Wikleaks? More like Wikileech!

Here's an interesting video-- a debate between journalists on the nature of investigative journalism, as well as whether Julian Assange is in fact committing a crime.

"Publishing classified information is what journalists do" -- one of the quotes in this video. While it is true that what journalists around the world (mostly) aim to do is to report and disseminate the truth, "classified information" takes "truth" to a whole new level. Besides breaching government secrecy acts, it severely harms diplomacy in international relations.

Some may argue that the truth behind government conspiracy theories should be made known to the public (in the name of democracy and freedom of speech/access to information which honestly I feel is far too overrated), there has to be a certain amount of control and consideration on Assange's part, in which his actions may have huge rippling effects on international diplomacy. Even Singapore hasn't been spared.

As a (very self-censoring) writer, I feel that even though the Wikileaks documents provide massive amounts of information that is simply screaming to be written about, journalists have to practice discernment over what should be revealed versus what should be kept as a government secret (although it really is no longer is a secret now that Wikileaks has revealed virtually everything).

Perhaps I only feel this way because I have been brought up in Singapore, where even though I do value being told the truth, the wider picture of the "greater good" to maintain diplomacy and peace in society and with our ASEAN neighbours is still more important to me. And obviously also because whatever we write without discernment will have serious ramifications. But consider this -- while Wikileaks acts as the watchdog of the government, is there anyone to watch them? Instead of being 'Wikileaks', are they really, rather, "Wikileech", where Assange is leeching off this new found Robin Hood fame to profit from a book he is set to publish? Like a leech that is both a boon and bane, Wikileaks shines light on the truth, but is ultimately a pest that the government has to get rid of.

Gaia

I have taken up a keen interest in the environment recently.. and no, it isn't just a phase where I decide to carve a niche for myself as a hippie, mother-nature-loving environmentalist but rather something that has been going on for about half a year now. Attempts to decrease my own carbon footprint have been rather successful-- no cravings for meat, although I do (unwillingly) eat pork or beef about once a month because someone dear to me tells me it is 'good for my mental health'. And of course I would love to end up anaemic, wouldn't I? My future spouse will also be most elated to know that I have made the decision (albeit a really tough one) to stop purchasing leather goods (yes go on, reel from shock for a few seconds).

As most will come to realize, however, environmentalism alone is not enough to save the world. As much as we would like to believe that every person can play a part in 'saving the earth', households contribute approximately only 9 per cent of carbon emissions. While of course industrial pollution amasses a total of over 50 per cent, with transport at about 20 per cent. There is really little or nothing individuals can do as opposed to what large corporations can achieve if they cut down on their carbon footprint.

But there are other larger forces at work, political and economic. Governments that are the only ones who can really shape the future of the earth. What good is environmentalism; re-using paper bags or double-sided printing, if governments are uninterested in fighting global warming?

I am heartened to know that there are governments around the world who have invested heavily in research and development for alternative forms of energy. However, carbon emissions have remained the same in 2010 as compared to 2009, with Asian countries being the biggest contributors of carbon emissions. This not only includes China as the largest carbon emitter in the world but also India, another developing country and even South Korea. In fact, scientists believe that emissions are likely to resume their upward track and scale a new peak in 2010.

Thankfully, there have been changes. South Korea has recently invested US$8.3 billion in an offshore wind farm and China has its own Tianjin eco-district, a joint project with Singapore, no less.

But China and India's carbon emissions still stand high. Although signatories of the Kyoto Protocol, the two countries are not yet obliged to abide by the carbon cap as they are STILL a developing nation... and will continue to be for at least another 5 years. But there is a loophole. The West is no longer seen as the main culprit for its greenhouse gas emissions for the very fact that they have outsourced their production to countries like China and India the 'developing nations' that can afford not to abide by the carbon cap. The United States has countless outsourced productions in China. So although it seems like the ever-revered West is making advancements in sustainable technology and that they are the 'leaders in fighting against global warming', some have really exploited the loophole in the Kyoto Protocol. Is there, then, really a way we can keep to the targets of the carbon caps?

Geo-engineering is a potential solution. It seems dangerous, and pretty elusive, but with the right amount of research and investment it could spell an end to global warming. Carbon sequestration can serve as one of the ways countries like China can cut down on their emissions. As one of the richest countries in the world, I'm sure the Chinese will be able (and are daring enough) to partake in geo-engineering effort and investment. They were, after all, the first to create a storm when they decided on cloud seeding.

But of course, adequate knowledge is necessary before attempting to alter the environment. Geo-engineering has been banned in several countries and has been widely criticised as being an 'international manipulation of the environment'. Hypocritical, I would say, considering that man-made changes are needed to counter pollution that is man-made in the first place.

Our earth is the only element that remains immutable. Everything else has remained relatively transient, even the most powerful men in the world will not live forever. Earth has witnessed the changes over the centuries--wars, death, disaster, military and industrial activity that has destroyed the earth's surface. And we know all we are doing is but contributing to the planet's demise. The ice cap has melted 4% over the last at a rate of 230 gigatonnes (230,000 billion kilograms) a year. We need collective action and the work of politics to fight against global warming, this is what our era needs to see, this is the war we are fighting against, not a war of religion or for oil, but one to sustain life and the world we live in.

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.