v
v
v
v

Click on the icons on the left to navigate around.

Warning：Movie not suited for the fainted hearted. xD

In Battle Royale, a new law has been passed across Japan in which a class of students is randomly picked to join a “game”. In this game/law, the students must eliminate one another such that only one survives. This is to ensure that the countries resources are not wasted on “wastrels” and the fittest will survive. Students are given random weapons and are expected to kill one another till there is only one person left after 3 days. There are also other conditions such as danger zones and the collars on their necks which will be not elaborated here.

In Battle Royale II, survivors of the previous B.R.A. (Battle Royale Acts) have come together to form a terrorist group. This terrorist group, called Wild Seven, perform terrorist attacks on Japan because the adults made them go through the B.R.A. The rules of the B.R.A. is changed such that students will have to kill the leader of the Wild Seven to live. In this game, they are allowed to go home together as long as the leader, Shuya Nanahara is killed.

The globalization of politics has spread over to films such as Batlle Royal II. Battle Royale II seemed to react to the bombing that happened on September 11. The film starts off by reenacting a bombing similar to that one of 9/11, with several minor differences. One is that the bombing is held in Tokyo, Japan and another difference is that the terrorist group is called Wild Seven. Several other references have been made to America reactions to the 9/11 bombing like the scene where Riki, the “teacher” of this mission states that “in life, there are only winners or losers”, which some people think that it reiterates America’s stance after the bombing. After the fiasco, watch the movie for more information on the movie, the remaining members of the Wild Seven hide in Afghanistan and their leader wears the same white robe as Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.

Could this be a political message being sent to the Japanese governments and civilians to reconsider their role as America’s ally? The Wild Seven can be said to portray the Al Qaeda while Japan as America. This film places Japan (America) in the bad light in several different ways.

Several references in the movie suggests that Japan (America) is behind the Battle Royale Acts, which made students kill each other, an act of cruelty. A direct poke at America is shown when Riki is seen in the beginning furiously writing down the names of several nations that have been bombed by America, starting with Japan and ending with Afghanistan. This complements the movie in a way because the movie starts of with a scene in Japan and the ending scene is in Afghanistan. Shuya Nanahara (leader of Wild Seven) also recalls a scene where he saw innocent and happy faces in Afghanistan in spite of the bombing happening then, and stating that he started the Wild Seven because of that scene. The Wild Seven showed a spark of sympathy when they did not kill the children that were sent to kill them. Does this mean that Al Qaeda can also show sympathy?

In a nutshell, this movie portrayed Wild Seven (Afghanistan) as a victim of Japan (America) in several different ways and “persuaded” the Japan government to reconsider their stand as being America’s ally. And that the globalization of politics has been influenced by films and movies like Battle Royale which holds a very strong political view of the world.

If you would turn to page 13 of the Home section of Saturdays news papers and you will be presented with a page filled with political issues pertaining to our homeland. Now, look on the left hand side of the page and you’ll see MM Lee picture encased in a rectangular box of orange. Great, now read that part that is labeled Educating A Country.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ok. Now that you’ve read the article, let me give me my views on this education policy that the government introduced.

As MM Lee has stated, the introduction of a second language in schools can be considered extreme as it may have caused riots. In order for this not to happen, they needed to give people an impression that they have a choice. I think that this is quite devious as it only revolves around 2 choices, and the choices are more or less the same. Yet people are satisfied with this arrangement. However, with the obvious biasness the market was giving to people who had English language as their first language, families are starting to shift their children to schools with English as their first language. This was a natural instinct that was being infused to people at that point in time where the Western powers were considered superior to others. After time, schools with mother tongue languages as their first language lost popularity and eventually closed down. A similar version of these schools would be SAP schools like Dunman High and Anglican High. Yet with globalization, countries are becoming more “equal”, and coupled with rising powerhouses China and India, Singapore should reconsider reintroducing schools with different first languages. This would facilitate better relations with countries such as China and India and not just the Western Powers.

Was the Rwandan Genocide indirectly caused by the United Nations?

