The fever swirling around GE has begun to die down, but here I am getting all riled up.
the following equation is from a man who graduated with a first-class honours degree in economics (incidently, he also possesses an M.A. in development economics):
Unhappiness + Others who are happier = Net Happiness
a formula coined by sm goh chok tong in response to concerns raised by singaporeans with regards to the (over)heated property market and the policies of hdb.
in sm goh's words:
"for those who missed out, who can't buy this, can't upgrade and so on, they are really feeling the unhappiness. question is, was the policy good? unhappiness plus those who are happier, in total there's net happiness. there's no such thing called total happiness. i mean, don't believe in it. it's whether we can create net happiness in all of this."
for the old man's sake i really hope what he meant to say was that the government cant please everyone with their policies.
but to the untrained ear, it really sounded as if our ex-PM was telling us to build our happiness on the misfortunes of our fellow citizens, to wise up and not expect to have everything that we want. that we can only be marginally happy at best.
sm goh's remarks naturally resonated with many singaporeans, some of whom were so inspired that they proceeded to make a song out of his words:
funny but i never learnt about the economics of net happiness in school before leh.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Sunday, June 06, 2010
The Future of Futenma
An extremely robust argument that echoes my sentiments on the issue of the Futenma relocation. Copyright laws or no, this article deserves to be reproduced in its full glory.
-----------------------------------------
Futenma is undermining Japanese democracy
By DEBITO ARUDOU, The Japan Times
Times are tough for the Hatoyama Cabinet. It's had to backtrack on several campaign promises. Its approval ratings have plummeted to around 20 percent. And that old bone of contention — what to do about American military bases on Japanese soil — has resurfaced again.
The Okinawa Futenma base relocation issue is complicated, and Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has devoted too much time to a battle he simply cannot win. If the American troops stay as is, Okinawan protests will continue and rifts within the Cabinet will grow. If the troops are moved within Japan, excessive media attention will follow and generate more anti-Hatoyama and anti-American sentiment. If the troops leave Japan entirely, people will grumble about losing American money.
So let's ask the essential question: Why are U.S. bases still in Japan?
One reason is inertia. America invaded Okinawa in 1945, and the bases essentially remain as spoils of war. Even after Okinawa's return to Japan in 1972, one-sixth of Okinawa is technically still occupied, hosting 75 percent of America's military presence in Japan. We also have the knock-on effects of Okinawan dependency on the bases (I consider it a form of "economic alcoholism"), and generations of American entrenchment lending legitimacy to the status quo.
Another reason is Cold War ideology. We hear arguments about an unsinkable aircraft carrier (as if Okinawa is someplace kept shipshape for American use), a bulwark against a pugilistic North Korea or a rising China (as if the DPRK has the means or China has the interest to invade, especially given other U.S. installations in, say, South Korea or Guam). But under Cold War logic including "deterrence" and "mutually assured destruction," the wolf is always at the door; woe betide anyone who lets their guard down and jeopardizes regional security.
Then there's the American military's impressive job of preying on that insecurity. According to scholar Chalmers Johnson, as of 2005 there were 737 American military bases outside the U.S. (an actual increase since the Cold War ended) and 2.5 million U.S. military personnel serving worldwide. What happened to the "peace dividend" promised two decades ago after the fall of the Berlin Wall? Part of it sunk into places like Okinawa.
But one more reason demonstrates an underlying arrogance within the American government: "keeping the genie in the bottle" — the argument that Japan also needs to be deterred, from remilitarizing. The U.S. military's attitude seems to be that they are here as a favor to us.
Some favor. As history shows, once the Americans set up a base abroad, they don't leave. They generally have to lose a war (as in Vietnam), have no choice (as in the eruption of Pinatubo in the Philippines), or be booted out by a dictator (as in Uzbekistan). Arguments about regional balances of power are wool over the eyes. Never mind issues of national sovereignty — the demands of American empire require that military power be stationed abroad. Lump it, locals.
But in this case there's a new complication: The Futenma issue is weakening Japan's government.
Hatoyama has missed several deadlines for a resolution (while the American military has stalled negotiations for years without reprisal), enabling detractors to portray him as indecisive. He's had to visit Okinawa multiple times to listen to locals and explain. Meanwhile, the opposition Liberal Democratic Party claims Hatoyama is reneging on a promise (which is spoon-bitingly hypocritical, given the five decades the LDP completely ignored Okinawa, and the fact that Hatoyama has basically accepted an accord concluded by the LDP themselves in 2006). And now, with Mizuho Fukushima's resignation from the Cabinet, the coalition government is in jeopardy.
