"Facts are the enemy of truth." - Miguel de Cervantes
***
Patterns of Racial-Ethnic Exclusion by Internet Daters
"Racial exclusion in dating is gendered; Asian males and black females are more highly excluded than their opposite-sex counterparts"
"The literature on interracial dating and racial boundaries generally focuses on white-minority relationships, ignoring inter-minority pairings...
Previous studies indicate racial homogamy in dating is strong among all racial groups (i.e., Blackwell and Lichter 2004; Joyner and Kao 2005). Assimilation theory posits that a shared racial identity is a powerful determinant of in-group marital preferences (Gordon 1964; Kalmijn 1998). Similarly, the evolutionary psychology perspective asserts that “similarity overwhelmingly is the rule in human mating.”(Buss and Schmitt 1993:205) According to these perspectives, the majority of our online daters should prefer to date within their own racial-ethnic group.
Other theories suggest different preferences for racial homogamy among racial groups. Social exchange theories argue that lower status racial-ethnic groups trade wealth and education for a racially higher status mate (Davis 1941; Merton 1941). Minority group members who intermarry with whites exchange their higher socioeconomic status for the higher racial status of a white spouse (Blackwell and Lichter 2000; Kalmijn 1993; Qian 1997). Nonwhite daters gain status by dating any white. Whites, on the other hand, have little to gain by dating minorities unless the latter can elevate their economic status. Similarly, Blumer (1958) posits that, as the historically dominant group, whites solidify and maintain their group position through prejudice towards others. According to social exchange and group position theories then, Asians, Latinos and blacks of similar socio-economic status should be more open than whites to outdating and more open to dating whites than whites are to dating them.
Existing theories also suggest differences in the degree of acceptance or exclusion different racial-ethnic groups may face in dating markets. According to the social exchange perspective and classic assimilation theory, those minority groups that enjoy greater secondary structural integration, as measured by income, educational attainment and residential integration, should enjoy greater primary structural incorporation or close, personal ties with out-group members... Based on the secondary structural assimilation of Middle Easterners, East Indians and Asians, one might expect whites to prefer dating those groups over Latinos, and to least prefer dating blacks...
Recent studies argue that similar to the inclusion of European immigrant groups, the boundaries of “whiteness” are extending to include Latinos and Asians, but remain closed to blacks (i.e., Feliciano 2001; Lee and Bean 2007). Evidence for this thesis is found in both the greater acceptance by whites of Latinos and Asians than blacks, and also the greater acceptance of whites than blacks by Latinos and Asians...
The classic assimilation perspective, consistent with the aforementioned studies, suggests that Asians, Latinos and blacks will prefer to date whites over one another, and that Latinos and Asians will be more open to dating one another than they will be to dating blacks. However, much of the research considered thus far does not consider the extent to which racial-ethnic exclusion may be gendered...
Several studies confirm [the Evolutionary Psychological prediction] that women are less willing to out-marry than are men (Tucker and Kernan 1995; Yancey 2002), and place more emphasis on selecting a same-race partner than men (Fisman et al. 2006). Collectively, these studies predict that women will be choosier, that is, have more criteria for dates and be more likely to select a same-race date than men...
It follows from both social exchange and sexual strategies theories that women should prefer dating white, Asian, Middle Eastern and East Indian men than black or Latino men [due to wealth]...
Recent survey research suggests that internet daters do not differ in socio-economic or demographic characteristics (such as gender, race or education) from single internet users who do not use internet dating services... Online daters are also found to be more socially liberal compared to others (Madden and Lenhart 2006), and more educated respondents have been shown to express more positive racial attitudes (Bobo and Massagli 2001)...
Misrepresentation of age and physical characteristics is common among internet daters, although scholars find no gender or ethnic differences in the levels of mispresentation (Cornwell and Lundgren 2001)...
In contrast to marriage and dating outcomes (Harris and Ono 2005), stated racial preferences are not necessarily limited by physical proximity. On the internet, individuals are free to state preferences for groups they might not normally come into contact with in their everyday lives. Therefore, stated racial preferences in an actual search for a date may be a better indicator of the social distance between groups than dating or marriage outcomes...
Women are more likely than men to state preferences for all characteristics except body type... Women tended to state preferences for many more characteristics than males (50% vs. 34%)...
We see few racial differences in the percentages stating racial preferences. For those who state a preference, both white males and females are the least open to interracial dating within their genders – 29 percent of white males and 65 percent of white females prefer to date only whites...
White women (4%) are less likely than black women (8%), Latinas (16%), and especially, Asian women (40%) to prefer to date only outside of their respective racial group...
We find women are much more likely to state a racial preference than men (74% vs. 58%, pr = .001, not shown). However, we see that only some groups of women prefer to be more racially homogamous than men. Among those who state a racial preference, more white women (65%) and black women (45%) prefer to date only within their race than their male counterparts (29% vs. 23%). However, Latino males and females do not differ in preferring racial homogamy, and Asian women are much less likely than their male counterparts to prefer to only in-date (6% vs. 21%)...
Consistent with social exchange and group position theories, Asians, Latinos and blacks are more open to dating whites than whites are to dating them. Of those who state a racial preference, 97 percent of white men exclude black women, 48 percent exclude Latinas, and 53 percent exclude Asian women. In contrast, white men are excluded by 76 percent of black women, 33 percent of Latinas, and only 11 percent of Asian women. Similarly, 92 percent of white women exclude black men, 77 percent exclude Latinos, and 93 percent exclude Asian men. White women are excluded by 71 percent of black men, 31 percent of Latinos, and 36 percent of Asian men...
For Asian women, only 11 percent of whom exclude white men as dates, far less than the 40 percent excluding Asian men...
Latinas’ dating preferences are inconsistent with racial-economic exchange theory as they exclude Asian men (90%) at higher rates than black men (76%)...
Although white women and Latinas are more exclusionary of Middle Easterners, Asians and East Indians than of blacks, white men and Asian men are far more exclusionary of black women than other groups of women. The greater exclusion of black women by white and Asian men supports the secondary structural integration thesis, but the pattern of exclusion among women does not. This is particularly surprising because both social exchange and sexual strategies theories posit that women seek economic and financial security in a mate. Thus, women’s rejection of higher earning men fails to support these theories.
Similarly, we find significant gender differences in the exclusion and inclusion of Asians and blacks. White females, black females and Latinas are all much more likely to exclude Asian men as dates than their male counterparts are to exclude Asian women. In contrast, the gendered pattern to the exclusion of blacks is unique in that it is the only case where women from a particular minority group are more excluded than their male counterparts. That is, white men, black men, Latinos and Asian males are all more likely to exclude black women than their female counterparts are to exclude black men...
In contrast to black women, Latinas and Asian females are less excluded than their male counterparts. However, the gender difference in the exclusion of Asians is the most striking in its magnitude. The probability that an Asian man is excluded is .91, compared to only .61 among Asian women. Asian men are also much more excluded than white men (.31), Latinos (.63) or black men (.68). In particular, we noted that Asian females are much less likely to exclude white men (11%) than Asian men as possible dates (40%). This finding suggests a level of preference for a racial group different from one’s own (white men) among Asian women that is unique among all the racial/gender groups in this study...
Whites are far more likely than minorities to prefer to date only within their race. Our analyses of minorities’ racial preferences show that Asians, blacks and Latinos are more likely to include whites as possible dates than whites are to include them...
Existing theories may not adequately capture the complexity of Latinos’ racial position between blacks and whites (see Feliciano et al. Forthcoming). Our !nding that Latinos are the most included minority group by Asians, whites and blacks suggests that they may bene!t from racial ambiguity (that is, they may be seen as black or white) (Yancey 2003)...
Blacks are far more exclusionary of whites than Latinos and Asians are, suggesting that they are less open to primary structural integration. While this finding may be somewhat contrary to social exchange, group position and classic assimilation theories, it is consistent with a pattern of black exceptionalism, a product of the unique historical construction of blacks as the supreme “other.”(Feliciano 2001; Lee and Bean 2007) Given the long and pervasive legacy of white racism, blacks may have more negative perceptions of whites, and may perceive Latinos as more willing to date them than whites. Our data support this contention...
[Puzzling is that] all groups are more accepting of Asian women and Latinas over their male counterparts. Especially perplexing is that women prefer to date black men over Asian men. This is completely contrary to the claims of social exchange and sexual strategies theories that women should prefer to date men with higher socio-economic standing.
However, our findings are consistent with gendered patterns of black-white and Asian-white intermarriage, which existing studies have not explained (e.g., Jacobs and Labov 2002). Our results suggest that intermarriage patterns result from gendered racial preferences, but we can only speculate about the factors driving such preferences. One possible explanation for the greater exclusion of Asian men and black women is that they are less open to interracial dating than their opposite-sex counterparts. However, we find both are more open to dating other groups than these groups are to dating them, suggesting that the preferences of others drive the relatively low intermarriage rates of Asian men and black women. One study confirms that few black college women are willing to date whites because they believe whites perceive them as unattractive or as stereotypically hypersexual and promiscuous (Childs 2005). The reasons for these gendered preferences are still unclear, but previous scholarship suggests that negative portrayals of Asian men’s masculinity (Espiritu 1997) and black women’s femininity (Collins 2004) may shape the exclusion of these groups"
THE RESULTS ARE EXACTLY THOSE PREDICTED BY MY THEORY OF INTER-RACIAL DATING
It was proposed to me that men find lower status mates attractive, which was why White men liked Asian women. My reply was that in that case Black women should be the most attractive of all.
Sadly, black racism is explained as a reaction to white racism - which is very insulting (and yes, racist).
You can hear us push
Through the deepest bush
With a military air!
Monday, June 06, 2011
Piss Christ
"Etant... encore moins adepte de toute forme d'intégrisme, je suis sidéré de constater l'étonnement et l'émotion soulevés par cet « attentat » contre une oeuvre qui à mes yeux n'a rien d'une oeuvre d'art. On peut certes polémiquer sur la définition de la notion d' »oeuvre d'art », d'autant plus que, en matière d'esthétique, chacun réagit en fonction de sa propre sensibilité. La mienne me porte à admirer de préférence, ce qui est beau et que j'ai plaisir à regarder ou à entendre, en m'émerveillant parfois du talent et de l'inspiration de l'artiste qui me procure une émotion artistique. Pour certains, l'artiste, et cela fait partie de sa licence, a le droit de choquer. Il paraît que c'est cela qui fait progresser le goût, en obligeant le public à réflechir…. Réflechir… Comment, à une époque où nous sommes saturés de plaintes sur tous les tons, de jérémiades, d'invectives, d'insultes à coups de noms d'oiseaux tels que « racistes », « islamophobes », dès que le moindre dérapage verbal, ecrit ou pictural s'attaque à une religion qui a réussi à imposer une auto-censure efficace à tout ce qui pense ou ce qui s'exprime, comment, donc, peut-on encore s'étonner de la violence des réactions des catholiques devant des images bien plus conçues pour provoquer, choquer des convictions religieuses, que pour susciter l'émerveillement ????"
Post ID: 2014348251385408877
Sunday, June 05, 2011
Links - 5th June 2011
"No human thing is of serious importance." - Plato
***
China used prisoners in lucrative internet gaming work
Clashes in Barcelona after Champions League win - "Around 90 people were injured, at least two of them seriously, as bottles were thrown and scuffles broke out. Around 20 people were arrested."
Following National Education rhetoric, Singapore should ban football
Pandaranol | Sushiprod - "[Il] est le thème principal du jeu concours de référencement qui a démarré hier, soit Lundi 23 Mai 2011 à 19h. Le but de ce concours est simple : créer un site et le positionner sur le terme cité précédemment, c’est à dire pandaranol."
Enfin, j'ai appris qu'est-ce que 'Pandaranol' veut dire
No more Blank Cheque for the PAP « Dr Tan Cheng Bock - "Today, after 25 years of nation-building, there is an erosion in this faith and trust in the Government and this was translated into a 12.5% swing in the last general election... Is this then the ordinary people’s government, or is it a government for a special breed of men?... Mr Speaker, Sir, the angry mood of the people did not go unnoticed... It is therefore good to find that one of the Government’s new goals will be to pay particular attention to the 15-20% lower income group and the aged... It is easier to please the past generation. Their needs are simple. But times have changed and problems are different today... Singapore watchers saw how our people voted in the last general elections. They have made conclusions"
Considering that this speech is from 1985, it's telling. Plus ça change...
Marital Happiness, Marital Duration, and the U-Shaped Curve: Evidence from a Five-Wave Panel Study - "Previous research suggests a U-shaped pattern of marital happiness over the life course... In an analysis based on a fixed-effects pooled time-series model with multiple-wave panel data, we find declines in marital happiness at all marital durations and no support for an upturn in marital happiness in the later years. The relationship between marital happiness and marital duration is slightly curvilinear, with the steepest declines in marital happiness occurring during the earliest and latest years of marriage. When other life-course variables are controlled, a significant negative effect of marital duration on marital happiness remains"
Advice for Online Daters: If You’re a Guy, Don’t Smile - "Women are turned off by guys who smile, according to a new study published in the American Psychological Association's journal Emotion. Men, however, were most attracted to photos of smiling women, the study found. And both men and women said they were attracted to people with a look of shame"
AndroidSPIN Marital Bliss! Android Style with a Little Harry Potter for Good Luck - "Jon C. Hodgson proposed to his girlfriend of 2 years in a very innovative way that involved their Android phones, Google App Inventor, and a little bit of ingenuity."
