitarian aid to flow into Myanmar. It is an emergency scenario, where delays literally cost lives. How many human lives are we willing to trade to give the junta's generals the time to consider how best to let aid in without relinquishing their grip on political power? This writer submits that one life is already one too many.
Will there be a Security Council veto if a proposal to intervene with force is raised? Perhaps. China may veto the motion. But this close to the Beijing Olympics, with memories of Sichuan and how well China acquitted itself in that disaster, perhaps not. And even if there is a veto, it could be time again for the General Assembly of the United Nations to Unite for Peace.
Mr George Yeo, Secretary General of ASEAN, noted that progress was slow because the junta was highly wary and skeptical of foreign aid. Translated, the junta is wary that they will lose political power. Unsurprising, given their abject lack of political legitimacy. Also, while the armed forces are capable of suppressing their own people, they are insufficient to resist any modern military force.
At the end of everything, here is the litmus test. How many more human lives are we willing to trade to assuage the junta's sensitivities, illegitimate as they are?
Monday, June 02, 2008
War? on Terror
No, the title is not mispunctuated. There has been much confusion and debate surrounding how to deal with the threat of Al-Qaeda and international organised terror, simply because terrorists escape easy classification within the current rules of war.
In most wars, the Geneva Conventions are readily applicable. The distinction between civilian and combatant is very clear. The person wearing a uniform and carrying a rifles is a soldier, and the person in jeans and a t-shirt is a civilian. During war, if you shoot the soldier, it is legal. If you shoot the civilian, its a war crime.
This brings us to the whole problem with terrorism. Is it a war or not? If it is, who are the combatants, and who are the innocent bystanders?
Nations engage in warfare for many reasons, but most people accept that warfare is justified in a defensive capacity - to protect the lives and livelihoods of its citizens. In the past, the threat would have come from another nation. Today, the main armed threat to most human lives is terrorism, which has no borders. Nonetheless, the threat to human lives is real, and governments owe a responsibility to their citizens to defend them from terrorists, even if it means shooting to kill. Thus, the defence against terrorism is rightly classified as a war.
There is an added problem when it comes to a war on terror. There are no uniforms to identify combatants, and strictly speaking, even in a conventional war, combatants are not limited to those who bear arms. Take for example a truck loaded with armed soldiers. Surely the armed soldiers are combatatns. How about the military driver who is uarmed? He plays a supporting role in the war. Surely he could be considered a combatant as well. At the very least, if the truck exploded under gunfire, it would be a stretch to consider the killing of the driver a war crime. So we understand that people within the organisation that fights the war who provide support for that war can be combatants as well, even if they do not carry arms. Where no combatant within that organisation weras uniforms, anyone providing them with support could be a part of its support structure, with no discernable way of distinguishing between "civilian" and "military" support without questioning at the very least (especially since the writer does not endorse torture).
Communications personnel are part of any military support structure. They connect various fighting units, provide intelligence and so on. They are in fact a vital part of any military organisation, and due to their role is disseminating information, they are key in implementing strategy.
Therefore, in this war on terror, enemy (terrorist) communications personnel, that is to say people who provide information to terorrists, help recruit terrorists, or relay information for terrorists, are rightly considered as enemy combatants and should only be afforded the limited rights granted by the Geneva Convention, which does not proscribe detention without trial.
The International Herald Tribute wrote about a Belgian woman who openly supports Al-Qaeda, does recrutiment for them and so on. She should be detained indefinitely as an enemy combatant.
Note: We should just be clear on this in Singapore, instead of invoking the controversial Internal Security Act.
In most wars, the Geneva Conventions are readily applicable. The distinction between civilian and combatant is very clear. The person wearing a uniform and carrying a rifles is a soldier, and the person in jeans and a t-shirt is a civilian. During war, if you shoot the soldier, it is legal. If you shoot the civilian, its a war crime.
This brings us to the whole problem with terrorism. Is it a war or not? If it is, who are the combatants, and who are the innocent bystanders?
