Now that we have Mypaper, I think it is a good thing that I can have something convenient to read in Chinese. They have Mypaper online as well which is good. What is not so good is that they have sneakily disabled people from linking to articles. This is one measure that SPH have taken to ensure that their articles do not get pummeled on line on the blogs. That is bad for democracy and therefore no good.
Another thing is that the Straits times has come up with the concept of “Star Bloggers”. That serves as a purpose of reinforcing the idea that the power of media should only be conferred upon a selected few and not any old Tom Dick and Harry who happens to have an internet connection (ie me). They want to reinforce the illusion that blogs haven’t changed anything. I never liked that. So fuck them all.
Now we have a commentary by star blogger Ju Len about Steven Spielberg pulling out from his role as an artistic advisor to the Beijing Olympics. Since I can’t link to the article, I have copied and pasted it here. Take it away, Ju Len!
Another thing is that the Straits times has come up with the concept of “Star Bloggers”. That serves as a purpose of reinforcing the idea that the power of media should only be conferred upon a selected few and not any old Tom Dick and Harry who happens to have an internet connection (ie me). They want to reinforce the illusion that blogs haven’t changed anything. I never liked that. So fuck them all.
Now we have a commentary by star blogger Ju Len about Steven Spielberg pulling out from his role as an artistic advisor to the Beijing Olympics. Since I can’t link to the article, I have copied and pasted it here. Take it away, Ju Len!
SO STEVEN Spielberg has a problem with China. Or, to put it more precisely, the lauded US filmmaker has a problem with civil war atrocities in the Darfur region of Sudan, and lays much of the blame for them at the feet of the Chinese government.
So much so that he has departed his role as an “artistic adviser” to the opening and closing ceremonies for the Beijing Olympic Games, and done little to hide his disgust for his erstwhile employers on the way out.
Spielberg believes that China “should be doing more” to end the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. Weighing in on the matter are Nobel Prize winners, Olympic athletes, actors, musicians, writers and political activists, all of whom have put their signatures to a letter urging China to put its foot down on the Sudanese government and its handling of the Darfur conflict.
Let us be clear about one thing. The crisis in Darfur is deplorable, and speaks of our
failure as a species to safeguard the well-being of our own kind.
But the response of Steven Spielberg and gang is, at best, sadly misguided and at
worst, insidiously recriminating, for Darfur has little to do with China, and even less to do with the Olympic Games.
The Games, which are meant to be a celebration of the human’s triumph over the limits of his corporeal shell, have been sullied by politics before, of course. Hitler’s refusal to acknowledge the achievements of Jesse Owens at Berlin in 1936 and the blood-stained tragedy of Munich in 1972 are the most notorious of these, but it’s safe to say that Spielberg’s opportunistic withdrawal from the Games will in time be regarded as being full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
His actions amount to little more than a show of raging impotence, for when has Beijing ever bowed to external pressure, even those greater than the collective force of a thousand Spielbergs? The egos, they say, are large in Hollywood, but for one man to believe that he is able to hold sway over the will of the Chinese government by
displaying his back to them...
That, put simply, defies logic.
And so, too, does the reasoning that pins responsibility for Darfur’s atrocities on China. “As the primary economic, military and political partner of the government of Sudan, and as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, China has both the opportunity and the responsibility to contribute to a just peace in Darfur,” wrote the mob in a joint letter.
“Ongoing failure to rise to this responsibility amounts, in our view, to support for a government that continues to carry out atrocities against its own people,” they added.
Let us consider, in a separate vein, a recent case in Saudi Arabia in which a rape victim was sentenced to 200 lashes of the whip, more than double she received in an earlier ruling, for little more than “speaking out about her efforts to find justice”, says Human Rights Watch.
That is grossly unjust, but by the same standard with which Spielberg and fellow protesters hold China responsible for what goes on in Sudan, are we not to hold the Unites States – a primary partner of the government of Saudi Arabia – equally responsible for the human rights abuses of the Saudi people?
The Chinese may have their failings, but they are no more accountable for the Darfur genocide than the US is responsible for the Saudis’ reprehensible treatment of their female citizenry. Spielberg and gang have built their argument on a slippery slope. Should America, also an ally of Japan, be called to account for the latter’s outrage- causing whaling practices?
The great pity of the matter is that the film-maker has chosen to express his convictions in a manner that calls attention away from the real cause of the Darfur conflict, misdirecting them instead to a third party that was only ever to respond, if at all, by digging its heels in.
Spielberg would have done far better to have simply plied his craft instead. Go and shoot a film about Darfur and flex some of that mastery of mawkishness for which you are famed, so that a million heartstrings might be tugged in the direction you wish. Stand on a soapbox, if you must, but do it without trying to disrupt the efforts of those who wish to stage the Olympic Games, a matter of no little pride for all involved.
With or without you, the Games will go on, and at their end there will be hands raised in triumph, from those who work hard to host the event, and those who wield the medals from them.
Whatever you say about the matter, all will be clean of Sudanese blood.
