“The mother of all wake-up calls”
By Wei Seng
The Arab populace has awakened
I apologise (which I often do whenever I write here these days) for not coming here often enough to write. Ironically, focusing on my job, which requires me to read up on current affairs, together with other demands such as learning driving have meant that other obligations such as housework and writing for ERPZ.net has been relegated to the back seat.
This article that I wish to highlight today, written by Thomas Friedman for New York Times, has been with me since 2 weeks ago, but I only got to really reviewing it today. In summary it talks about the Arab revolutions and the awakening of the Arab populace after decades of repression, stagnation and ignorance. The content is still relevant, even though coverage of the Arab revolutions have dipped as Libya is mired in a drawn-out civil war-like situation while other breaking news emerge (such as the earthquake-tsunami-nuclear blowout triple tragedy that is affecting Japan).
Friedman starts by telling America to end its "addiction to oil", and it is precisely because of this addiction to oil that the Arabian dictators and kings have managed to cling to power, in a formula that he recants: "keep your pumps open, your oil prices low, dont bother the Israelis too much and... you can do whatever you want". This puts America at the wrong side of history: how can the champion of democracy and freedom be silently condoning the prejudice of freedom of the Arab people?
He makes it clear that the revolutions are "not going to be a joyride" because this is taking place in a region with "frail institutions, scant civil society and virtually no democratic traditions or culture of innovation". Hopefully we're not looking at a transition from one pro-American dictator to another Islamist one, or a military junta. It would be too much to expect the emergence of an India, but it would be good if it could go in the direction of Turkey or Indonesia, two Muslim-majority countries that are also vibrant democracies, albeit with their own issues and hiccups with their experience with democracy.
Friedman concludes by saying that America should "root for" the democracy movement "without being in the middle of it". This seems to confuse me a little bit, but I suspect his meaning here is to support democracy but to give them free rein in deciding for themselves how they want to be governed rather than have America impose top-down a democratic framework. The Arab people have woken up, spoken and it is up to the West to give them tacit support.
The Polarity of the Internet
By Wei Seng
Like Poles Agree...
In today's The Straits Times, Rachel Chang comments about "the power of the Net to polarise".
She cites the examples of how vocal people on Facebook and their blogs, who have publicised their political views or displayed their political affiliations, have been slammed and harasssed online to the point that one such blogger stopped writing. The empowering voice of the Internet appears to work like a double-edged sword, threatening to slit the throat of the person wielding it in the face of the majority or the powerful.
It scares me sometimes how polarised views on the Internet can get. There does not seem to be room for compromise or discourse, it is very much an "us against them" game in terms of opinion rather than the moderated views across the spectrum. Chang quotes Cass Sunstein of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for his view that people who "interact with others who share the same views... tend to become more extreme". Of course, "the opposite is also true", but at least looking at some of the incidents Chang has had to cover for The Straits Times, it appears as if the former applies more than the latter.
I can very much feel for myself this polarity when I visit The Temasek Review. It is considered a source that is less influenced by the government (as opposed to The Straits Times, which some may deem to be a government propagandist body) but I am seeing quite a lot of critical anti-government writing. Ever since I started visiting this website, my rosy views about the govenrment have been somewhat tainted, not in a bad way. At very least, I feel as if I am considering other non-governmental viewpoints that might reallly be the voice of the people and not just what the government feeds to us via the press. It is scary, however, how netizens slam each other for their views, be it pro-PAP or anti-PAP. It is rather heartening that there is much debate about Singapore's future, and by and large discussion there is rather measured. It can get disturbing when emotions are flared up, as I notice in this write-up. I dare not express my views on this website for fear of being flamed to death by both pro-PAP and anti-PAP netizens.
Democracy... certainly brings about a cacophony that needs to be understood and tolerated, for all in the society to benefit. Hopefully with all the debate online and offline, people will come to a better understanding of what they want for their society. And it must mean dangerous times if arguments on the Internet spill over into real life and disrupt society.
So in essence... take heed online.
And just like Chang, I must add the disclaimer that I expect people to "shoot me nasty, unsigned email messages after reading this column", if only just to pre-empt comments considering the nature of my writing.