You’re No Ansel Adams: MIT Finds Landscape Photos Forgettable - "Photos with people in them are more likely to stick in the viewer’s memory after seeing a series of photos... “That’s hilarious,” says Randy Greenwell, Director of Photography at The Virginian-Pilot. “A machine telling people what is memorable? I’m not ready to trade in my photo editors yet. It takes a human to understand human feelings. And as far as landscapes go, I have two words for you: Ansel Adams.”"
As usual, people blithely dismiss research findings with 'common sense' and anecdotes
The Burning House - "If your house was burning, what would you take with you? It's a conflict between what's practical, valuable and sentimental. What you would take reflects your interests, background and priorities. Think of it as an interview condensed into one question. "
Badminton Dress Code for Women Criticized as Sexist
Meanwhile no one cares about male dress codes
Brazilian Woman Wins Right To Masturbate At Work - "Ana Catarian Bezerra is a 36-year-old Brazilian woman who suffers from a chemical imbalance that triggers severe anxiety and hypersexuality... Ana is allowed to masturbate and watch porn — using her work's computer, no less — legally."
This has interesting implications for discrimination/employment law
SBS’ Official Iris iPhone App and its API - "3rd party clients are being locked out of the SBS Iris API by a stupid captcha. It’s ok, don’t forget that SBS has its official iPhone app, we can take a look at its request packets and see how it communicates with the Iris servers, and use that for our 3rd party clients too"
Students turn back alley into sex den
Malaysia Boleh!
The pros and cons of a man sitting down to pee - The Oatmeal
PLoS ONE: Epidemiology, Quality and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Published in Chinese Journals - "The impact factors of 45.8% of the journals published in were zero... Funding sources were not reported for any reviews. Most (68.8%) reported information about quality assessment, while less than half (43.6%) reported assessing for publication bias. Statistical mistakes appeared in one-third (29.3%) of reviews and most (91.9%) did not report on conflict of interest"
Is this the inventor of bubble tea? - "[She] was sitting in a staff meeting and had brought with her a typical Taiwanese dessert called fen yuan, a sweetened tapioca pudding. Just for fun she poured the tapioca balls into her Assam iced tea and drank it."
Singaporeans’ political attitudes
According to this Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey on Singaporeans’ political attitudes on 1,092 citizens aged 21 years and above in July and August 2010 21.6% strongly agree that "Singapore should have a powerful leader who can run the Government as he thinks fit" (51.6% agree), 26.9% disagree or strongly disagree that "Everyone should be given the freedom to criticise the Government publicly" and 70.1% prize "good economic growth" above freedom of speech (of which 12.8% feel strongly so). And 20% aged 21-39 do not think there is media bias for local political news.
Facebook : le rendez-vous galant était un guet-apens - "Appâté par une jeune fille rencontrée sur Facebook, un Parisien de 17 ans a été torturé toute une nuit durant par trois adolescents apparemment dénués de tout mobile."
A Thing (or Two) About Holly Jean: How to Spot Breast Implants
Delete Your Digital Self: Moddr.net - "It should come as no surprise that Facebook would reply with a letter threatening to sue the Web 2.0 Suicide Machine. After all, Facebook's growth projections and core business depend on getting more and more people to sign up for their service. Encouraging people to leave Facebook–especially if the trend were to catch on–could hurt the company's bottom line... eventually society will condemn the idea of virtual suicide and may even rule it to be illegal"
The thesis (summarised in the last line) is classic journalistic speculation and hysteria
100 million trips, but don't ask us where - "The British have always been among the most travelled nationalities, but it seems our geographical knowledge is no better for it... Among 2,000 holidaymakers[,] Sixty per cent of those interviewed could not accurately place on a map where they had been on holiday last year. A further 38 per cent thought Singapore was in China, 29 per cent believed New Zealand belonged to Australia, and 44 per cent did not know the Alps were in Europe"
Keeping the House in order - "The throngs of newly elected members of the House of Commons preparing to take their seats this week are in for one of life’s more disillusioning experiences — encountering the stark difference between the theory and practice of parliamentary life... MPs consider the least productive, most embarrassing part of the job to be the Question Period follies that by far receive the most public attention... Their most satisfying and productive work, it was frequently said, was in the committees seldom covered by reporters and in caucus deliberations done in secret... “I can remember being told, walking into my first Question Period, ‘Remember, Speaker, this is Question Period not ‘answer period’.”"
How much longer can photographic film hold on? - "Among those who still rely on film _ at least part of the time _ are advanced amateurs and a smattering of professionals who specialize in nature, travel, scientific, documentary, museum, fine art and forensic photography, market surveys show. Regular point-and-shoot adherents who haven't made the switch tend be poorer or older _ 55 and up. But there's also a swelling band of new devotees who grew up in the digital age and may have gotten hooked from spending a magical hour in the darkroom during a high school or college class. Others are simply drawn to its strengths over digital and are even venturing into retro-photo careers."
Merdeka Center poll highlights differences among voter segments - "Older voters give greater weight to party label and party leadership, than to candidates and issues... Women higher satisfaction government... less concerned with issues... less favorable toward opposition parties... see opposition as less credible... less supportive of more opposition seats"
This is no surprise given that women are more risk averse, and it replicates and confirms the long-standing finding that women are more politically apathetic (which is tied to why they are underrepresented in politics)
The Volokh Conspiracy » The Gender Gap in Interest in Politics - "87% of all Wikipedia contributors are male... it’s difficult to attribute the gap to discrimination, since most Wikipedia writers are anonymous, thereby making it virtually impossible for Wikipedia to discriminate against women even if they wanted to... decades of research show that there is a substantial gender gap in political knowledge, with men especially overrepresented among the 5% of the population who follow politics most closely... 25% of men, but only 10% of women report reading at least one nonfiction book on politics over the last year... Younger women today have higher average levels of educational attainment than men, and the Harris poll mentioned above shows that they also read more than men do overall. Thus, the gender gap in political knowledge and interest in politics is likely due to lower interest among women in this particular field... Despite massive changes in public attitudes on women’s role in politics over the last fifty years, the general gap in political knowledge has declined only modestly over time... the vast majority of political bloggers are male, as are about 70–80% of political blog readers"
***
China used prisoners in lucrative internet gaming work
Clashes in Barcelona after Champions League win - "Around 90 people were injured, at least two of them seriously, as bottles were thrown and scuffles broke out. Around 20 people were arrested."
Following National Education rhetoric, Singapore should ban football
Pandaranol | Sushiprod - "[Il] est le thème principal du jeu concours de référencement qui a démarré hier, soit Lundi 23 Mai 2011 à 19h. Le but de ce concours est simple : créer un site et le positionner sur le terme cité précédemment, c’est à dire pandaranol."
Enfin, j'ai appris qu'est-ce que 'Pandaranol' veut dire
No more Blank Cheque for the PAP « Dr Tan Cheng Bock - "Today, after 25 years of nation-building, there is an erosion in this faith and trust in the Government and this was translated into a 12.5% swing in the last general election... Is this then the ordinary people’s government, or is it a government for a special breed of men?... Mr Speaker, Sir, the angry mood of the people did not go unnoticed... It is therefore good to find that one of the Government’s new goals will be to pay particular attention to the 15-20% lower income group and the aged... It is easier to please the past generation. Their needs are simple. But times have changed and problems are different today... Singapore watchers saw how our people voted in the last general elections. They have made conclusions"
Considering that this speech is from 1985, it's telling. Plus ça change...
Marital Happiness, Marital Duration, and the U-Shaped Curve: Evidence from a Five-Wave Panel Study - "Previous research suggests a U-shaped pattern of marital happiness over the life course... In an analysis based on a fixed-effects pooled time-series model with multiple-wave panel data, we find declines in marital happiness at all marital durations and no support for an upturn in marital happiness in the later years. The relationship between marital happiness and marital duration is slightly curvilinear, with the steepest declines in marital happiness occurring during the earliest and latest years of marriage. When other life-course variables are controlled, a significant negative effect of marital duration on marital happiness remains"
Advice for Online Daters: If You’re a Guy, Don’t Smile - "Women are turned off by guys who smile, according to a new study published in the American Psychological Association's journal Emotion. Men, however, were most attracted to photos of smiling women, the study found. And both men and women said they were attracted to people with a look of shame"
AndroidSPIN Marital Bliss! Android Style with a Little Harry Potter for Good Luck - "Jon C. Hodgson proposed to his girlfriend of 2 years in a very innovative way that involved their Android phones, Google App Inventor, and a little bit of ingenuity."
You’re No Ansel Adams: MIT Finds Landscape Photos Forgettable - "Photos with people in them are more likely to stick in the viewer’s memory after seeing a series of photos... “That’s hilarious,” says Randy Greenwell, Director of Photography at The Virginian-Pilot. “A machine telling people what is memorable? I’m not ready to trade in my photo editors yet. It takes a human to understand human feelings. And as far as landscapes go, I have two words for you: Ansel Adams.”"
As usual, people blithely dismiss research findings with 'common sense' and anecdotes
The Burning House - "If your house was burning, what would you take with you? It's a conflict between what's practical, valuable and sentimental. What you would take reflects your interests, background and priorities. Think of it as an interview condensed into one question. "
Badminton Dress Code for Women Criticized as Sexist
Meanwhile no one cares about male dress codes
Brazilian Woman Wins Right To Masturbate At Work - "Ana Catarian Bezerra is a 36-year-old Brazilian woman who suffers from a chemical imbalance that triggers severe anxiety and hypersexuality... Ana is allowed to masturbate and watch porn — using her work's computer, no less — legally."
This has interesting implications for discrimination/employment law
SBS’ Official Iris iPhone App and its API - "3rd party clients are being locked out of the SBS Iris API by a stupid captcha. It’s ok, don’t forget that SBS has its official iPhone app, we can take a look at its request packets and see how it communicates with the Iris servers, and use that for our 3rd party clients too"
Students turn back alley into sex den
Malaysia Boleh!
The pros and cons of a man sitting down to pee - The Oatmeal
PLoS ONE: Epidemiology, Quality and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Published in Chinese Journals - "The impact factors of 45.8% of the journals published in were zero... Funding sources were not reported for any reviews. Most (68.8%) reported information about quality assessment, while less than half (43.6%) reported assessing for publication bias. Statistical mistakes appeared in one-third (29.3%) of reviews and most (91.9%) did not report on conflict of interest"
Is this the inventor of bubble tea? - "[She] was sitting in a staff meeting and had brought with her a typical Taiwanese dessert called fen yuan, a sweetened tapioca pudding. Just for fun she poured the tapioca balls into her Assam iced tea and drank it."
Singaporeans’ political attitudes
According to this Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey on Singaporeans’ political attitudes on 1,092 citizens aged 21 years and above in July and August 2010 21.6% strongly agree that "Singapore should have a powerful leader who can run the Government as he thinks fit" (51.6% agree), 26.9% disagree or strongly disagree that "Everyone should be given the freedom to criticise the Government publicly" and 70.1% prize "good economic growth" above freedom of speech (of which 12.8% feel strongly so). And 20% aged 21-39 do not think there is media bias for local political news.
Facebook : le rendez-vous galant était un guet-apens - "Appâté par une jeune fille rencontrée sur Facebook, un Parisien de 17 ans a été torturé toute une nuit durant par trois adolescents apparemment dénués de tout mobile."
A Thing (or Two) About Holly Jean: How to Spot Breast Implants
Delete Your Digital Self: Moddr.net - "It should come as no surprise that Facebook would reply with a letter threatening to sue the Web 2.0 Suicide Machine. After all, Facebook's growth projections and core business depend on getting more and more people to sign up for their service. Encouraging people to leave Facebook–especially if the trend were to catch on–could hurt the company's bottom line... eventually society will condemn the idea of virtual suicide and may even rule it to be illegal"
The thesis (summarised in the last line) is classic journalistic speculation and hysteria
100 million trips, but don't ask us where - "The British have always been among the most travelled nationalities, but it seems our geographical knowledge is no better for it... Among 2,000 holidaymakers[,] Sixty per cent of those interviewed could not accurately place on a map where they had been on holiday last year. A further 38 per cent thought Singapore was in China, 29 per cent believed New Zealand belonged to Australia, and 44 per cent did not know the Alps were in Europe"
Keeping the House in order - "The throngs of newly elected members of the House of Commons preparing to take their seats this week are in for one of life’s more disillusioning experiences — encountering the stark difference between the theory and practice of parliamentary life... MPs consider the least productive, most embarrassing part of the job to be the Question Period follies that by far receive the most public attention... Their most satisfying and productive work, it was frequently said, was in the committees seldom covered by reporters and in caucus deliberations done in secret... “I can remember being told, walking into my first Question Period, ‘Remember, Speaker, this is Question Period not ‘answer period’.”"