Now I’m not Chee Soon Juan so I will try to give you a balanced view of the situation. Yes we are Chinese and really proud to have the Olympic Games in China. (But since 1980 the Olympic hosting have been dominated by the 5 permanent members of the UN security Council. USA hosted twice, USSR and China once, London will be hosting it in 2012, beating out Paris.) I remember the decision to award the Olympics to Sydney for 2000 was politically motivated – China was being criticized for its human rights issues. I even remember having to write an essay for it in class in my tortured Chinese.
(I can even see now in my mind’s eye the Chinese teacher sniggering about me talking about Chinese pride when the grammar goes out the window, but I digress.)
We would talk about how hypocritical the “Westerners” are and bring up the Opium Wars for the umpteenth time. Later it would occur to me that it’s better to stick to current affairs when you’re making comparisons.
Well let's take a look at some of his points.
It’s not right to use the Olympics for political ends.
But still I would believe that it is a good thing that you use these things to force the government to pay attention to its human rights issues. I mean things have changed for the better in China, one would hope. Yes you could argue that it’s all about better economic conditions instead of the political pressure but I think that the Olympics would have sent a very strong message to China.
Political pressure at the Olympics achieves nothing.
Ju Len argued that the centerpiece of the Olympics is the athletic performances and not the politics. Really? How many people can you name at the Berlin Olympics in 1936 (other than Jesse Owens because he’s a politics guy?) You remember how many golds the USA won in 1972 or you remember the Palestines killing the Israeli athletes? In 1984 there was Carl Lewis, of course, but aren’t we more likely to remember that the USSR decided to not show up because the USA boycotted Moscow in 1980? And wouldn’t we remember the dope cheats like Ben Johnson and Marion Jones more vividly than the actual champions?
Do politics at the Olympics really achieve nothing? The terrorist act of the Palestinians in 1972 was a victory to the extent that it brought the world’s attention to the Palestinian cause. Yes there are better ways to stage protests rather than executing athletes on live television and killing people is bad but when the Palestines engage in terrorism it is a very grey area.
Then there were the student demonstrations at the Seoul Olympics. What followed next were democratic reforms, culminating in Kim Dae Jung becoming the president. (That’s the equivalent of JBJ becoming PM of Singapore.) Of course whether the demonstrations were the cause of the democracy movement, or merely a reflection of it, will always be up for debate but it did bring this issue much larger attention.
The US should mind its own business first before criticizing China.
Now I don’t like it that a moral equivalency is evoked. I don’t like the argument that because the USA is involved in some shady business of its own, it shouldn’t lecture China on human rights. I think that everybody should have a right to criticise, and I do think that both the USA and China should be criticized for helping dictatorial regimes.
Sanctions achieve nothing.
The part that I agree with him with is when he says that sanctions are of no use. China should continue trading with the Sudan. Sanctions have a mixed record. Did they work in South Africa, or were the white government on its way out already? They could have helped. They didn’t help at all in Iraq, and they made Saddam Hussein stronger. They caused a lot of hardship in Iraq and helped force a war in order to resolve the issues.
But I’m not for China supplying arms to the Sudan. Of course you could pay for the oil in cash, but then again giving cash to the Sudanese is a little bit like giving them weapons because that’s what the cash will be used for. The thing about engagement is that you still leave the channels open where you can help influence foreign policy.
A lot of people will criticize Singapore for trading with Myanmar. Yes we are trading with the Myanmese. Yes a lot of monks died in the crackdown. (By some accounts this number is in the thousands.) Maybe they were killed by Singaporean bullets? Who knows? But still we keep the door open and maybe, just maybe we can reach out to the junta and pressure them to talk to the real world. After all, who in this world would rather listen to an enemy than to a friend?
Bah humbug democracy
It used to be that the newspapers were the friend of democracy, but now they are the enemy of democracy. Newspapers which are in the hands of large corporations will be loath to say anything untoward about their rich corporate owners. Or whoever happens to be owning them.
Democracy is always under threat. This threat has increased over the years because big business and governments are starting to collude with each other. Big business makes big campaign donations, and the government formulates more pro-business policies.
I think that on some level people recognize this. A few years ago there was a huge protest in London against the impending Iraq war. It was notable for its size and turnout. OK, it might have to do with how there are plenty of Arabs living in the UK but this was the biggest demonstration ever in the UK. Bigger than anything during the Vietnam war. But I don’t know if the media covered this sufficiently, or whether they were in thrall to the Bush-Blair orthodoxy.
Democracy seems to be rather unwieldy and ineffective when your constituency is very very large. In the days of direct democracy, every issue would be talked over. In the early days of the Founding of the USA when democracy was the exclusive domain of a very well educated few, it was arguably at its most effective. But democracy is a lot about various groups jostling for power, and in the end it’s still the wealthiest and the most well connected who get this power.
Still the ability to have an audience listen to your message is a key component in being able to exercise your power. While the media is not power in itself, it acts as a magnifying glass, focusing attention – and therefore political pressure on the salient issue of the day.
It is of course good for some of these entrenched interests if people were to pay no heed to all these protests going on. In this way while there was coverage of the Iraq protest, it didn’t get elevated to an “event” on the scale of the Washington march of the 1960s. There were plenty of protests at the 1999 Seattle WTO talks but the slant of the coverage in the news is that they are all misguided teenagers, in spite of the ferocity of the protests. Maybe some of them are but many of the causes have genuine grievances.
