Sunday, April 29, 2007
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.
Monday, April 23, 2007
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 FieldsOutrage 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
Sunday, April 22, 2007
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.
About
Jonathan Peh
--> belongs to staplebullets.
--> belongs to 2B/06
A POLITICAL expert ;)
He knows about Globalization too!