Futenma is taking valuable time away from other policies that concern Japan, such as corruption and unaccountability, growing domestic economic inequality, crippling public debts, and our future in the world as an aging society.
As the momentum ebbs from his administration, Hatoyama is in a no-win situation. But remember who put him there. If America really is the world's leading promoter of democracy, it should consider how it is undermining Japan's political development. After nearly 60 years of corrupt one-party rule, Japan finally has a fledgling two-party system. Yet that is withering on the vine thanks to American geopolitical manipulation.
We keep hearing how Japan's noncooperation will weaken precious U.S.-Japan ties. But those ties have long been a leash — one the U.S., aware of how susceptible risk-averse Japan is to "separation anxiety," yanks at whim. The "threatened bilateral relationship" claim is disingenuous — the U.S. is more concerned with bolstering its military-industrial complex than with Asia's regional stability.
In sum, it's less a matter of Japan wanting the U.S. bases to stay, more a matter of the U.S. bases not wanting to leave. Japan is a sovereign country, so the Japanese government has the final say. If that means U.S. forces relocating or even leaving completely, the U.S. should respectfully do so without complaint, not demand Japan find someplace else for them to go. That is not Japan's job.
Yet our politicians have worked hard for decades to represent the U.S. government's interests to the Japanese public. Why? Because they always have.
The time has come to stop being prisoners of history. World War II and the Cold War are long over.
That's why this columnist says: Never mind Futenma. All U.S. bases should be withdrawn from Japanese soil, period. Anachronisms, the bases have not only created conflicts of interest and interfered with Japan's sovereignty, they are now incapacitating our government. Japan should slip the collar of U.S. encampments and consider a future under a less dependent, more equal relationship with the U.S.
-----------------------------------------
Futenma is undermining Japanese democracy
By DEBITO ARUDOU, The Japan Times
Times are tough for the Hatoyama Cabinet. It's had to backtrack on several campaign promises. Its approval ratings have plummeted to around 20 percent. And that old bone of contention — what to do about American military bases on Japanese soil — has resurfaced again.
The Okinawa Futenma base relocation issue is complicated, and Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has devoted too much time to a battle he simply cannot win. If the American troops stay as is, Okinawan protests will continue and rifts within the Cabinet will grow. If the troops are moved within Japan, excessive media attention will follow and generate more anti-Hatoyama and anti-American sentiment. If the troops leave Japan entirely, people will grumble about losing American money.
So let's ask the essential question: Why are U.S. bases still in Japan?
One reason is inertia. America invaded Okinawa in 1945, and the bases essentially remain as spoils of war. Even after Okinawa's return to Japan in 1972, one-sixth of Okinawa is technically still occupied, hosting 75 percent of America's military presence in Japan. We also have the knock-on effects of Okinawan dependency on the bases (I consider it a form of "economic alcoholism"), and generations of American entrenchment lending legitimacy to the status quo.
Another reason is Cold War ideology. We hear arguments about an unsinkable aircraft carrier (as if Okinawa is someplace kept shipshape for American use), a bulwark against a pugilistic North Korea or a rising China (as if the DPRK has the means or China has the interest to invade, especially given other U.S. installations in, say, South Korea or Guam). But under Cold War logic including "deterrence" and "mutually assured destruction," the wolf is always at the door; woe betide anyone who lets their guard down and jeopardizes regional security.
Then there's the American military's impressive job of preying on that insecurity. According to scholar Chalmers Johnson, as of 2005 there were 737 American military bases outside the U.S. (an actual increase since the Cold War ended) and 2.5 million U.S. military personnel serving worldwide. What happened to the "peace dividend" promised two decades ago after the fall of the Berlin Wall? Part of it sunk into places like Okinawa.
But one more reason demonstrates an underlying arrogance within the American government: "keeping the genie in the bottle" — the argument that Japan also needs to be deterred, from remilitarizing. The U.S. military's attitude seems to be that they are here as a favor to us.
Some favor. As history shows, once the Americans set up a base abroad, they don't leave. They generally have to lose a war (as in Vietnam), have no choice (as in the eruption of Pinatubo in the Philippines), or be booted out by a dictator (as in Uzbekistan). Arguments about regional balances of power are wool over the eyes. Never mind issues of national sovereignty — the demands of American empire require that military power be stationed abroad. Lump it, locals.