How much longer can photographic film hold on? - "Among those who still rely on film _ at least part of the time _ are advanced amateurs and a smattering of professionals who specialize in nature, travel, scientific, documentary, museum, fine art and forensic photography, market surveys show. Regular point-and-shoot adherents who haven't made the switch tend be poorer or older _ 55 and up. But there's also a swelling band of new devotees who grew up in the digital age and may have gotten hooked from spending a magical hour in the darkroom during a high school or college class. Others are simply drawn to its strengths over digital and are even venturing into retro-photo careers."
Merdeka Center poll highlights differences among voter segments - "Older voters give greater weight to party label and party leadership, than to candidates and issues... Women higher satisfaction government... less concerned with issues... less favorable toward opposition parties... see opposition as less credible... less supportive of more opposition seats"
This is no surprise given that women are more risk averse, and it replicates and confirms the long-standing finding that women are more politically apathetic (which is tied to why they are underrepresented in politics)
The Volokh Conspiracy » The Gender Gap in Interest in Politics - "87% of all Wikipedia contributors are male... it’s difficult to attribute the gap to discrimination, since most Wikipedia writers are anonymous, thereby making it virtually impossible for Wikipedia to discriminate against women even if they wanted to... decades of research show that there is a substantial gender gap in political knowledge, with men especially overrepresented among the 5% of the population who follow politics most closely... 25% of men, but only 10% of women report reading at least one nonfiction book on politics over the last year... Younger women today have higher average levels of educational attainment than men, and the Harris poll mentioned above shows that they also read more than men do overall. Thus, the gender gap in political knowledge and interest in politics is likely due to lower interest among women in this particular field... Despite massive changes in public attitudes on women’s role in politics over the last fifty years, the general gap in political knowledge has declined only modestly over time... the vast majority of political bloggers are male, as are about 70–80% of political blog readers"
Post ID: 7138278176311482605
On the Utility of appealing for Outside Pressure to improve Singapore's Political Situation
"Most people ignore most poetry
because
most poetry ignores most people."
- Adrian Mitchell
***
A: Singapore: UN Rights Body Should Press for Fundamental Freedoms | Human Rights Watch
B: Bollocks. Does a country with about one in five with degrees need Human Rights Watch to do our dirty political work for us?
A: Apparently yes.
C: i find it embarrassing too, but there are too many ignorant and self-centred people in singapore. it's not apathy, i'm done with using that term.
B: rights are almost never "given", you have to take them. every nation that now grants rights to its citizens did so under threat or application of force i.e. once upon a time the people fought for it.
we've never fought for anything; we complain and uncle PAP will either give it to us or tell us why cannot. complaining to the UN won't work. worse if we get others to complain for us ...
Me: You rather they do not?
B: yes, we can do our own complaining. Maruah?
Me: So since Sri Lanka has a strong democratic tradition, should NGOs not bother protesting the war crimes during the final years of the war against the Tamil Tigers?
Should non-Americans point out the disturbing implications of the Patriot Act and other Bush-era legislation?
Must non-Hong Kongers keep mum on each delay in Legco's true emancipation?
B: those are good questions, but wrong. those who want rights must fight for them, those in power will never willingly grant them. getting others to talk about one's injustices is good for their consciences and maybe, ours too; but there will be no redress. the UN is not a world government: how many battalions does it have? none.
Tamil Tigers still died and the Patriot Act hasn't been repealed. Despite lotsa talk ...
D: could all of these concerns over rights be solved peacefully, by those with access to connected-advocates, in the civil-courts, under the sole discretion of a PAP judge ?
B: and the alternative would be ... ? the international court of justice in The Hague? maybe baby steps first, say, restoration of the jury system, the heart of English Common Law? there are things to do, many things ... complaining to outsiders, with their own interests and agendas, isn't the most effective.
D: international-attention /will/ effect some, nominal, change-in-policy (or the way policies seem to outsiders) but real change can only be effected by a change in the way the ppl relate to their government.. folks should stop paying fines for meaningless offences, turn-off the state-run news ( or write-it, without regard for government-directives ) and break the systems of class- & race-segregation in their own thoughts & daily-activities. . . am i gonna get sued ? *_*"
Me: How did apartheid in South Africa end?
B: Apartheid was internally resisted by violence as well as a trade embargo (but cheating through Israel and Portugal was extensive) - Lodge, Tom (1983). Black Politics in South Africa Since 1945. Longman.
Me: Your point being? If the international community is not unanimously behind it, there is no point?
B: not sure what is "the international community"? NGOs? UN and it's agencies, e.g. IMF, World Bank, FAO, WHO ... ? or the EU, ASEAN or ... ? They are all different and with separate interests and agenda. I've repeated my point and will, for your sake, write it again: effective change in society must come from within and power structures yield only to force, hopefully the force of the ballot and not violence. Gottit?
in case you missed it, D said the same, "but real change can only be effected by a change in the way the ppl relate to their government.. "
E: There are many factors that can affect how people relate to their governments. We also have to take into account what type (culture) of people they are. Many a times, outside opinions will trigger the emotions of those within a place, rightly or wrongly.
A passive culture (or like singapore, the myopic 'looking out for only oneself culture), who are used to whatever status quo, might need a little nudge, a little reminder, a little 'enlightenment.. to feel that they are not alone and that they have support, or that they really do have something to be aggrieve about.
Without outside forces.. sometimes it would have to take serious tragedies before people act out of their comfort zone. But that might be a tragedy in itself.
B: if we agree that they aren't homogenous, then which outside forces should we respond to? how do we avoid confirmation bias? it seems that we agree that we tend to be passive. if so, then can't the silent majority be roused by native daughters and sons who should not wail into the wilderness but socially network everyone to make the PAP listen and respond. or else! i would be sorry if we are inspired only by foreign voices ...
E: an abused child might not know he is being abused. He knows that he doesn't like to be hurt, he is fearful, he is angry, but he doesn't know that he is not alone, he doesn't understand that what is done to him is not right, and he also doesn't know that he can change his situation, he doesn't know how... He still loves his parents and believes that they care for him and are only doing whatever for his own good.
We are his neighbours and we know what is going on in that household. Should we intervene?
B: your analogy is inexact: it assumes a nation-state with legitimate police powers. what would be the supra-national authority that would intervene on behalf of us, the abused children of singapore? UN Security Council resolution? ICJ determination? who will enforce it? NATO or the US Sixth Fleet? a trade embargo that hurts everyone. including those who don't care about the ISA or 377A?
E: what I wanted to point out is how or when one should intervene when one sees certain injustice, whether or not there is one or more authorities one can report to.
It is important for me to see this world as one big nucleus, without any one place being exclusive.
There are many ways to fight diseases..
I have not assume anything. I was merely asking, "should we intervene?".
What I am trying to point out is that, there are many factors that affect change, especially when we are talking about such large scales.
Let's use North Korea as an example. Most of the world has turn very much a blind eye to the going ons within that regime. Children, women, people are suffering and dying everyday. They have no rights. They have nothing, and they are nothing to the regime.
Without outside help, influence, forces.. do you think the people of North Korea can help themselves? They cannot leave the country, they have no money, they have little education, they cannot buy weapons etc.
Unless the unlikely happens.. a power hungry general decides to do a mutiny... Or a bunch of soldiers decides to rebel. Or hungry people just go for broke..
How long must it take before the world does something something about it? How dangerous must pyongyang becomes before we act? What must we stand to lose before the world take serious notice? How many innocent people must die, how many generations must suffer before we say or do anything?
The people in North Korea must help themselves? Sure. Tell me how?
It does not have to be one big authority.. it can be multiple world institutions... doesn't really matter sometimes.. for raising awareness is almost always the first and most important step.
Me: It is not a binary variable of change being totally due to outside pressure or there being no outside pressure at all. There are forces inside Singapore working for change - doesn't mean that outside pressure is not desirable
Nobody says that change should be forced upon by outsiders upon a totally unwilling populace. But that's not to say that outsides should not help.
D: conservative & well-considered international-intervention, like trade-sanctions & threatening-military-actions, have only served to intensify the oppression of the north-korean people. this sort of vague, un-commited, /strictly-political/ action is the fuel for the isolationist-propaganda-machine, & only serves to further the culture-of-abuse within an authoritarian-state. Who among the PAP will see their abuses & seek change? What might bring-about this awareness? this is the form of an effective, insurrectionary, intervention.
Me: That's why nowadays sanctions are more targeted
I can't see what might bring about change. It's more like spitting on the jailer's face
D: an appeal /must/ effect moral-indignation on the part of those in power. wide-distribution of the stories of those hurt by the regime is a good first-step, interviews with imported child-brides, domestic-workers, homosexuals & their families would prolly do the trick.
B: Are we living in a N. Korean situation?
Why rely on outside help when you can help yourself? Are we to admit our helplessness in the face of PAP power? Low Thia Kiang, luckily, does not believe this.
Human rights Watch does a good job for N Korea, Syria, Iran ... but do we need it? Yes is the pathetic answer!
Me: So should HRW close down?
They even produce country reports on many developed countries, including the US (in fact their US report is the longest of all, I think)
B: Good try, but putting words into my mouth is good tactics but poor reasoning. Read my message: "we" equals "Singapore" not "the world" on which I'm not qualified to comment.
Me: Your logic is that a developed country with an educated populace has no need of outsiders to point out human rights and other issues.
To test your logic for external consistency, we should apply it to various similar scenarios and see whether it still holds.
Pleading ignorance is a copout. No one is asking you to comment on Botswana.
Good reasoning:
Reflective Equilibrium http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reflective-equilibrium/
"Many of us, perhaps all of us, have examined our moral judgments about a particular issue by looking for their coherence with our beliefs about similar cases and our beliefs about a broader range of moral and factual issues. In this everyday practice, we have sought “reflective equilibrium” among these various beliefs as a way of clarifying for ourselves just what we ought to do. In addition, we may also have been persuading ourselves that our conclusions were justifiable and ultimately acceptable to us by seeking coherence among them. Even though it is part of our everyday practice, is this approach to deliberating about what is right and finding justification for our views defensible?
Viewed most generally, a “reflective equilibrium” is the end-point of a deliberative process in which we reflect on and revise our beliefs about an area of inquiry, moral or non-moral. The inquiry might be as specific as the moral question, “What is the right thing to do in this case?” or the logical question, “Is this the correct inference to make?” Alternatively, the inquiry might be much more general, asking which theory or account of justice or right action we should accept, or which principles of inductive reasoning we should use. We can also refer to the process or method itself as the “method of reflective equilibrium.”"
B: Read my lips - "Sing-a- pore", not "developed country".
Thanks for the Stanford link. I now understand our dispute. Your stance is moral and I fully agree. Mine is real-politik, i.e. what is and what works.
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston
And, if I may add, no principles either; although in an ideal world ....
Me: No, your previous comments indicate that you were not talking solely about Singapore:
"Does a country with about one in five with degrees need Human Rights Watch to do our dirty political work for us?"
"complaining to the UN won't work. worse if we get others to complain for us"
"those who want rights must fight for them, those in power will never willingly grant them. getting others to talk about one's injustices is good for their consciences and maybe, ours too; but there will be no redress. the UN is not a world government: how many battalions does it have? none."
"complaining to outsiders, with their own interests and agendas, isn't the most effective."
"but real change can only be effected by a change in the way the ppl relate to their government.."
Besides which, even if you were only talking about Singapore you would have to justify your appeal to Singaporean exceptionalism: why is it the case that for Singapore - and not a similarly situated developed country - outside pressure, regardless of the form it takes, will not work?
And no, I was talking about realpolitik as well as the moral aspect of things. While often of limited use, there is no reason to totally eschew outside pressure.
While realpolitik is the primary principle motivating international relations, it does not mean that doing the right thing is not a motivation at all - that is a false dichotomy. Being on the right side of history is one reason the 17 nation coalition is intervening in Libya after all (to take merely the most recent example).
B: "exceptionalism" is your perception not mine and I can't argue for or against it ...
the best reason to "eschew outside pressure" is not needing it, as we (Singaporeans) don't. Well, that is my claim and I'd like to debate this and no other.
Me: You say that you're only talking about Singapore and you refuse to consider any other cases. That's implies exceptionalism - that Singapore is such a special case that others cannot be discussed or even taken into consideration
If your claims cannot be applied to wider scenarios then it's not clear that they have any validity in and of themselves.
For example Christian Apologists contort history into all manner of uncomfortable and outrageous bends in an attempt to justify their faith. Of course, this flies in the face of all good historiography, and would radically rewrite history as we know it if applied to non-Biblical history. Inevitably, though, they demur when asked what would happen if their historiography were applied elsewhere.
Similarly, quack doctors and other hawkers of pseudoscientific treatments do not agree to submit their wares to scientific testing, saying that they work for their clients. Should we thus believe their claims of efficacy?