Nations engage in warfare for many reasons, but most people accept that warfare is justified in a defensive capacity - to protect the lives and livelihoods of its citizens. In the past, the threat would have come from another nation. Today, the main armed threat to most human lives is terrorism, which has no borders. Nonetheless, the threat to human lives is real, and governments owe a responsibility to their citizens to defend them from terrorists, even if it means shooting to kill. Thus, the defence against terrorism is rightly classified as a war.
There is an added problem when it comes to a war on terror. There are no uniforms to identify combatants, and strictly speaking, even in a conventional war, combatants are not limited to those who bear arms. Take for example a truck loaded with armed soldiers. Surely the armed soldiers are combatatns. How about the military driver who is uarmed? He plays a supporting role in the war. Surely he could be considered a combatant as well. At the very least, if the truck exploded under gunfire, it would be a stretch to consider the killing of the driver a war crime. So we understand that people within the organisation that fights the war who provide support for that war can be combatants as well, even if they do not carry arms. Where no combatant within that organisation weras uniforms, anyone providing them with support could be a part of its support structure, with no discernable way of distinguishing between "civilian" and "military" support without questioning at the very least (especially since the writer does not endorse torture).
Communications personnel are part of any military support structure. They connect various fighting units, provide intelligence and so on. They are in fact a vital part of any military organisation, and due to their role is disseminating information, they are key in implementing strategy.
Therefore, in this war on terror, enemy (terrorist) communications personnel, that is to say people who provide information to terorrists, help recruit terrorists, or relay information for terrorists, are rightly considered as enemy combatants and should only be afforded the limited rights granted by the Geneva Convention, which does not proscribe detention without trial.
The International Herald Tribute wrote about a Belgian woman who openly supports Al-Qaeda, does recrutiment for them and so on. She should be detained indefinitely as an enemy combatant.
Note: We should just be clear on this in Singapore, instead of invoking the controversial Internal Security Act.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Inconsiderate?
There's something to be said about Singapore society. Often, it is criticised for being inconsiderate. After thinking about it, this may not actually be true.
Certainly, all the outward appearances of inconsiderate behaviour is there, for all to see. People pushing their way through crowded areas, the elderly having no seats on the bus, and so on. If one were to conclude from appearances alone that Singaporeans are an inconsiderate bunch, well, fair enough.
But I suspect that the conclusion is not entirely accurate. When you boil it down, inconsiderate people simply don't care about how other people feel, how their actions might adversely affect others. In a nutshell, selfishness. Yet, Singaporeans seem particularly selfless when responding to various emergencies, like earthquakes and tsunamis. Hence, I have this alternative theory to this seemingly inconsiderate behaviour.
Singaporeans simply lack situational awareness. They simply are unable to process what is going on around them. Perhaps they are particularly self-absorbed, but this is doubtful. Most claim that they were not thinking about anything, but simply did not notice the old lady standing. Sound like an excuse, but it is not entirely implausible. It actually makes sense if you account for the fundamental maxim to Singaporean society, as engineered by the State: just follow law.
Singaporeans are conditioned to follow instructions, so much so that when there are no instructions, they literally freeze. There truly is quite an amazing lack of initiative in society. Everything is directed from the top down. Suffice to say, Barack Obama would have great problems campaigning here.
The conditioning to simply follow instructions carries an implicit idea, that someone else is monitoring the situation and taking responsibility for the outcome. Since someone else is observing the situation and the average Singaporean is supposed to do is follow the instructions, and there is in fact a disincentive to disobedience, the easiest way out is really to omit observing the situation for oneself.
A lifetime of conditioning to not having to make any situational observations for oneself leads directly to having very low situation awareness, and thus apparent inconsiderate behaviour.
P.S. The boy's not lazy, he's just stupid. Can you catch the similarity?
Certainly, all the outward appearances of inconsiderate behaviour is there, for all to see. People pushing their way through crowded areas, the elderly having no seats on the bus, and so on. If one were to conclude from appearances alone that Singaporeans are an inconsiderate bunch, well, fair enough.
But I suspect that the conclusion is not entirely accurate. When you boil it down, inconsiderate people simply don't care about how other people feel, how their actions might adversely affect others. In a nutshell, selfishness. Yet, Singaporeans seem particularly selfless when responding to various emergencies, like earthquakes and tsunamis. Hence, I have this alternative theory to this seemingly inconsiderate behaviour.