But in this case there's a new complication: The Futenma issue is weakening Japan's government.
Hatoyama has missed several deadlines for a resolution (while the American military has stalled negotiations for years without reprisal), enabling detractors to portray him as indecisive. He's had to visit Okinawa multiple times to listen to locals and explain. Meanwhile, the opposition Liberal Democratic Party claims Hatoyama is reneging on a promise (which is spoon-bitingly hypocritical, given the five decades the LDP completely ignored Okinawa, and the fact that Hatoyama has basically accepted an accord concluded by the LDP themselves in 2006). And now, with Mizuho Fukushima's resignation from the Cabinet, the coalition government is in jeopardy.
Futenma is taking valuable time away from other policies that concern Japan, such as corruption and unaccountability, growing domestic economic inequality, crippling public debts, and our future in the world as an aging society.
As the momentum ebbs from his administration, Hatoyama is in a no-win situation. But remember who put him there. If America really is the world's leading promoter of democracy, it should consider how it is undermining Japan's political development. After nearly 60 years of corrupt one-party rule, Japan finally has a fledgling two-party system. Yet that is withering on the vine thanks to American geopolitical manipulation.
We keep hearing how Japan's noncooperation will weaken precious U.S.-Japan ties. But those ties have long been a leash — one the U.S., aware of how susceptible risk-averse Japan is to "separation anxiety," yanks at whim. The "threatened bilateral relationship" claim is disingenuous — the U.S. is more concerned with bolstering its military-industrial complex than with Asia's regional stability.
In sum, it's less a matter of Japan wanting the U.S. bases to stay, more a matter of the U.S. bases not wanting to leave. Japan is a sovereign country, so the Japanese government has the final say. If that means U.S. forces relocating or even leaving completely, the U.S. should respectfully do so without complaint, not demand Japan find someplace else for them to go. That is not Japan's job.
Yet our politicians have worked hard for decades to represent the U.S. government's interests to the Japanese public. Why? Because they always have.
The time has come to stop being prisoners of history. World War II and the Cold War are long over.
That's why this columnist says: Never mind Futenma. All U.S. bases should be withdrawn from Japanese soil, period. Anachronisms, the bases have not only created conflicts of interest and interfered with Japan's sovereignty, they are now incapacitating our government. Japan should slip the collar of U.S. encampments and consider a future under a less dependent, more equal relationship with the U.S.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
A Response to Kwan Weng Kin
An article in The Sunday Times last week prompted me to do what I normally would never have even considered doing - writing in to the ST Forum.
ST's senior japanese correspondent, kwan weng kin (whom i've actually sort of liked up until last week for his usually succinct but informative features on japanese politics and society), wrote a page-long, two-part feature on okinawa outlining its uncomfortable history with mainland japan and the problems caused by the large US military presence in the prefecture.
i thought he did a wonderful job of giving the average reader an insight into the current situation in okinawa in the first part of the article, but the latter portion was full of gross misrepresentation and sweeping generalizations.
i quote here three of his ludicrous observations:
"the prefecture has the highest unemployent rate in japan, yet most okinawans are said not to be unduly worried. in okinawan society, family ties remain very strong and unemployed siblings can expect support from family members - a fact that critics say may, however, rob young okinawans of their desire to become financially independent."
"okinawans are also extremely fond of drinking, especially the local awamori...hangover or no hangover, most okinawans routinely report to work late in the morning after a bout of serious drinking the night before. co-workers however, do not bat an eyelid."
"there is also a widening gulf between young and old okinawans in terms of language. okinawans aged 50 and above are apt to use dialects among themselves. most young okinawans however, influenced by television and radio programmes, speak only standard japanese."
what total bullshit. i have been living in okinawa for three years, been in personal contact with many okinawans and none of my experiences come close to any of the things put forth by kwan weng kin. it is highly disappointing and embarrassing to admit that an experienced journalist from our national paper should resort to mere hearsay and popular stereotypes in covering a story. everything in the article stinks of ethnocentricism, the type of cultural-blinder experience one is apt to suffer from after spending too much time in centres of power.
i decided i couldnt have another person perpetuate another stereotype about okinawa because the place and its people are mired in enough externally-inflicted controversy and misunderstanding already.
so i fired a response to st forum and forwarded the contents of my letter to kwan weng kin's sph email. i'll be posting his response here in the event that he does reply.
in the meantime, here's what i wrote. i hope my letter gets published.
------------------------------
I read with much concern Mr. Kwan Weng Kin’s article on Okinawa (“A Country Within A Country: Okinawa”) in The Sunday Times on 16th May 2010.