D: Singapore is a truly exceptional case, because even those who are hurt by the regime can be /perceived/ as sharing in its benefits. so those stripping the rights of the (various) under-classes feel /none/ of the regret, indignation, & self-directed outrage that could be expected. Furthermore, (and this may /only/ speak to my ignorance) i have never met a singaporean-nationalist, there are company-men & legalistic-conservatives, but no national-identity like we see in nations founded before the rise of the global-market. . . srsly though, books & movies & blog-posts, the censors can't burn /everything/ & they /have/ to read or watch the content first !
E: B, since you are trying to throw us off by suddenly saying that all along you are only referring to Singapore, and like Gabriel, I do not see how we have failed to 'read between the lines'.
The internet (which they cannot ban), returning Singaporeans who spent good years away, foreigners (which more than ever we cannot do without - 40% of the population) etc.. are all 'outside forces' which have had influence the minds of people.
D: this bickering is entirely beside-the-fact ,, change /must/ come from within, (the people, the parliament, the judiciary) and /all/ of these bodies are influenced (to varying degrees) by outside forces. scream & you'll be heard,, maybe even by the right ppl ^_^ !
B: D, thank you for your understanding.
To the rest, I'm just too ignorant (historiography, prostitutes and exceptionalism) to debate any other political situation except Singapore's. So, bowing to your superior knowledge, I stand silent to listen and learn ...
because
most poetry ignores most people."
- Adrian Mitchell
***
A: Singapore: UN Rights Body Should Press for Fundamental Freedoms | Human Rights Watch
B: Bollocks. Does a country with about one in five with degrees need Human Rights Watch to do our dirty political work for us?
A: Apparently yes.
C: i find it embarrassing too, but there are too many ignorant and self-centred people in singapore. it's not apathy, i'm done with using that term.
B: rights are almost never "given", you have to take them. every nation that now grants rights to its citizens did so under threat or application of force i.e. once upon a time the people fought for it.
we've never fought for anything; we complain and uncle PAP will either give it to us or tell us why cannot. complaining to the UN won't work. worse if we get others to complain for us ...
Me: You rather they do not?
B: yes, we can do our own complaining. Maruah?
Me: So since Sri Lanka has a strong democratic tradition, should NGOs not bother protesting the war crimes during the final years of the war against the Tamil Tigers?
Should non-Americans point out the disturbing implications of the Patriot Act and other Bush-era legislation?
Must non-Hong Kongers keep mum on each delay in Legco's true emancipation?
B: those are good questions, but wrong. those who want rights must fight for them, those in power will never willingly grant them. getting others to talk about one's injustices is good for their consciences and maybe, ours too; but there will be no redress. the UN is not a world government: how many battalions does it have? none.
Tamil Tigers still died and the Patriot Act hasn't been repealed. Despite lotsa talk ...
D: could all of these concerns over rights be solved peacefully, by those with access to connected-advocates, in the civil-courts, under the sole discretion of a PAP judge ?
B: and the alternative would be ... ? the international court of justice in The Hague? maybe baby steps first, say, restoration of the jury system, the heart of English Common Law? there are things to do, many things ... complaining to outsiders, with their own interests and agendas, isn't the most effective.
D: international-attention /will/ effect some, nominal, change-in-policy (or the way policies seem to outsiders) but real change can only be effected by a change in the way the ppl relate to their government.. folks should stop paying fines for meaningless offences, turn-off the state-run news ( or write-it, without regard for government-directives ) and break the systems of class- & race-segregation in their own thoughts & daily-activities. . . am i gonna get sued ? *_*"
Me: How did apartheid in South Africa end?
B: Apartheid was internally resisted by violence as well as a trade embargo (but cheating through Israel and Portugal was extensive) - Lodge, Tom (1983). Black Politics in South Africa Since 1945. Longman.
Me: Your point being? If the international community is not unanimously behind it, there is no point?
B: not sure what is "the international community"? NGOs? UN and it's agencies, e.g. IMF, World Bank, FAO, WHO ... ? or the EU, ASEAN or ... ? They are all different and with separate interests and agenda. I've repeated my point and will, for your sake, write it again: effective change in society must come from within and power structures yield only to force, hopefully the force of the ballot and not violence. Gottit?
in case you missed it, D said the same, "but real change can only be effected by a change in the way the ppl relate to their government.. "
E: There are many factors that can affect how people relate to their governments. We also have to take into account what type (culture) of people they are. Many a times, outside opinions will trigger the emotions of those within a place, rightly or wrongly.
A passive culture (or like singapore, the myopic 'looking out for only oneself culture), who are used to whatever status quo, might need a little nudge, a little reminder, a little 'enlightenment.. to feel that they are not alone and that they have support, or that they really do have something to be aggrieve about.
Without outside forces.. sometimes it would have to take serious tragedies before people act out of their comfort zone. But that might be a tragedy in itself.
B: if we agree that they aren't homogenous, then which outside forces should we respond to? how do we avoid confirmation bias? it seems that we agree that we tend to be passive. if so, then can't the silent majority be roused by native daughters and sons who should not wail into the wilderness but socially network everyone to make the PAP listen and respond. or else! i would be sorry if we are inspired only by foreign voices ...
E: an abused child might not know he is being abused. He knows that he doesn't like to be hurt, he is fearful, he is angry, but he doesn't know that he is not alone, he doesn't understand that what is done to him is not right, and he also doesn't know that he can change his situation, he doesn't know how... He still loves his parents and believes that they care for him and are only doing whatever for his own good.
We are his neighbours and we know what is going on in that household. Should we intervene?
B: your analogy is inexact: it assumes a nation-state with legitimate police powers. what would be the supra-national authority that would intervene on behalf of us, the abused children of singapore? UN Security Council resolution? ICJ determination? who will enforce it? NATO or the US Sixth Fleet? a trade embargo that hurts everyone. including those who don't care about the ISA or 377A?
E: what I wanted to point out is how or when one should intervene when one sees certain injustice, whether or not there is one or more authorities one can report to.
It is important for me to see this world as one big nucleus, without any one place being exclusive.
There are many ways to fight diseases..
I have not assume anything. I was merely asking, "should we intervene?".
What I am trying to point out is that, there are many factors that affect change, especially when we are talking about such large scales.
Let's use North Korea as an example. Most of the world has turn very much a blind eye to the going ons within that regime. Children, women, people are suffering and dying everyday. They have no rights. They have nothing, and they are nothing to the regime.
Without outside help, influence, forces.. do you think the people of North Korea can help themselves? They cannot leave the country, they have no money, they have little education, they cannot buy weapons etc.
Unless the unlikely happens.. a power hungry general decides to do a mutiny... Or a bunch of soldiers decides to rebel. Or hungry people just go for broke..
How long must it take before the world does something something about it? How dangerous must pyongyang becomes before we act? What must we stand to lose before the world take serious notice? How many innocent people must die, how many generations must suffer before we say or do anything?
The people in North Korea must help themselves? Sure. Tell me how?
It does not have to be one big authority.. it can be multiple world institutions... doesn't really matter sometimes.. for raising awareness is almost always the first and most important step.
Me: It is not a binary variable of change being totally due to outside pressure or there being no outside pressure at all. There are forces inside Singapore working for change - doesn't mean that outside pressure is not desirable
Nobody says that change should be forced upon by outsiders upon a totally unwilling populace. But that's not to say that outsides should not help.
D: conservative & well-considered international-intervention, like trade-sanctions & threatening-military-actions, have only served to intensify the oppression of the north-korean people. this sort of vague, un-commited, /strictly-political/ action is the fuel for the isolationist-propaganda-machine, & only serves to further the culture-of-abuse within an authoritarian-state. Who among the PAP will see their abuses & seek change? What might bring-about this awareness? this is the form of an effective, insurrectionary, intervention.
Me: That's why nowadays sanctions are more targeted
I can't see what might bring about change. It's more like spitting on the jailer's face
D: an appeal /must/ effect moral-indignation on the part of those in power. wide-distribution of the stories of those hurt by the regime is a good first-step, interviews with imported child-brides, domestic-workers, homosexuals & their families would prolly do the trick.
B: Are we living in a N. Korean situation?
Why rely on outside help when you can help yourself? Are we to admit our helplessness in the face of PAP power? Low Thia Kiang, luckily, does not believe this.
Human rights Watch does a good job for N Korea, Syria, Iran ... but do we need it? Yes is the pathetic answer!
Me: So should HRW close down?
They even produce country reports on many developed countries, including the US (in fact their US report is the longest of all, I think)
B: Good try, but putting words into my mouth is good tactics but poor reasoning. Read my message: "we" equals "Singapore" not "the world" on which I'm not qualified to comment.
Me: Your logic is that a developed country with an educated populace has no need of outsiders to point out human rights and other issues.
To test your logic for external consistency, we should apply it to various similar scenarios and see whether it still holds.
Pleading ignorance is a copout. No one is asking you to comment on Botswana.
Good reasoning:
Reflective Equilibrium http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reflective-equilibrium/
"Many of us, perhaps all of us, have examined our moral judgments about a particular issue by looking for their coherence with our beliefs about similar cases and our beliefs about a broader range of moral and factual issues. In this everyday practice, we have sought “reflective equilibrium” among these various beliefs as a way of clarifying for ourselves just what we ought to do. In addition, we may also have been persuading ourselves that our conclusions were justifiable and ultimately acceptable to us by seeking coherence among them. Even though it is part of our everyday practice, is this approach to deliberating about what is right and finding justification for our views defensible?
Viewed most generally, a “reflective equilibrium” is the end-point of a deliberative process in which we reflect on and revise our beliefs about an area of inquiry, moral or non-moral. The inquiry might be as specific as the moral question, “What is the right thing to do in this case?” or the logical question, “Is this the correct inference to make?” Alternatively, the inquiry might be much more general, asking which theory or account of justice or right action we should accept, or which principles of inductive reasoning we should use. We can also refer to the process or method itself as the “method of reflective equilibrium.”"
B: Read my lips - "Sing-a- pore", not "developed country".
Thanks for the Stanford link. I now understand our dispute. Your stance is moral and I fully agree. Mine is real-politik, i.e. what is and what works.
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston
And, if I may add, no principles either; although in an ideal world ....
Me: No, your previous comments indicate that you were not talking solely about Singapore:
"Does a country with about one in five with degrees need Human Rights Watch to do our dirty political work for us?"
"complaining to the UN won't work. worse if we get others to complain for us"
"those who want rights must fight for them, those in power will never willingly grant them. getting others to talk about one's injustices is good for their consciences and maybe, ours too; but there will be no redress. the UN is not a world government: how many battalions does it have? none."
"complaining to outsiders, with their own interests and agendas, isn't the most effective."
"but real change can only be effected by a change in the way the ppl relate to their government.."
Besides which, even if you were only talking about Singapore you would have to justify your appeal to Singaporean exceptionalism: why is it the case that for Singapore - and not a similarly situated developed country - outside pressure, regardless of the form it takes, will not work?
And no, I was talking about realpolitik as well as the moral aspect of things. While often of limited use, there is no reason to totally eschew outside pressure.
While realpolitik is the primary principle motivating international relations, it does not mean that doing the right thing is not a motivation at all - that is a false dichotomy. Being on the right side of history is one reason the 17 nation coalition is intervening in Libya after all (to take merely the most recent example).
B: "exceptionalism" is your perception not mine and I can't argue for or against it ...
the best reason to "eschew outside pressure" is not needing it, as we (Singaporeans) don't. Well, that is my claim and I'd like to debate this and no other.
Me: You say that you're only talking about Singapore and you refuse to consider any other cases. That's implies exceptionalism - that Singapore is such a special case that others cannot be discussed or even taken into consideration
If your claims cannot be applied to wider scenarios then it's not clear that they have any validity in and of themselves.
For example Christian Apologists contort history into all manner of uncomfortable and outrageous bends in an attempt to justify their faith. Of course, this flies in the face of all good historiography, and would radically rewrite history as we know it if applied to non-Biblical history. Inevitably, though, they demur when asked what would happen if their historiography were applied elsewhere.
Similarly, quack doctors and other hawkers of pseudoscientific treatments do not agree to submit their wares to scientific testing, saying that they work for their clients. Should we thus believe their claims of efficacy?
D: Singapore is a truly exceptional case, because even those who are hurt by the regime can be /perceived/ as sharing in its benefits. so those stripping the rights of the (various) under-classes feel /none/ of the regret, indignation, & self-directed outrage that could be expected. Furthermore, (and this may /only/ speak to my ignorance) i have never met a singaporean-nationalist, there are company-men & legalistic-conservatives, but no national-identity like we see in nations founded before the rise of the global-market. . . srsly though, books & movies & blog-posts, the censors can't burn /everything/ & they /have/ to read or watch the content first !
E: B, since you are trying to throw us off by suddenly saying that all along you are only referring to Singapore, and like Gabriel, I do not see how we have failed to 'read between the lines'.
