It is written.

I recently had a very interesting conversation with a friend regarding our views on History-- a subject that I have been studying for a good 9 years now. As much as I love the subject, I would have to say that what we study about in textbooks are very much skewed and biased (then again one would argue that absolutely NOTHING is unbiased in this world). Well in short, as we all know, History is written by its victors.

Well it's simple, really. The world works on a basis of Darwinism, which basically talks about the survival of the fittest. The stronger survive and the weaker, well, die. Similarly, in the course of global politics and power play, the stronger nations triumph and basically get whatever they want when it comes to treaty terms and conditions; while those who are weaker and eventually lose will have to reluctantly accept the victor's T&C. This, we all know.

But of course, then, are we too quick to believe that which we read in History textbooks or even Social Studies textbooks? Are the British and Americans really the "good guys" and the Germans and Japanese the "bad guys"? Weren't the Russians part of the Allies too? Why aren't they portrayed as the "good guys" as well? Did the allies not kills hundreds of thousands of lives, civilian or not, just like the Axis Powers did?

Communism ideals work on the basis of egalitarianism and the utopian view of Communism would be that everyone works for everyone and that power and wealth would be distributed evenly-- so why is it that Communism is seen as an evil force? And yet, Capitalist America is portrayed as the 'freedom fighting, liberalising driving force that will set you free", the American symbol of the Eagle that soars way up high above us.

While I can't deny that the Holocaust is definitely downright and purely morally wrong, I can't also agree that the Atomic bomb was necessary. Is this, then, a question of whose lives are worth more? Does this mean that Japanese lives were not worth as much as the, say, Americans at Pearl Harbour? Definitely not.

Just something that I've thought about for quite a few years since I was 16-- when in History lesson we were taught the controversies surrounding the nuclear use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945:

1. Nuclear use was not necessary because the Japanese were already fighting a losing battle-- the Japanese were fast exhausting their resources in the Pacific and lost a lot of men due to their Kamikaze tactics. It was soon enough that they would be too weak to continue the fight and eventual surrender would ensue (One could argue, though, that they have a no-surrender mentality, but given the lack of manpower and resources they would probably be left with no choice just as they did surrender eventually)

2. The dropping of the atomic bombs were just an opportunity for the Americans to showcase their nuclear power and advances in weapon technology to Russia. There were huge tensions between the Capitalist and Communist blocs that were arising as WWII was coming to an end (the alliance between Russia and America to defeat the Axis Powers was definitely just a marriage of convenience) and America wanted to psychologically threaten the Soviet Union in terms of showing what they were capable of, attempting to put off the Communists from trying to infiltrate or influence and 'poison' even more governments and countries.

I've never then agreed with how the Japanese were portrayed to be evil. Yes they had atrocities towards the people. And yes, they had a insatiable hunger and thirst for power that led to them wanting to take over Asia and eventually the world, but hey, wasn't this the case for European Imperialism as well? The Western powers, Britain, Germany, Italy and France--they were all fighting for territories. And lets not go into colonialism. They did provide education. Western education. Just as the Japanese DID provide education in Singapore schools as well.

As for killings, lives were lost when the Western powers were fighting for their territories in Africa as well. Why is imperialism and colonialism justified when that was also what the Japanese were trying to do? Does it mean that White people can rule but not us Asians?

All this is a product of what is written by those who won the fight, be it WWI/II, or the Cold War. I know that there isn't a solution to this because everything has been written. But well, I suppose we should, in future, not be quick to dispel the Japanese or the other 'bad guys' in History to be purely evil, and at the same time realise that well, whatever in the books may be factual and accurate, but we cannot purely be biased in our views towards what has happened in the course of History that will affect our political discourses. This could have further implications and ramifications as well especially since there is religious tension due to terrorist bombings as well as the Iraq War. We shouldn't be quick to separate and distinguish who is good and evil in this fight as there are atrocities on both ends.

Pseudo-individualism

"The wise man does at once what the fool does finally."

-Niccolo Machiavelli

One thing I really do not understand about Singaporean youth is that they value something overly highly-- individualism. I do, too, sometimes. But it has gotten to a point where the pioneers of new ideas have moved on, while blind followers are still caught up in trying so hard to be different that they end up being all the same. Simply put it, it's pseudo-individuality.

I could be guilty of it too, maybe we all are, in one way or another, or at least at one point in our lives. I have a very good example that illustrates my point-- Indie music.