Singaporeans simply lack situational awareness. They simply are unable to process what is going on around them. Perhaps they are particularly self-absorbed, but this is doubtful. Most claim that they were not thinking about anything, but simply did not notice the old lady standing. Sound like an excuse, but it is not entirely implausible. It actually makes sense if you account for the fundamental maxim to Singaporean society, as engineered by the State: just follow law.
Singaporeans are conditioned to follow instructions, so much so that when there are no instructions, they literally freeze. There truly is quite an amazing lack of initiative in society. Everything is directed from the top down. Suffice to say, Barack Obama would have great problems campaigning here.
The conditioning to simply follow instructions carries an implicit idea, that someone else is monitoring the situation and taking responsibility for the outcome. Since someone else is observing the situation and the average Singaporean is supposed to do is follow the instructions, and there is in fact a disincentive to disobedience, the easiest way out is really to omit observing the situation for oneself.
A lifetime of conditioning to not having to make any situational observations for oneself leads directly to having very low situation awareness, and thus apparent inconsiderate behaviour.
P.S. The boy's not lazy, he's just stupid. Can you catch the similarity?
Saturday, May 10, 2008
On Torture
It is perhaps a little late to be exploring this topic, it being the end of Bush Jr's presidency, and after so much ink has been spilt over Guantanamo Bay.
But there is something to be said about definitions of torture, and perhaps one argument above all others that would suggest that forcing humans to watch Barney for hours on end is torture as much as the coals and hot irons is torture.
So let us begin.
There are only 2 motivations for torture, sadism and extracting information. To achieve either goal, torture is used as an instrument to break resistance, to break the human spirit.
In medieval times, understanding of the human psyche was more crude, and more primal. The only perceived way to affect the human mind was through the human body. Coming from a culture spanning over 5 millenia, human creativity in finding ways to target the human mind via the body is bone-chilling.
For those of us who feel more squeamish about blood and gore, we instinctively condemn such methods as paper cuts and heated irons. Take away the obvious physical wounds, and the concept now seems more palatable.
Yet, we forget that the blood and gore was but a means to an end, to breaking human dignity.
Today, we have far more advanced methods, like sleep deprivation and water-boarding etc, that remove the 'blood and gore' element from our interrogation techniques. As such, while essentially pursuing the same goal of breaking a person's humanity, we can maintain a semblance of urbanity and civility while doing so.
While the end result is not apparent, it really is the same thing. Destroying a person's self-worth, stripping him of his humanity, just minus the blood and gore.
So let us not mistake psychological torture for anything other than what it is, nothing more than a more sophisticated and elegant way of doing what we used to do with heated irons and barbed whips.
But there is something to be said about definitions of torture, and perhaps one argument above all others that would suggest that forcing humans to watch Barney for hours on end is torture as much as the coals and hot irons is torture.
So let us begin.
There are only 2 motivations for torture, sadism and extracting information. To achieve either goal, torture is used as an instrument to break resistance, to break the human spirit.
In medieval times, understanding of the human psyche was more crude, and more primal. The only perceived way to affect the human mind was through the human body. Coming from a culture spanning over 5 millenia, human creativity in finding ways to target the human mind via the body is bone-chilling.
For those of us who feel more squeamish about blood and gore, we instinctively condemn such methods as paper cuts and heated irons. Take away the obvious physical wounds, and the concept now seems more palatable.
Yet, we forget that the blood and gore was but a means to an end, to breaking human dignity.
Today, we have far more advanced methods, like sleep deprivation and water-boarding etc, that remove the 'blood and gore' element from our interrogation techniques. As such, while essentially pursuing the same goal of breaking a person's humanity, we can maintain a semblance of urbanity and civility while doing so.
While the end result is not apparent, it really is the same thing. Destroying a person's self-worth, stripping him of his humanity, just minus the blood and gore.
So let us not mistake psychological torture for anything other than what it is, nothing more than a more sophisticated and elegant way of doing what we used to do with heated irons and barbed whips.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)