The internet (which they cannot ban), returning Singaporeans who spent good years away, foreigners (which more than ever we cannot do without - 40% of the population) etc.. are all 'outside forces' which have had influence the minds of people.
D: this bickering is entirely beside-the-fact ,, change /must/ come from within, (the people, the parliament, the judiciary) and /all/ of these bodies are influenced (to varying degrees) by outside forces. scream & you'll be heard,, maybe even by the right ppl ^_^ !
B: D, thank you for your understanding.
To the rest, I'm just too ignorant (historiography, prostitutes and exceptionalism) to debate any other political situation except Singapore's. So, bowing to your superior knowledge, I stand silent to listen and learn ...
Post ID: 505444420605859027
Saturday, June 04, 2011
"If you really are as multiply-authoritative as you are ... maybe I should give up" (On Diplomatic Language)
"An ambassador is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country." - Henry Wotton, Sr.
***
"Successful career diplomats... seem to be able to both send and receive with a level of precision and detail not found in normal discussion...
Diplomats will use the precise word in their interventions that conveys the meaning that was intended. They will differentiate between words such as would, will, could, or should. They will say persuade or dissuade as appropriate. When they write a reporting cable, they will report if the intervention they listened to indicated the speaker indicated his or her nation would oppose, object, or be disappointed, as each of these would be taken differently (oppose means they would work to block it; object means they would not like it but would reserve any commitment in terms of action; and be disappointed means they do not like it, but they would accept it without blocking it).
In some cases, subtle shifts of policy or concessions within negotiations are signaled by the change of language from one meeting to the next. In the case of the UN General Assembly, with its annual debate of topics, this means that the listener must know that last year a nation indicated it would oppose a proposal whereas this year it would only object.
Diplomats... understand the effective use of the subjunctive... In some cases, where they each want to come to an agreement over language that each of their capitals will find acceptable, they use what is called constructive ambiguity so each may claim the meaning of the language was what they intended.
Diplomats do not like to simply say “no” on something. A diplomat might respond to a proposal by saying “maybe,” but it is understood that this means “no.” If the topic is more complicated, they may say, “This is something that requires careful study and consideration.” If a proposal is so annoying and complicated as to not even merit study, the diplomat might say. “We will need more time to give this the level of attention that it deserves,” which of course means “none.”
Diplomatic language is understated, and the delivery of spoken interventions is almost always done in a polite unemotional voice. When a diplomat refers to “all means necessary” or “face serious consequences,” these are understated ways of referring to the use of force—war. During multilateral meetings diplomats will typically not address each other directly, especially if there is disagreement. An intervention will typically start out with the words “Mr. Chairman” or “Madam Chairwoman,” and the grammar of all sentences spoken will be framed so the speaker is addressing the chairman, not the other diplomats. If the French delegate wishes to challenge the U.S. delegate, he or she will not say “I disagree with the U.S. position that . . .“ but will instead say (in French) “I would take exception to the position voiced by one nation that. .. .“ Where there is agreement the diplomats will be more direct and say, “I wish to echo the views expressed by my distinguished colleague from Russia that. . . .“ When a diplomat wishes to make it completely clear that he or she is about to express the key points of an official position he or she will preface these points with “on behalf of my delegation,” but when he or she wants to signal that the views about to be expressed are official but not necessarily to his or her liking, the diplomat may interject “on instructions from my capital...”... If a diplomat is speaking at the United Nations and his or her native language is one if the six official languages at the UN (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish), he or she will essentially always speak in that language, even if he or she is fluent in one or more other languages...
Although all of this subtlety of language and nuanced meaning may seem at first an impediment to clear communications, the opposite is true. Diplomats develop a keen sense of the psychology of communications. They understand each other... Rarely, if ever, are wars fought over misunderstandings between diplomats."
--- The Subtle Language of Diplomatic Discourse in The psychology of diplomacy / Harvey J. Langholtz, Chris E. Stout
***
"Successful career diplomats... seem to be able to both send and receive with a level of precision and detail not found in normal discussion...
Diplomats will use the precise word in their interventions that conveys the meaning that was intended. They will differentiate between words such as would, will, could, or should. They will say persuade or dissuade as appropriate. When they write a reporting cable, they will report if the intervention they listened to indicated the speaker indicated his or her nation would oppose, object, or be disappointed, as each of these would be taken differently (oppose means they would work to block it; object means they would not like it but would reserve any commitment in terms of action; and be disappointed means they do not like it, but they would accept it without blocking it).
In some cases, subtle shifts of policy or concessions within negotiations are signaled by the change of language from one meeting to the next. In the case of the UN General Assembly, with its annual debate of topics, this means that the listener must know that last year a nation indicated it would oppose a proposal whereas this year it would only object.
Diplomats... understand the effective use of the subjunctive... In some cases, where they each want to come to an agreement over language that each of their capitals will find acceptable, they use what is called constructive ambiguity so each may claim the meaning of the language was what they intended.
Diplomats do not like to simply say “no” on something. A diplomat might respond to a proposal by saying “maybe,” but it is understood that this means “no.” If the topic is more complicated, they may say, “This is something that requires careful study and consideration.” If a proposal is so annoying and complicated as to not even merit study, the diplomat might say. “We will need more time to give this the level of attention that it deserves,” which of course means “none.”
Diplomatic language is understated, and the delivery of spoken interventions is almost always done in a polite unemotional voice. When a diplomat refers to “all means necessary” or “face serious consequences,” these are understated ways of referring to the use of force—war. During multilateral meetings diplomats will typically not address each other directly, especially if there is disagreement. An intervention will typically start out with the words “Mr. Chairman” or “Madam Chairwoman,” and the grammar of all sentences spoken will be framed so the speaker is addressing the chairman, not the other diplomats. If the French delegate wishes to challenge the U.S. delegate, he or she will not say “I disagree with the U.S. position that . . .“ but will instead say (in French) “I would take exception to the position voiced by one nation that. .. .“ Where there is agreement the diplomats will be more direct and say, “I wish to echo the views expressed by my distinguished colleague from Russia that. . . .“ When a diplomat wishes to make it completely clear that he or she is about to express the key points of an official position he or she will preface these points with “on behalf of my delegation,” but when he or she wants to signal that the views about to be expressed are official but not necessarily to his or her liking, the diplomat may interject “on instructions from my capital...”... If a diplomat is speaking at the United Nations and his or her native language is one if the six official languages at the UN (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish), he or she will essentially always speak in that language, even if he or she is fluent in one or more other languages...
Although all of this subtlety of language and nuanced meaning may seem at first an impediment to clear communications, the opposite is true. Diplomats develop a keen sense of the psychology of communications. They understand each other... Rarely, if ever, are wars fought over misunderstandings between diplomats."
--- The Subtle Language of Diplomatic Discourse in The psychology of diplomacy / Harvey J. Langholtz, Chris E. Stout
Post ID: 7761099319467860139
u r wt u wr - 4th June 2011
u r wt u wr:
- 'Make your statement'
- 'Why'd you have to be so cute? *many more lines*'
- 'Damn right you ♥ me'
- 'Boys keep swinging. Girls keep smiling'
- Front: *Ursula from the Little Mermaid*; Back: 'So good I'm bad'
- 'There's nothing glamorous about what I do'; Back: 'Because I am a working man'
- 'Player'
- 'We do it in style'
- 'Be my superstar'
- 'Princess'
- 'I ♥ shoes *something* and boys'
- 'Half of me is all of you' (She didn't look fat to me)
- [50 year old] 'With a tee shirt like this 42 who needs pants'
- 'Bootylicious *picture of bicycle with large front wheel*'
- [Contributed] '4 out of 5 boys prefer me' ("I beg to differ.")
- 'Can you do this? *lipstick mark of a lip*'
- '♥ I'm very very happy' (If she were, she wouldn't need to declare it)
- [Back] 'I like men chasing me. Adidas'
- 'No beer goggles necessary'
- 'UCB. Born to be a princess'
- 'Kiss me please
-lipstick mark-'
- 'Lovely sweet *something*
-picture of bicycle-'
- 'I'm the evil queen' (Does she need a King?)
- 'Pinay. 100% all woman'
- 'Make your statement'
- 'Why'd you have to be so cute? *many more lines*'
- 'Damn right you ♥ me'
- 'Boys keep swinging. Girls keep smiling'
- Front: *Ursula from the Little Mermaid*; Back: 'So good I'm bad'
- 'There's nothing glamorous about what I do'; Back: 'Because I am a working man'
- 'Player'
- 'We do it in style'
- 'Be my superstar'
- 'Princess'
- 'I ♥ shoes *something* and boys'
- 'Half of me is all of you' (She didn't look fat to me)
- [50 year old] 'With a tee shirt like this 42 who needs pants'
- 'Bootylicious *picture of bicycle with large front wheel*'
- [Contributed] '4 out of 5 boys prefer me' ("I beg to differ.")
- 'Can you do this? *lipstick mark of a lip*'
- '♥ I'm very very happy' (If she were, she wouldn't need to declare it)
- [Back] 'I like men chasing me. Adidas'
- 'No beer goggles necessary'
- 'UCB. Born to be a princess'
- 'Kiss me please
-lipstick mark-'
- 'Lovely sweet *something*
-picture of bicycle-'
- 'I'm the evil queen' (Does she need a King?)
- 'Pinay. 100% all woman'
Post ID: 4450795322225174746
Friday, June 03, 2011
Du contrat conjugal
L'homme est né libre, et partout il s'est marié. Tel se croit le maître de sa femme, qui ne laisse pas d'être plus esclave qu'elle.
Post ID: 3475028389874538830
Review: Ramen Ten (Far East Plaza)
Second Worst Ramen Ever!
(Pseudo-cross-posted etc)
So one of the millions of group-buying sites here, Liveoffcoupon, was advertising what was billed as:
"Singapore’s 1st Halal Japanese Restaurant Chain"
Now, given that mirin is billed as "an essential condiment used in Japanese cuisine", I was intensely skeptical of the rave reviews from the New Paper and Lian He Zao Bao (Manja Magazine and Berita Harian's reviews are understandable, given the captive market).
Now, before purchasing a food voucher I will always check the establishment's reviews, given that some awful joints use this medium to dupe unsuspecting (and often undiscriminating) customers into patronising them.
So I was tickled to read this review:
Worst Ramen Ever!
"Food quality is probably the worst Japanese you'll ever try!... none of the items we ordered are at least of decent standard. It’s a bit harsh but mediocre is an understatement here. Quality is none existence unless you have a bland taste bud.
While I should not expect the best with the price I'm paying, I think I should at least deserved slightly better than an undercooked cup noodles with a flavourless soup. The seafood platters taste awful and you can definitely get better ones from the frozen food section at the supermarket.
There are some bad ramen places in Singapore but this one is worth a mentioned. To sum up, if your instant cup noodle is a 10, then the ramen here is a 1, that’s how bad it is. For a place to eat terrible Japanese food, this place is just not worth the money you are paying. Indeed, you are better off buying that instant cup noodle from 7-11.
Must tries: undercooked ramen with tasteless soup based"
Now, such a rave review piqued my curiosity (and that of a foodie friend of mine), so we decided to check it out. What I was scared of was not that the food would be bad, but that it would be mediocre. There're some things to be said for eating bad food occasionally. It lets you appreciate just how good proper food is. And of course you also get to slag it off online.
We ordered our ramen and waited for it to come. During this time, I observed the most miserable sushi conveyor belt I had ever seen:
Empty conveyor belt
I also noticed that no one was taking any food from it. So it was no surprise that I saw:
The driest inari I had ever seen (it looks wetter here than in real life due to the flash)
They also had Black Ebikko, which was a first for me.
The piped music also made me feel young again, as hits from the turn of the 21st century like the Backstreet Boys' "Larger than Life" and M2M's "Don't say you love me" were playing.
The first ramen to arrive was my "Scallop Miso Ramen" ($8.90), which came accompanied with shredded carrot and half a HARD BOILED egg (the photos in the menu all showed hard boiled eggs, so this came as no surprise). As one knows, the egg a ramen comes with should be semi-boiled (with a solid white but a runny yolk), so this was already a mark against it. It is hard enough to get good ramen eggs in Singapore (Santouka is the only place I can think of which does it well) but this wins the worst prize by a huge margin.
A small, tentative taste of the thin soup caused my tongue to be assaulted by loads of MSG, such that it went dry. Now, I am not particularly sensitive to MSG (I never get palpitations, and normally I only get bothered by ramen MSG after the meal) but this was a whole new realm for me. Unlike most Japanese restaurants, this one did not serve free iced water (a bottomless cup of green tea was $1.80), and I believe that this was no coincidence.
Above the bellowing uproar of the MSG, I had problems locating the miso. A few tentative, delicate notes of a certain je ne sais quoi called out to me, but they were unidentifiable as even the vaguest hint of miso. For all I know they could've caused by something unwanted falling into the soup stock. The closest ramen category this was to was shio ramen (salt), with copious amounts of MSG added.
Meanwhile, the noodles were way too soft, and had the consistency of Maggi Mee (instant noodles). Indeed, it was the softest ramen I had ever had. As for my 2 scallops, one had a lot of grit, and the other had a little bit.