As I have been living and studying in Okinawa for three years, I was heartened by Mr. Kwan’s efforts at informing readers about the conditions of a place that remains largely unknown to most people in Singapore. However, I was deeply disappointed to discover that Mr. Kwan has chosen to paint what I felt was a skewed depiction of the Okinawa people and their attitudes towards life and work.
Admittedly, the image of Okinawans as a group of happy-go-lucky merry-makers has been prevalent in most popular discourse concerning Okinawa. Such stereotypes have been further reinforced by the booming tourist trade in Okinawa, which bills the prefecture as an “island paradise” for tens of thousands of mainland Japanese holiday-makers who flock to the islands each year. The battle for the tourist yen thus necessitates the juxtaposition of the average Okinawan against the “typical worker bee Japanese” (as put forth by Mr. Kwan) – the Okinawan makes hay while the sun shines, enjoys the slow life and most certainly drinks too much for his own good.
Throughout his article, Mr. Kwan repeatedly prescribes to such stereotypes and even appeared to suggest that the cause of the high unemployment rate in Okinawa lies not in the many structural conditions plaguing the islands, but with the people themselves. Not only did Mr. Kwan fail to mention how the disproportionately large presence of U.S. military bases may be driving away potential corporate investment, which would help to propel economic growth and provide more jobs, he has also overlooked how Japan’s protracted economic recession might have further exacerbated the lack of work opportunities in Okinawa, which has the lowest minimum wage levels in the nation.
Unlike Mr. Kwan’s account of a widening language gap between the old and young in Okinawa, the imposition of an aggressive language assimilation policy during the Meiji era has meant that most Okinawans under the age of 60 were schooled in standard Japanese and are thus no longer able to speak the Okinawan dialect.
In my personal interactions with Okinawans, I have found them to be a hardworking, optimistic and friendly group of people who are nevertheless deeply concerned with the many social and political problems afflicting their hometown. Perhaps on his next visit to the prefecture, Mr. Kwan should consider venturing outside of the tourist haunts and spend more time interacting with the local people in order to gain a more accurate understanding of the situation in Okinawa.
ST's senior japanese correspondent, kwan weng kin (whom i've actually sort of liked up until last week for his usually succinct but informative features on japanese politics and society), wrote a page-long, two-part feature on okinawa outlining its uncomfortable history with mainland japan and the problems caused by the large US military presence in the prefecture.
i thought he did a wonderful job of giving the average reader an insight into the current situation in okinawa in the first part of the article, but the latter portion was full of gross misrepresentation and sweeping generalizations.
i quote here three of his ludicrous observations:
"the prefecture has the highest unemployent rate in japan, yet most okinawans are said not to be unduly worried. in okinawan society, family ties remain very strong and unemployed siblings can expect support from family members - a fact that critics say may, however, rob young okinawans of their desire to become financially independent."
"okinawans are also extremely fond of drinking, especially the local awamori...hangover or no hangover, most okinawans routinely report to work late in the morning after a bout of serious drinking the night before. co-workers however, do not bat an eyelid."
"there is also a widening gulf between young and old okinawans in terms of language. okinawans aged 50 and above are apt to use dialects among themselves. most young okinawans however, influenced by television and radio programmes, speak only standard japanese."
what total bullshit. i have been living in okinawa for three years, been in personal contact with many okinawans and none of my experiences come close to any of the things put forth by kwan weng kin. it is highly disappointing and embarrassing to admit that an experienced journalist from our national paper should resort to mere hearsay and popular stereotypes in covering a story. everything in the article stinks of ethnocentricism, the type of cultural-blinder experience one is apt to suffer from after spending too much time in centres of power.
i decided i couldnt have another person perpetuate another stereotype about okinawa because the place and its people are mired in enough externally-inflicted controversy and misunderstanding already.
so i fired a response to st forum and forwarded the contents of my letter to kwan weng kin's sph email. i'll be posting his response here in the event that he does reply.
in the meantime, here's what i wrote. i hope my letter gets published.
------------------------------
I read with much concern Mr. Kwan Weng Kin’s article on Okinawa (“A Country Within A Country: Okinawa”) in The Sunday Times on 16th May 2010.
As I have been living and studying in Okinawa for three years, I was heartened by Mr. Kwan’s efforts at informing readers about the conditions of a place that remains largely unknown to most people in Singapore. However, I was deeply disappointed to discover that Mr. Kwan has chosen to paint what I felt was a skewed depiction of the Okinawa people and their attitudes towards life and work.