Indie; or 'independent' music, refers to musicians who are void of being 'tainted' or influenced by any particular record label/company. In that sense, Indie musicians apparently produce music considered to be less commercial and not as mainstream as many artistes under record companies are. True that, and although I must confess I am definitely not a connoisseur when it comes to music, I do realise that many Singaporean youth are beginning to listen more to Indie music just because.

Why, I ask. Is there something wrong with commercial music; Coldplay, Keane, even ,well, Britney Spears (for the love of god I do not like her, this is' just for the sake of using an example of a typical pop-princess type of thing)? Is it that important that one listens to something that not everybody else is listening to on the radio? Does it make you more special that you are listening to Indie music? Je ne comprends pas! I do not understand this, at all.

But well, before I have Indie music fans shoot me down for criticising their music choices and tastes, let me first disclaim that I have no qualms or jurisdiction over what songs anybody wants to listen to. Sure there are people who really love Indie music because, well, I don't know, but surely there are undoubtedly many out there who are Indie fans just for the sake of being Indie fans, no? Disagree?

This blog post is, however, not one that seeks to rant on issues that revolve around music. More importantly, I want to draw references to the politically apathetic youth in Singapore. Just as many are drawn to Indie music for whatever reason, I have no idea why the Singaporean youth are so bent on putting down the PAP. They complain that they are oppressive, put down democracy, and do not allow freedom of speech. Basically everyone claims that they are a watchdog government that is almost omni-present and that you can never escape from the clutches of the government!

While I can't deny that Singapore is not exactly being run under the basis of true-blue American freedom-fighting-esque democracy, we are in essence and in theory, a Republic. In addition to this, we can only decide on our leaders for the GRCs in various constituencies and henceforth indirectly decide the ruling party, and from there a Prime Minister is being elected into office by the ruling party. Our Westminster system is not one that really allows for us to have direct contact and communication with the leader of our nation, unlike say the States where their Presidential System allows for a more direct contact with the President in terms of voices being heard. Presidential candidates put in effort to garner support from the peoples because of the very fact that their competition is strong. There isn't any walkover, there isn't any sure-win, people are undecided on who they should vote for because they genuinely support ideals that the candidates push through, i.e. ending the Iraq war, or continuing stem cell research, legalising homosexual marriages etc.

I implore you, then, to think: is our opposition strong enough, even, to rally against the PAP? Sure there are exceptions; there is WP's Low Thia Kiang who's managed to win over Hougang, and SDP's Chiam See Tong (whom I deeply respect; but whose health is obviously ailing) who are undeniably talented and intelligent individuals. But pray tell me, is the PAP not doing a good job in their respective GRCs? Do we not get the lift-upgrading, or the 'study/chess corners', or the well-built & clean bus stops and shelters that we need? We do. Is Singapore society so largely unfair and divided in wealth that we see homeless people everywhere on the streets? No. Do we not get our right to education (even if we do, some people take it for granted)? Absolutely not.

Moreover, it is not only the Singapore government that practices strict censorship laws in terms of media outlets and press freedom. MDA does have strict laws but they have definitely tried to go around it by imposing the M18/NC16 rule. As for press freedom, I do know that Singapore is used in many academic examples as being one of the strictest in the world but there are other countries who are becoming increasingly oppressive. Think about it-- at least we don't have something like the Great firewall of China. Yes, there are several websites that are banned in Singapore but hey at least you are able to access your facebook, Twitter, and Youtube account.

So what's with these youth trying to advocate democracy just for the sake of it? Well, I am definitely not undermining the value of democracy, it is also an ideology that I agree with. But ask yourself a few questions:

1. How should democracy be achieved in a system like Singapore's? Is there a way that we can speak up to our Prime Minister and vote for a PM directly? No. Our political system does not allow this. And our system is definitely not warped or unfair, the United Kingdom practices the Westminster system as well.

2. If you are truly an advocate for democracy and you are extremely pent up and frustrated about the lack of a voice here in Singapore, why aren't you doing anything about it? Do you really want to make a difference so much that you complain that the PAP is not doing its job proper? Why not do something about it rather than whine all day?

I'm definitely not trying to promote the PAP, yes I do know that every party has its flaws but I believe largely that the ruling party is doing a good job in the country. I may not agree on its policies sometimes (that being rising COE prices that are insanely exorbitant) but what I do not agree more on is how the youth today are constantly putting down the PAP when they are doing nothing about it. Is it because everyone is doing so? Has the PAP left you jaded and skeptical and resentful over their oppressiveness? I doubt so, but if they are, why don't you make a difference today?

-

PM Lee's interview with Charlie Rose.