While I was recoiling from the assault on my sensory system, I had the presence of mind to observe that there was a 6 minute delay between the deliver of my ramen and the other 2 bowls, which is way below the market benchmark (which I estimate to be below a minute, with the ramen often coming at the same time).
As instant noodle soup this was alright (albeit with 2-3 packets of seasoning added instead of one), but as Ramen it was an EPIC FAIL (though the noodles retained their springiness better in soup than Maggi Mee).
A fellow masochist had ordered Chicken Chashu Ramen ($7.90). This lacked even the tiny hint of complexity my "Scallop Miso Ramen" had, and just tasted of MSG. I had a litle bit of the Chicken Chashu, and instead of being soft, let alone to the point of melting in the mouth, it was bouncy like you'd expect boiled chicken to be.
The last of us had Spicy Miso Chicken Ramen ($8.90). Being totally unlike any normal ramen, at least this could be taken on its own terms. Its consumer pronounced that it passed, but I think this was because it was so spicy that one's palate was overwhelmed and one could not taste anything else (it was one of the spiciest foods I'd ever tasted).
Menu with their strange creations. They have Japanese-style Western Food... which comes with both fries and rice.
On top of all of this, the fly on top of the rubbish heap was the service. We'd ordered a "Ramen Maki", intrigued by the idea of combining ramen and sushi. Sadly, it came half an hour after the first bowl of ramen had come - despite two reminders from me.
"Ramen Maki" ($4.30)
The usual maki ingredients surrounding ramen, cucumber and mushroom in a black sauce, with a sweet black sauce dribbled on top.
Ironically, the ramen inside the maki was the proper consistency. It actually tasted alright though the price was steep.
So, given how awful this ramen was, why do I describe this as only the Second worst ramen ever? The honour of being the worst I've ever had belongs to Aoba Manpuku Japanese "Gourmet" Town in Tampines, which at $6.50 a bowl is a classic example of the Lemons problem. But then probably the only thing elevating Ramen Ten above Aoba Tampines is the MSG.
To give credit where credit is due, let's not say that Ramen Ten does not take customer feedback to heart. In 2009 the reviewer previously featured commented that they had "undercooked ramen with tasteless soup based", so they have since improved their recipe to give us overcooked ramen with a bottle-worth of MSG in the soup.
(Pseudo-cross-posted etc)
So one of the millions of group-buying sites here, Liveoffcoupon, was advertising what was billed as:
"Singapore’s 1st Halal Japanese Restaurant Chain"
Now, given that mirin is billed as "an essential condiment used in Japanese cuisine", I was intensely skeptical of the rave reviews from the New Paper and Lian He Zao Bao (Manja Magazine and Berita Harian's reviews are understandable, given the captive market).
Now, before purchasing a food voucher I will always check the establishment's reviews, given that some awful joints use this medium to dupe unsuspecting (and often undiscriminating) customers into patronising them.
So I was tickled to read this review:
Worst Ramen Ever!
"Food quality is probably the worst Japanese you'll ever try!... none of the items we ordered are at least of decent standard. It’s a bit harsh but mediocre is an understatement here. Quality is none existence unless you have a bland taste bud.
While I should not expect the best with the price I'm paying, I think I should at least deserved slightly better than an undercooked cup noodles with a flavourless soup. The seafood platters taste awful and you can definitely get better ones from the frozen food section at the supermarket.
There are some bad ramen places in Singapore but this one is worth a mentioned. To sum up, if your instant cup noodle is a 10, then the ramen here is a 1, that’s how bad it is. For a place to eat terrible Japanese food, this place is just not worth the money you are paying. Indeed, you are better off buying that instant cup noodle from 7-11.
Must tries: undercooked ramen with tasteless soup based"
Now, such a rave review piqued my curiosity (and that of a foodie friend of mine), so we decided to check it out. What I was scared of was not that the food would be bad, but that it would be mediocre. There're some things to be said for eating bad food occasionally. It lets you appreciate just how good proper food is. And of course you also get to slag it off online.
We ordered our ramen and waited for it to come. During this time, I observed the most miserable sushi conveyor belt I had ever seen:
Empty conveyor belt
I also noticed that no one was taking any food from it. So it was no surprise that I saw:
The driest inari I had ever seen (it looks wetter here than in real life due to the flash)
They also had Black Ebikko, which was a first for me.
The piped music also made me feel young again, as hits from the turn of the 21st century like the Backstreet Boys' "Larger than Life" and M2M's "Don't say you love me" were playing.
The first ramen to arrive was my "Scallop Miso Ramen" ($8.90), which came accompanied with shredded carrot and half a HARD BOILED egg (the photos in the menu all showed hard boiled eggs, so this came as no surprise). As one knows, the egg a ramen comes with should be semi-boiled (with a solid white but a runny yolk), so this was already a mark against it. It is hard enough to get good ramen eggs in Singapore (Santouka is the only place I can think of which does it well) but this wins the worst prize by a huge margin.
A small, tentative taste of the thin soup caused my tongue to be assaulted by loads of MSG, such that it went dry. Now, I am not particularly sensitive to MSG (I never get palpitations, and normally I only get bothered by ramen MSG after the meal) but this was a whole new realm for me. Unlike most Japanese restaurants, this one did not serve free iced water (a bottomless cup of green tea was $1.80), and I believe that this was no coincidence.
Above the bellowing uproar of the MSG, I had problems locating the miso. A few tentative, delicate notes of a certain je ne sais quoi called out to me, but they were unidentifiable as even the vaguest hint of miso. For all I know they could've caused by something unwanted falling into the soup stock. The closest ramen category this was to was shio ramen (salt), with copious amounts of MSG added.
Meanwhile, the noodles were way too soft, and had the consistency of Maggi Mee (instant noodles). Indeed, it was the softest ramen I had ever had. As for my 2 scallops, one had a lot of grit, and the other had a little bit.
While I was recoiling from the assault on my sensory system, I had the presence of mind to observe that there was a 6 minute delay between the deliver of my ramen and the other 2 bowls, which is way below the market benchmark (which I estimate to be below a minute, with the ramen often coming at the same time).
As instant noodle soup this was alright (albeit with 2-3 packets of seasoning added instead of one), but as Ramen it was an EPIC FAIL (though the noodles retained their springiness better in soup than Maggi Mee).
A fellow masochist had ordered Chicken Chashu Ramen ($7.90). This lacked even the tiny hint of complexity my "Scallop Miso Ramen" had, and just tasted of MSG. I had a litle bit of the Chicken Chashu, and instead of being soft, let alone to the point of melting in the mouth, it was bouncy like you'd expect boiled chicken to be.
The last of us had Spicy Miso Chicken Ramen ($8.90). Being totally unlike any normal ramen, at least this could be taken on its own terms. Its consumer pronounced that it passed, but I think this was because it was so spicy that one's palate was overwhelmed and one could not taste anything else (it was one of the spiciest foods I'd ever tasted).
Menu with their strange creations. They have Japanese-style Western Food... which comes with both fries and rice.
On top of all of this, the fly on top of the rubbish heap was the service. We'd ordered a "Ramen Maki", intrigued by the idea of combining ramen and sushi. Sadly, it came half an hour after the first bowl of ramen had come - despite two reminders from me.
"Ramen Maki" ($4.30)
The usual maki ingredients surrounding ramen, cucumber and mushroom in a black sauce, with a sweet black sauce dribbled on top.
Ironically, the ramen inside the maki was the proper consistency. It actually tasted alright though the price was steep.
So, given how awful this ramen was, why do I describe this as only the Second worst ramen ever? The honour of being the worst I've ever had belongs to Aoba Manpuku Japanese "Gourmet" Town in Tampines, which at $6.50 a bowl is a classic example of the Lemons problem. But then probably the only thing elevating Ramen Ten above Aoba Tampines is the MSG.
To give credit where credit is due, let's not say that Ramen Ten does not take customer feedback to heart. In 2009 the reviewer previously featured commented that they had "undercooked ramen with tasteless soup based", so they have since improved their recipe to give us overcooked ramen with a bottle-worth of MSG in the soup.
Post ID: 5850193741793443352
Thursday, June 02, 2011
My Daily Contribution to the Arts (Temp wanted)
Indian temps wanted for Indian cultural event, 12-19 June.
Leave a comment with your email or send me a message for details!
Leave a comment with your email or send me a message for details!
Post ID: 4587645289918861401
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
An Indonesian reacts to my Jogjakarta Travelogue
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
***
Him: Wow. This has GOT to be the most depressing travel writing I've ever read. It baffles me how you manage to make one of the most beautiful countries in the world so degenerated, so unappealing, and so unworthy of visitation. I think it's not Indonesia's fault, it's YOUR fault to think that every country should be as clean and sterile as your beloved Singapore. Well let me tell you something, miss - Singapore may be safe and sterile, but it has absolutely no character whatsoever. Most of your people are faceless, character-less, and are more than ready to leave and betray their own country if there's a better and more financially viable opportunity elsewhere. Most Singaporeans have no real love and nationalism towards their country, and I think that's sad. And admit it - most of you are so sick and tired of your mundane, uninteresting country that you try and travel out of your pathetic culture-less little island as often as you can - even to such 'dilapidated' countries like Indonesia. You know, most first-world citizens can understand that each country has different ways and can think positive about third-world countries. They can turn their otherwise dirty and uncomfortable travel into a charming, positive, life-affirming experience. It's so sad to see a Singaporean like you who just cannot see past the poverty and lack of polish that Indonesia has and realize that what you're getting in Indonesia - nature's beauty, culture, and history - is something that all YOUR dirty Singaporean money (who, 50% are from Indonesian investments in Singapore ANYWAY) cannot buy. Grow up and stop complaining!!!
PS: If you want decent food that are perhaps closer to Singapore "perfection", don't go to Jogja, you silly person!! Jogjakarta isn't exactly what we call the showcase city of international standard! In Jakarta, you can get all the hygienic, BIG-portioned, International-standard food you want. And plus, what are you, an ignoramus?? RIJSTTAFEL IS PRACTICALLY EXTINCT IN INDONESIA!! It's part of our colonial past and most current-generation Indonesians don't even know what it is anymore! In fact, the only place I can think of that still serve authentic Rijstaffel is Jakarta's Oasis restaurant, and THAT'S IT!
Me: I'm not surprised that you found this depressing travel writing - because Indonesia was depressing.
A place where people try to cheat you of your money every day (if it's of any comfort, they didn't try and cheat me as much as in China), of blatant discrimination against foreigners (who have to pay 10x the entrance fees for Borobudur and Prambanan that locals do), where KKN is a way of life and whose people seem to love eating junk food.
Dirt and discomfort are relatively minor downsides of a country compared to these. And do note that the romanticised talk of the "charming, positive, life-affirming experience" just smacks of Orientalism.
I have no idea why you think I think every country should be clean and sterile, or that I find Singapore the best place on earth. Your rant about Singapore, while having much merit, is irrelevant to your aim of sliming me, just as the fact that South Korea has an unhealthy attitude to plastic surgery is irrelevant when one is talking about North Korea being being a brutal, authoritarian regime.
While you are stuck on your moral high horse, you might like to note that I only said that it was "annoying" that no one knew what Rijstaffel was - not that people should be as familiar with it as nasi putih.
Incidentally, I have been to Jakarta and I find the food there wanting. Not to mention in the same league of soulessness as Singapore.
Him: First of all, I know exactly why you have so many complaints about Indonesia - it is because you're a Singaporean - and every sane intelligent being in this universe knows that that's what Singaporeans are best at - complaining. Your so-called travelogue is just a long list of complaints, and it's literally hurting my eyes reading them. Don't you have just a sliver of humanity and find something positive about your travels? I have been to horrid places like Malaysia - where taxis are so smelly, decrepit and even more 'ancient' than in Jakarta that you have to haggle for prices on every trip just as you would for Jakarta's Bajaj and Myanmar - where there are no escalators - but still, I can find something good to write about those countries. And I'm not even that much of a positive person!
You are saying that my rant about Singapore is irrelevant. In most other cases this is perhaps true but I have my reasons for bringing Singapore to the equation. I see that the root of your displeasure and constant complaining stems from the fact that you live in one of the most, if not THE most sterile, safe, and developed country in the world. In other words, you were born with a silver spoon stuck up your posterior and grew up spoiled rotten amidst the comfort of your picture-perfect infrastructure establishments. This will inevitably mar your judgement on other countries on a subconscious level. The analogy would be getting sick from a drop of tap water when one only consumes Evian water all one's life.
Either that, or you're just not cut out for traveling. Perhaps you should realize that and stay in that golden cage of yours. Lord knows, it's better for yourself, and better for the Indonesians as well - I'm sure they can afford one less high-maintenance, fastidious tourist such as yourself.
We can find faults in everything. Even I can easily find ten faults within the one minute that I stepped my two feet on Changi Airport. But out of common decency and being a reasonable person that I am, I chose not to complain.