Admittedly, the image of Okinawans as a group of happy-go-lucky merry-makers has been prevalent in most popular discourse concerning Okinawa. Such stereotypes have been further reinforced by the booming tourist trade in Okinawa, which bills the prefecture as an “island paradise” for tens of thousands of mainland Japanese holiday-makers who flock to the islands each year. The battle for the tourist yen thus necessitates the juxtaposition of the average Okinawan against the “typical worker bee Japanese” (as put forth by Mr. Kwan) – the Okinawan makes hay while the sun shines, enjoys the slow life and most certainly drinks too much for his own good.
Throughout his article, Mr. Kwan repeatedly prescribes to such stereotypes and even appeared to suggest that the cause of the high unemployment rate in Okinawa lies not in the many structural conditions plaguing the islands, but with the people themselves. Not only did Mr. Kwan fail to mention how the disproportionately large presence of U.S. military bases may be driving away potential corporate investment, which would help to propel economic growth and provide more jobs, he has also overlooked how Japan’s protracted economic recession might have further exacerbated the lack of work opportunities in Okinawa, which has the lowest minimum wage levels in the nation.
Unlike Mr. Kwan’s account of a widening language gap between the old and young in Okinawa, the imposition of an aggressive language assimilation policy during the Meiji era has meant that most Okinawans under the age of 60 were schooled in standard Japanese and are thus no longer able to speak the Okinawan dialect.
In my personal interactions with Okinawans, I have found them to be a hardworking, optimistic and friendly group of people who are nevertheless deeply concerned with the many social and political problems afflicting their hometown. Perhaps on his next visit to the prefecture, Mr. Kwan should consider venturing outside of the tourist haunts and spend more time interacting with the local people in order to gain a more accurate understanding of the situation in Okinawa.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Pledge
One Newpaper article from Veena about the 822 Pledge Moment generated some minor controversy, most of it caused by this guy called Alvin, who said something about Veena not having the right to talk what it means to be singaporean because she just got her citizenship a year ago.
when challenged, mr. ambiguous maintained that he wasnt making a personal attack on veena, but i read his blog post over and over again and it still stinks of defamation. anyway, i dont claim to write as well as the man so i guess it's possibly the language thing marring my understanding of his views.
if mr. ambiguous is right in saying that veena doesnt understand what it means to live under the laws and requirements of singapore citizenship, then it might follow that we as singaporeans wont be able to fathom how veena feels about gaining official acceptance in the form of a pink IC after 17 long years of living as a long-term resident in this country.
naming yourself one in the "10% of the population who dares to provide an alternate view" ("the view that too many Singaporeans are too afraid, or too ignorant to have", mind you), doesnt serve as justification for having exclusionist and dismissive opinions. i would given him more credit if he had phrased it in a nicer way, but now he simply sounds as if he's pointing a finger at the rest of us and calling us a herd of sheep. in short, you dont earn the privilege of spouting disparaging remarks just by playing the "I'm so different from all you other people" card.
for all its worth, us "90% people" sometimes dont see the point of engaging in debate about issues like this because they will always be people like alvin telling us what we know and how we feel. and guess what? it's not because we dont know any better. it's really just because we dont see the need to justify the fact that we HAVE opinions.
even if i were in singapore, i wouldnt have taken part in the pledge moment because like someone already mentioned, it would just reek of campaign farcity, the kind the government is very good at creating (speak mandarin, dont spit or litter, be courteous, the whole lot). but i checked to see if i remembered the words and i found myself pleasantly surprised that i still do. not wanting to place my hand across my right breast and say the pledge come national day doesnt mean that i dont believe in its contents. the words of the pledge are not conveyed merely as a means to an ends, rather it is a reminder of all the ideals that we should strive for as a nation.
too many of us cling to the tendency of identifying our country with its government. singapore is not, and will never be all about PAP. once we fall into the trap of making that assumption, everything will seem immutable. remember that we are only 44 years into independence. democracy and all the things we think we should strive for as a people are achievable if we know that a country is really about its people. the fact that LDP lost its stronghold in the japanese cabinet this summer after 55 long years; the fact that america only saw its first black president in 2008 is enough food for thought.
i am not blind to the flaws of my country and i do not always approve of the plans adopted by my government. but i do know for a fact that people like us, those were born and bred in singapore, sometimes take our citizenship for granted. maybe even someone like alvin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)