It is good for those entrenched interests if you can tell these people that protesters have no credibility. That they are “naïve and misguided” or that “we need somebody with a better sense of reality. Somebody like Suharto, perhaps.
It’s not right to use the Olympics for political ends.
But still I would believe that it is a good thing that you use these things to force the government to pay attention to its human rights issues. I mean things have changed for the better in China, one would hope. Yes you could argue that it’s all about better economic conditions instead of the political pressure but I think that the Olympics would have sent a very strong message to China.
Political pressure at the Olympics achieves nothing.
Ju Len argued that the centerpiece of the Olympics is the athletic performances and not the politics. Really? How many people can you name at the Berlin Olympics in 1936 (other than Jesse Owens because he’s a politics guy?) You remember how many golds the USA won in 1972 or you remember the Palestines killing the Israeli athletes? In 1984 there was Carl Lewis, of course, but aren’t we more likely to remember that the USSR decided to not show up because the USA boycotted Moscow in 1980? And wouldn’t we remember the dope cheats like Ben Johnson and Marion Jones more vividly than the actual champions?
Do politics at the Olympics really achieve nothing? The terrorist act of the Palestinians in 1972 was a victory to the extent that it brought the world’s attention to the Palestinian cause. Yes there are better ways to stage protests rather than executing athletes on live television and killing people is bad but when the Palestines engage in terrorism it is a very grey area.
Then there were the student demonstrations at the Seoul Olympics. What followed next were democratic reforms, culminating in Kim Dae Jung becoming the president. (That’s the equivalent of JBJ becoming PM of Singapore.) Of course whether the demonstrations were the cause of the democracy movement, or merely a reflection of it, will always be up for debate but it did bring this issue much larger attention.
The US should mind its own business first before criticizing China.
Now I don’t like it that a moral equivalency is evoked. I don’t like the argument that because the USA is involved in some shady business of its own, it shouldn’t lecture China on human rights. I think that everybody should have a right to criticise, and I do think that both the USA and China should be criticized for helping dictatorial regimes.
Sanctions achieve nothing.
The part that I agree with him with is when he says that sanctions are of no use. China should continue trading with the Sudan. Sanctions have a mixed record. Did they work in South Africa, or were the white government on its way out already? They could have helped. They didn’t help at all in Iraq, and they made Saddam Hussein stronger. They caused a lot of hardship in Iraq and helped force a war in order to resolve the issues.
But I’m not for China supplying arms to the Sudan. Of course you could pay for the oil in cash, but then again giving cash to the Sudanese is a little bit like giving them weapons because that’s what the cash will be used for. The thing about engagement is that you still leave the channels open where you can help influence foreign policy.
A lot of people will criticize Singapore for trading with Myanmar. Yes we are trading with the Myanmese. Yes a lot of monks died in the crackdown. (By some accounts this number is in the thousands.) Maybe they were killed by Singaporean bullets? Who knows? But still we keep the door open and maybe, just maybe we can reach out to the junta and pressure them to talk to the real world. After all, who in this world would rather listen to an enemy than to a friend?
Bah humbug democracy
It used to be that the newspapers were the friend of democracy, but now they are the enemy of democracy. Newspapers which are in the hands of large corporations will be loath to say anything untoward about their rich corporate owners. Or whoever happens to be owning them.
Democracy is always under threat. This threat has increased over the years because big business and governments are starting to collude with each other. Big business makes big campaign donations, and the government formulates more pro-business policies.
I think that on some level people recognize this. A few years ago there was a huge protest in London against the impending Iraq war. It was notable for its size and turnout. OK, it might have to do with how there are plenty of Arabs living in the UK but this was the biggest demonstration ever in the UK. Bigger than anything during the Vietnam war. But I don’t know if the media covered this sufficiently, or whether they were in thrall to the Bush-Blair orthodoxy.
Democracy seems to be rather unwieldy and ineffective when your constituency is very very large. In the days of direct democracy, every issue would be talked over. In the early days of the Founding of the USA when democracy was the exclusive domain of a very well educated few, it was arguably at its most effective. But democracy is a lot about various groups jostling for power, and in the end it’s still the wealthiest and the most well connected who get this power.
Still the ability to have an audience listen to your message is a key component in being able to exercise your power. While the media is not power in itself, it acts as a magnifying glass, focusing attention – and therefore political pressure on the salient issue of the day.
It is of course good for some of these entrenched interests if people were to pay no heed to all these protests going on. In this way while there was coverage of the Iraq protest, it didn’t get elevated to an “event” on the scale of the Washington march of the 1960s. There were plenty of protests at the 1999 Seattle WTO talks but the slant of the coverage in the news is that they are all misguided teenagers, in spite of the ferocity of the protests. Maybe some of them are but many of the causes have genuine grievances.
It is good for those entrenched interests if you can tell these people that protesters have no credibility. That they are “naïve and misguided” or that “we need somebody with a better sense of reality. Somebody like Suharto, perhaps.
No comments:
Post a Comment