By the way, paying 10x entrance fees when you're a foreigner is not a discrimination. In fact, you should feel honored that you're charged 10x, because then you can say that it is YOUR money that contributes to a greater extent the preservation of the attraction. I guess that explains why Indonesians treat foreigners with more courtesy while treating their fellow countrymen like second-class citizens. If you think that this is discrimination, then you should visit Brunei - a land where its citizens don't even pay for anything and yet foreigners have to pay for everything. Is that discrimination? Of course not. It's just common sense. Likewise in Indonesia - e.g. Borobudur is not Universal Studios Singapore, which is privately built for profit. It is owned by all Indonesians. Why should tax-paying Indonesians pay to visit their own property?
Foreigners paying extra for admission fees is actually a prevalent phenomenon in many countries.
In fact, I can ask you the very same thing - why do foreign students in Singapore secondary schools have to pay $200 for monthly school fees but locals only pay $5? Why are foreigners charged $300 for a single night at Mount Elizabeth hospital when locals only pay $100? Think about that. Subsidization is not discrimination.
BTW, I seldom find food wanting in Jakarta. I do, often find food wanting in Singapore. Food in Singapore is, as the Chinese puts it, "有美沒有味" - pretty to look at but tasteless. Well, I guess as you commented on your Plaza Senayan Marygold clock video, "De gustibus non est disputandum". However, I still maintain that upscale food in Jakarta is up to international standards.
BTW don't start quoting Confucius on my account - I actually can barely speak Mandarin / any Chinese dialects.
Me: If you beg the question about my complaints (and hurl insults at me to boot), then there is nothing I can say. I will just note that I am fair. For example, if I recall correctly I expressed admiration for Borobudur and Prambanan (thou. Saying positive things for the sake of saying positive things is dishonest and condescending - just as much as saying negative things for the sake of saying negative things. To have a genuine engagement it is necessary to take off the kid gloves.
As for me being a high maintenance tourist, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I take budget airlines, sleep in hostels, eat street food and essentially never take taxis in developing countries. Perhaps to Indonesians "high maintenance" means something very different, like "low expectations".
I have nothing to say about your justification of differential pricing (not to mention being unable to recall places which have differential pricing by *nationality*). No, actually I have to say that I will be very glad to "honour" the Indonesians I meet in the future. As for Borobudur belonging to Indonesians that is extremely problematic. Suffice it to say that UNESCO declares that the UNESCO World Heritage Sites "belong to all of humanity", and that Indonesia is a State Party to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, and has not only acquiesced to this but actively endorsed it.
Healthcare in Singapore is priced differently because it is state-subsidised as a matter of public policy, and being a basic good. Furthermore, there is a subsidy by individual - i.e. the government pays the healthcare provider the differential for each citizen/PR who is given subsidised treatment. I am very certain that the Indonesian government does not pay the foundations maintaining Borobudur and Prambanan for each Indonesian they pay host to. Incidentally Mount Elizabeth is a private hospital so foreigners and locals pay the same rates.
I don't disagree with you on Singaporean food. I don't understand why you have to look at it as a zero-sum game, as if every flaw of Singapore is a plus point for Indonesia, and vice versa.
Him: Betwixt honesty and insult lies a very fine line.
Reading your entries on Indonesia, it gives me an impression that you have made it a point to ridicule the country. As any red-blooded Indonesian, it is my right to be insulted by your negative insinuations. That said, I do not mean this as a zero-sum game at all.
Perhaps I am emotional, but when you are being too honest about something, it is almost certain that you will end up offending someone. This is not like an African-American calling himself the N-word or a Jewish comedian making fun of his own race - you're dealing with a country that is not your own, and if social conventions mean anything to you, you should show some respect. It does not matter if you're the analytical sort and value honesty above everything - even to the point that you can safely state that it's OK for me to be brutally honest about your Singapore to reciprocate. The point is, writing derogatory remarks about others will inevitably evoke offense. Not every person has the stomach to swallow brutal honesty.
You could be more compassionate and perhaps end this post with some sort of sympathy - or at least pathos - but you had to rub salt on an open wound by showing further 'honest' quotes.
As a citizen of a developed nation, any insults, or even a single speck of condescending remark towards a less-developed nation will be frowned upon. Such is the fate of the privileged. I'm sure you had enough quality education to be able to realize that.
Now that I've stated my reasons, I hope we can get past the personal issues and get on with the facts.
Your argument about UNESCO is slightly off the point. True, Borobudur is a world heritage site and Indonesians are aware that it might be a problem in the long run as to who has the right to manage the site - but that does not in any way mean that the Indonesian government can treat Borobudur as anything but a property of the Indonesian government. As long as Borobudur is within the sovereignty of Indonesia, it is ultimately possible that Indonesia can deem that it is within Indonesia's power to treat Borobudur as it sees fit.
The different ticket pricing between local and international tourists in Borobudur IS a huge controversy, even in Indonesia. However, it is most certainly not based on racism or discrimination. A lot of policies in Indonesia are very much outdated and as you might realize, tourism in Indonesia (outside Bali) is not in a developed state. Even Bali itself is not as tourist-friendly as it is supposed to be, and pales in comparison in regards to tourism infrastructure to Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur, let alone Singapore.
30-odd years ago, the dual admission ticket pricing policy was adopted because Indonesia was miserably poor. Therefore, the government decides to charge Indonesian citizens less than foreigners - based on the (somewhat incorrect) assumption that all Indonesians are poor and all foreigners are rich. They figured that when a foreigner can shell out thousands of dollars in air ticket cost to fly to Indonesia, then the admission ticket price to tourist attractions in Indonesia should be proportionate to their transportation cost, based on the comparative study conducted by the Indonesian government in developed nations. Foreigners are also given further incentives such as preferential treatments, shuttle bus services, etc (I have no idea how this is enforced - the only time I've been to Borobudur was 20 years ago when I was 7).
I'm not saying that this is a correct decision - but I will say that this is an inevitable decision. In one way or another, realization that Indonesians were in fact poor and foreigners were in fact much wealthier will occur and there is no just way to satisfy both the goal of maintaining enough income to preserve Borobudur and being fair to all visitors regardless of nationality.
Perhaps I can illustrate that a similar phenomenon also occurs in Singapore - whereby (historically) poorer ethnic Malays and Indians are exempted from paying school fees while (historically) wealthier ethnic Chinese have to pay a certain sum - albeit a meager one at that. I don't see this as a discrimination - but rather as a correct reflection on prevalent social stratification. I have no idea how the current situation is - but that is how it was a decade ago.
Getting native Indonesians to even pay at all in order to visit Borobudur was in itself a huge difficulty. As I said before, Borobudur is not like e.g. Resorts World Sentosa. Borobudur is something that the native has a spiritual, historical, and even intellectual relationship with. Charging admission for Indonesians to enter Borobudur is perhaps as controversial and repulsive as charging the Japanese to visit the Meiji-jingu or Fuji-yama.
Lately, as Indonesia progressed to become a functioning democracy and has a relatively healthy economic growth, it is soon realized that not all Indonesians are poor (anymore) and not all foreigners are (still) wealthy. Incidentally, the most vociferous opinion about the obsolescence of the dual admission price system came from inside Indonesia. If I recall correctly, this issue was widely debated in various national fora.
So while your argument about unfairness in admission prices has its merits, you should realize that it does not stem from discrimination per se.
By the way, I was perhaps too quick to judge that you are a high-maintenance tourist. I'll take that back. You are, in fact, a delusional tourist to think that Indonesia has the same standard as Singapore. By GDP per capita alone, it is a fact that an average Singaporean makes in excess of 10 times an average Indonesian. Obviously, this reflects in the level of development in Indonesia as well. Street food in Indonesia cannot be compared to street food in Singapore (if there is one). If you want something that satisfy your Singaporean high standards, then obviously you should foray to the upmarket facilities in the developed parts of Indonesia. However, this is something you choose not to do but you still complain nevertheless. 一分钱一分货 - you get what you pay for.
Also, thanks for correcting me about Mount Elizabeth hospital charges. I was slightly confused. What I mean to say was foreigners has to be admitted in (at the very worst) a 4-bedded accommodation without having the option for a more reasonable 6-bedded accommodation.
I apologize if my rants about Singapore offends you - but I am not sorry to feel offended by your Indonesian travelogue. Along with my fellow countrymen I have strove to rebuild Indonesia's image from terrorist-torn chaos to an increasingly decent country to visit. And I'm not going to let some uneducated reader deduce from your posts that that's what Indonesia only has to offer - some unhygienic frozen chicken nuggets and unchewable sate kambing.
The internet is a free forum - you have the right to write whatever you wish. But I refuse to think that you are so inhumane that you would mean harm to my country so I implore you to think about the implications before you write.
PS: Tell me, do you take satisfaction in pointing out the bad things about other countries? Are you doing this so you feel more assured that you're much better off being Singaporean? Is this a theme of your blog - insults masked by honesty?
Me: Sure, I know people will get offended and I am acutely aware of double standards and 'minority' privilege. I'm not disputing that that will happen. But as one of my sociology lecturers said, "My aim is to offend at least 2 people every lecture... I want to offend at least 10% of the people every lecture... or at least to get 10% of the people thinking about things that they've never thought about before." If we never dared to offend people, we would never get anywhere.
It's good to know that Indonesians themselves are not in accord over discriminatory pricing. I can assure you that there was no preferential treatment - the only 'advantages' we got were an airconditioned 'welcome' area and 'free' tea/coffee and mineral water.
In Singapore Malays are exempted from paying school fees, that is true. But just because a policy exists in one place does not mean that it is justified elsewhere. For example, I oppose this policy.
The Japanese do not pay to visit Meiji-jingu or Fuji-san - but then foreigners do not either. As I've said, Indonesia is the only place I've found such discriminatory pricing policies.
Where did I think Indonesia had the same standard as Singapore?! My observation about Indonesian street food was that it was junk food. This comes not from comparing it with Singaporean restaurants. One must compare like with like - I did/do not expect Indonesian street food to be of Michelin Star quality. I speak of my experience with street food (or the closest thing to such) all around the world. And Malaysian street food is better than in Singapore, incidentally.
I am not offended by criticism or rants - only by irrationality.
PS: I point out bad things about Singapore also. And I point out good things about other countries. So your hypothesis is false.
Separately, on YouTube:
My video: Spectacle at Jakarta Shopping Centre (Mall): "Totally pointless and not even aesthetically appealing"
Him: It is NOT pointless. You obviously know nothing about watchmaking. This isn't just some TOY you can control with a remote or your cheap quartz watch. The movement of the dolls are actually integrated to the clock gear system and it's very complicated to make. This is a genuine Seiko clock from Japan, custom made for Plaza Senayan. It costs tens of thousands of dollars. It's the same reason why a rolex costs $10,000 - genuine clocks are complicated to make.
Me: I have the highest respect for people who pour time, energy and expertise into setting up elaborate Rube Goldberg machines, but this does not mean that there is some worth - teleological or otherwise - in making them.
The mere complexity or cost of something does not lend it intrinsic (or even, perhaps, extrinsic) value.
You might want to look up "White Elephant" in the dictionary.
Him: You're saying that just because you think that it is "pointless" and aesthetically unpleasing, you assume that it's a white elephant. Well then, you might want to look up the term "philistine" in the dictionary. Anyway, the point of the elaborate clock is to tell the time in a spectacular way. Simple as that. I appreciate the engineering and design value of a musical clock, but I feel that it is pointless explaining the reason why to (what I assume) a utilitarian such as yourself.
Me: De gustibus non est disputandum. As I mentioned it is "not even aesthetically appealing"
Him: Oh my. Quidquid latine sit, altum videtur, non? Anyway, as I have implied, just because you think that it is not aesthetically appealing, doesn't mean that it's pointless. Unless you can convince me otherwise.
Me: You missed out the "dictum" in "dictum sit"
[Addendum: Comment he posted on my YouTube profile:
"I like you, Gabriel. I thought you were disdainful but I was wrong. You're complacent, condescending, acerbic, and have a penchant for proverbia latina - you remind me of my very own self. Latine loqui coactus sum quoque. Perhaps somewhere in a parallel universe, we can actually be amici. Salve!"]