Before the globalization of politics, important decisions that were to be made for "weaker" countries were usually made by "stronger" countries such as the western powers. An example would be that of Rwanda where the United Nations were stationed at before they left and gave control to the Tutsis. They gave governmental control to the Tutsis because they were perceived as more superior with their farming methods and everything.
Yet after a while, they passed the power to the Hutus, in a stint to provide equality they claimed. The Hutus, who had been living in "humiliation" while the Tutsis were ruling over the land, decided to exact revenge on the Tutsis and thus the extermination of the Tutsis began.

Yet if one were to think, this Rwandan Genocide might not have even happened in globalization were to step in earlier. With globalization, the Rwandan citizens would then have the power to choose who they wished to lead them to greater prospects instead of giving the decision making power to the Western power. This might then have not caused so much upset in the Rwandan committee and the genocide might not have occurred.

Football Killing Fields
Outrage and disbelief as world soccer body condemns Israel, not Hamas.

By Tom Gross

Israel is used to being singled out for unjust criticism and subjected to startling double standards by the United Nations, the European Union, much of the Western media and numerous academic bodies. But now FIFA — the supposedly nonpolitical organization that governs the world's most popular sport, soccer — is getting in on the act as well.

FIFA has condemned Israel for an air strike on an empty soccer field in the Gaza Strip that was used for training exercises by Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. This strike did not cause any injuries. But at the same time FIFA has refused to condemn a Palestinian rocket attack on an Israeli soccer field last week which did cause injuries.

With the soccer World Cup, which takes place only once every four years, just weeks away, it is a time of mounting emotion for the hundreds of millions of people across the globe who passionately follow the game.

As FIFA meets in the next few days to decide what action to take against Israel, the double standards involved could not be more obvious. Up to now FIFA, which sees itself as a purely sporting body, has gone out of its way to avoid politics, and has refrained from criticizing even the most appalling human-rights abuses connected to soccer players and stadiums.

I came across this article when I was researching for the SS powerpoint presentation and found it rather interesting.
So, FIFA is supposedly a NGO (Non-Government Organization) that does not participate in political activities. Yet just recently, issues have been raised on the controversy regarding the Israel government and FIFA. Israel has been a subject of double standards for the past decades by Western countries such as the United Nations and the European Union, however, the condemning of the Israel soccer players have had eyebrows raised regarding the stereotyping that FIFA is a purely sporting body.
If FIFA were to be a purely sporting body, why should it be bothered about governmental issues such as the air strike on an EMPTY soccer field in Gaza. As it has been reiterated, the soccer field was EMPTY and caused NO injuries. Compare this with the Palestinian rocket attack on an Israel soccer fields which caused injuries. The intention of harm is both there, but as any sane person can see, the Palestinian rocket attack edges out the air strike by a little in terms of injuries caused.

With this said, the double standards of the Western nations is starting to spread its influence to FIFA. The controversies of FIFA amount to more than this single affair and will be further elaborated on in the powerpoint presentation by me.

Jonathan. xD

The globalization of politics refers to the integration and interdependence of governments of the world today.

This globalization of politics can be seen via the example of the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol, which was put into force in December 11, 1997 in Kyoto Japan, aimed to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Though many countries signed this protocol which was introduced by the UN, most countries did not go along with the protocol objectives and some of the largest greenhouse gas emission countries did not sign the protocol, rendering it somewhat useless for a large scale change.

So what does the Kyoto Protocol show about the globalization of politics? It illustrates the interdependence of governments in modern times. Today, no government can be said to be superior with comparison to other governments unlike the past, where governments of richer countries tend to make decisions for less developed countries. Without the globalization of politics in the modern world today, it is highly likely that the eventual decision making concerning tha Kyoto Protocol will be made by governments of richer countries, such as Russia and such.

This is good in a way such that all countries are able to express their opinions on the subject. Also, this will ensure that most countries will advance at the same pace and there won’t be any more “lesser developed countries”.

However, this interdependency between countries may give arise to problems. For example, in the Kyoto protocol, one of the requirements for it to become effective is that the countries that sign must account for 55% of the CO₂ emission must sign. When countries such as U.S.A and China do not sign, they are merely further straining their relationship with other countries, leading to a turn off in political relationship between countries.