In conclusion, I draw your attention to the Google results for "indonesia sucks" with those for "indonesia rocks" - though there are more for the later, virtually none of them are praise for it; most are for some rock concert or for geology-related sites.
someone: "wow, that eric person is really sad
i'm like...dude, i know your country used to be a great empire with lots of civilisation, culture, history etc, but that doesn't change the fact that it's now a shithole
and few sgpreans wd disagree with him that sgp is boring and sterile and has no culture or history next to indonesia...but at least its a boring and sterile with first world amenities"
***
Him: Wow. This has GOT to be the most depressing travel writing I've ever read. It baffles me how you manage to make one of the most beautiful countries in the world so degenerated, so unappealing, and so unworthy of visitation. I think it's not Indonesia's fault, it's YOUR fault to think that every country should be as clean and sterile as your beloved Singapore. Well let me tell you something, miss - Singapore may be safe and sterile, but it has absolutely no character whatsoever. Most of your people are faceless, character-less, and are more than ready to leave and betray their own country if there's a better and more financially viable opportunity elsewhere. Most Singaporeans have no real love and nationalism towards their country, and I think that's sad. And admit it - most of you are so sick and tired of your mundane, uninteresting country that you try and travel out of your pathetic culture-less little island as often as you can - even to such 'dilapidated' countries like Indonesia. You know, most first-world citizens can understand that each country has different ways and can think positive about third-world countries. They can turn their otherwise dirty and uncomfortable travel into a charming, positive, life-affirming experience. It's so sad to see a Singaporean like you who just cannot see past the poverty and lack of polish that Indonesia has and realize that what you're getting in Indonesia - nature's beauty, culture, and history - is something that all YOUR dirty Singaporean money (who, 50% are from Indonesian investments in Singapore ANYWAY) cannot buy. Grow up and stop complaining!!!
PS: If you want decent food that are perhaps closer to Singapore "perfection", don't go to Jogja, you silly person!! Jogjakarta isn't exactly what we call the showcase city of international standard! In Jakarta, you can get all the hygienic, BIG-portioned, International-standard food you want. And plus, what are you, an ignoramus?? RIJSTTAFEL IS PRACTICALLY EXTINCT IN INDONESIA!! It's part of our colonial past and most current-generation Indonesians don't even know what it is anymore! In fact, the only place I can think of that still serve authentic Rijstaffel is Jakarta's Oasis restaurant, and THAT'S IT!
Me: I'm not surprised that you found this depressing travel writing - because Indonesia was depressing.
A place where people try to cheat you of your money every day (if it's of any comfort, they didn't try and cheat me as much as in China), of blatant discrimination against foreigners (who have to pay 10x the entrance fees for Borobudur and Prambanan that locals do), where KKN is a way of life and whose people seem to love eating junk food.
Dirt and discomfort are relatively minor downsides of a country compared to these. And do note that the romanticised talk of the "charming, positive, life-affirming experience" just smacks of Orientalism.
I have no idea why you think I think every country should be clean and sterile, or that I find Singapore the best place on earth. Your rant about Singapore, while having much merit, is irrelevant to your aim of sliming me, just as the fact that South Korea has an unhealthy attitude to plastic surgery is irrelevant when one is talking about North Korea being being a brutal, authoritarian regime.
While you are stuck on your moral high horse, you might like to note that I only said that it was "annoying" that no one knew what Rijstaffel was - not that people should be as familiar with it as nasi putih.
Incidentally, I have been to Jakarta and I find the food there wanting. Not to mention in the same league of soulessness as Singapore.
Him: First of all, I know exactly why you have so many complaints about Indonesia - it is because you're a Singaporean - and every sane intelligent being in this universe knows that that's what Singaporeans are best at - complaining. Your so-called travelogue is just a long list of complaints, and it's literally hurting my eyes reading them. Don't you have just a sliver of humanity and find something positive about your travels? I have been to horrid places like Malaysia - where taxis are so smelly, decrepit and even more 'ancient' than in Jakarta that you have to haggle for prices on every trip just as you would for Jakarta's Bajaj and Myanmar - where there are no escalators - but still, I can find something good to write about those countries. And I'm not even that much of a positive person!
You are saying that my rant about Singapore is irrelevant. In most other cases this is perhaps true but I have my reasons for bringing Singapore to the equation. I see that the root of your displeasure and constant complaining stems from the fact that you live in one of the most, if not THE most sterile, safe, and developed country in the world. In other words, you were born with a silver spoon stuck up your posterior and grew up spoiled rotten amidst the comfort of your picture-perfect infrastructure establishments. This will inevitably mar your judgement on other countries on a subconscious level. The analogy would be getting sick from a drop of tap water when one only consumes Evian water all one's life.
Either that, or you're just not cut out for traveling. Perhaps you should realize that and stay in that golden cage of yours. Lord knows, it's better for yourself, and better for the Indonesians as well - I'm sure they can afford one less high-maintenance, fastidious tourist such as yourself.
We can find faults in everything. Even I can easily find ten faults within the one minute that I stepped my two feet on Changi Airport. But out of common decency and being a reasonable person that I am, I chose not to complain.
By the way, paying 10x entrance fees when you're a foreigner is not a discrimination. In fact, you should feel honored that you're charged 10x, because then you can say that it is YOUR money that contributes to a greater extent the preservation of the attraction. I guess that explains why Indonesians treat foreigners with more courtesy while treating their fellow countrymen like second-class citizens. If you think that this is discrimination, then you should visit Brunei - a land where its citizens don't even pay for anything and yet foreigners have to pay for everything. Is that discrimination? Of course not. It's just common sense. Likewise in Indonesia - e.g. Borobudur is not Universal Studios Singapore, which is privately built for profit. It is owned by all Indonesians. Why should tax-paying Indonesians pay to visit their own property?
Foreigners paying extra for admission fees is actually a prevalent phenomenon in many countries.
In fact, I can ask you the very same thing - why do foreign students in Singapore secondary schools have to pay $200 for monthly school fees but locals only pay $5? Why are foreigners charged $300 for a single night at Mount Elizabeth hospital when locals only pay $100? Think about that. Subsidization is not discrimination.
BTW, I seldom find food wanting in Jakarta. I do, often find food wanting in Singapore. Food in Singapore is, as the Chinese puts it, "有美沒有味" - pretty to look at but tasteless. Well, I guess as you commented on your Plaza Senayan Marygold clock video, "De gustibus non est disputandum". However, I still maintain that upscale food in Jakarta is up to international standards.
BTW don't start quoting Confucius on my account - I actually can barely speak Mandarin / any Chinese dialects.
Me: If you beg the question about my complaints (and hurl insults at me to boot), then there is nothing I can say. I will just note that I am fair. For example, if I recall correctly I expressed admiration for Borobudur and Prambanan (thou. Saying positive things for the sake of saying positive things is dishonest and condescending - just as much as saying negative things for the sake of saying negative things. To have a genuine engagement it is necessary to take off the kid gloves.
As for me being a high maintenance tourist, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I take budget airlines, sleep in hostels, eat street food and essentially never take taxis in developing countries. Perhaps to Indonesians "high maintenance" means something very different, like "low expectations".
I have nothing to say about your justification of differential pricing (not to mention being unable to recall places which have differential pricing by *nationality*). No, actually I have to say that I will be very glad to "honour" the Indonesians I meet in the future. As for Borobudur belonging to Indonesians that is extremely problematic. Suffice it to say that UNESCO declares that the UNESCO World Heritage Sites "belong to all of humanity", and that Indonesia is a State Party to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, and has not only acquiesced to this but actively endorsed it.
Healthcare in Singapore is priced differently because it is state-subsidised as a matter of public policy, and being a basic good. Furthermore, there is a subsidy by individual - i.e. the government pays the healthcare provider the differential for each citizen/PR who is given subsidised treatment. I am very certain that the Indonesian government does not pay the foundations maintaining Borobudur and Prambanan for each Indonesian they pay host to. Incidentally Mount Elizabeth is a private hospital so foreigners and locals pay the same rates.
I don't disagree with you on Singaporean food. I don't understand why you have to look at it as a zero-sum game, as if every flaw of Singapore is a plus point for Indonesia, and vice versa.
Him: Betwixt honesty and insult lies a very fine line.
Reading your entries on Indonesia, it gives me an impression that you have made it a point to ridicule the country. As any red-blooded Indonesian, it is my right to be insulted by your negative insinuations. That said, I do not mean this as a zero-sum game at all.
Perhaps I am emotional, but when you are being too honest about something, it is almost certain that you will end up offending someone. This is not like an African-American calling himself the N-word or a Jewish comedian making fun of his own race - you're dealing with a country that is not your own, and if social conventions mean anything to you, you should show some respect. It does not matter if you're the analytical sort and value honesty above everything - even to the point that you can safely state that it's OK for me to be brutally honest about your Singapore to reciprocate. The point is, writing derogatory remarks about others will inevitably evoke offense. Not every person has the stomach to swallow brutal honesty.
You could be more compassionate and perhaps end this post with some sort of sympathy - or at least pathos - but you had to rub salt on an open wound by showing further 'honest' quotes.
As a citizen of a developed nation, any insults, or even a single speck of condescending remark towards a less-developed nation will be frowned upon. Such is the fate of the privileged. I'm sure you had enough quality education to be able to realize that.
Now that I've stated my reasons, I hope we can get past the personal issues and get on with the facts.
Your argument about UNESCO is slightly off the point. True, Borobudur is a world heritage site and Indonesians are aware that it might be a problem in the long run as to who has the right to manage the site - but that does not in any way mean that the Indonesian government can treat Borobudur as anything but a property of the Indonesian government. As long as Borobudur is within the sovereignty of Indonesia, it is ultimately possible that Indonesia can deem that it is within Indonesia's power to treat Borobudur as it sees fit.
The different ticket pricing between local and international tourists in Borobudur IS a huge controversy, even in Indonesia. However, it is most certainly not based on racism or discrimination. A lot of policies in Indonesia are very much outdated and as you might realize, tourism in Indonesia (outside Bali) is not in a developed state. Even Bali itself is not as tourist-friendly as it is supposed to be, and pales in comparison in regards to tourism infrastructure to Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur, let alone Singapore.
30-odd years ago, the dual admission ticket pricing policy was adopted because Indonesia was miserably poor. Therefore, the government decides to charge Indonesian citizens less than foreigners - based on the (somewhat incorrect) assumption that all Indonesians are poor and all foreigners are rich. They figured that when a foreigner can shell out thousands of dollars in air ticket cost to fly to Indonesia, then the admission ticket price to tourist attractions in Indonesia should be proportionate to their transportation cost, based on the comparative study conducted by the Indonesian government in developed nations. Foreigners are also given further incentives such as preferential treatments, shuttle bus services, etc (I have no idea how this is enforced - the only time I've been to Borobudur was 20 years ago when I was 7).
I'm not saying that this is a correct decision - but I will say that this is an inevitable decision. In one way or another, realization that Indonesians were in fact poor and foreigners were in fact much wealthier will occur and there is no just way to satisfy both the goal of maintaining enough income to preserve Borobudur and being fair to all visitors regardless of nationality.
Perhaps I can illustrate that a similar phenomenon also occurs in Singapore - whereby (historically) poorer ethnic Malays and Indians are exempted from paying school fees while (historically) wealthier ethnic Chinese have to pay a certain sum - albeit a meager one at that. I don't see this as a discrimination - but rather as a correct reflection on prevalent social stratification. I have no idea how the current situation is - but that is how it was a decade ago.
Getting native Indonesians to even pay at all in order to visit Borobudur was in itself a huge difficulty. As I said before, Borobudur is not like e.g. Resorts World Sentosa. Borobudur is something that the native has a spiritual, historical, and even intellectual relationship with. Charging admission for Indonesians to enter Borobudur is perhaps as controversial and repulsive as charging the Japanese to visit the Meiji-jingu or Fuji-yama.
Lately, as Indonesia progressed to become a functioning democracy and has a relatively healthy economic growth, it is soon realized that not all Indonesians are poor (anymore) and not all foreigners are (still) wealthy. Incidentally, the most vociferous opinion about the obsolescence of the dual admission price system came from inside Indonesia. If I recall correctly, this issue was widely debated in various national fora.
So while your argument about unfairness in admission prices has its merits, you should realize that it does not stem from discrimination per se.
By the way, I was perhaps too quick to judge that you are a high-maintenance tourist. I'll take that back. You are, in fact, a delusional tourist to think that Indonesia has the same standard as Singapore. By GDP per capita alone, it is a fact that an average Singaporean makes in excess of 10 times an average Indonesian. Obviously, this reflects in the level of development in Indonesia as well. Street food in Indonesia cannot be compared to street food in Singapore (if there is one). If you want something that satisfy your Singaporean high standards, then obviously you should foray to the upmarket facilities in the developed parts of Indonesia. However, this is something you choose not to do but you still complain nevertheless. 一分钱一分货 - you get what you pay for.
Also, thanks for correcting me about Mount Elizabeth hospital charges. I was slightly confused. What I mean to say was foreigners has to be admitted in (at the very worst) a 4-bedded accommodation without having the option for a more reasonable 6-bedded accommodation.
I apologize if my rants about Singapore offends you - but I am not sorry to feel offended by your Indonesian travelogue. Along with my fellow countrymen I have strove to rebuild Indonesia's image from terrorist-torn chaos to an increasingly decent country to visit. And I'm not going to let some uneducated reader deduce from your posts that that's what Indonesia only has to offer - some unhygienic frozen chicken nuggets and unchewable sate kambing.
The internet is a free forum - you have the right to write whatever you wish. But I refuse to think that you are so inhumane that you would mean harm to my country so I implore you to think about the implications before you write.
PS: Tell me, do you take satisfaction in pointing out the bad things about other countries? Are you doing this so you feel more assured that you're much better off being Singaporean? Is this a theme of your blog - insults masked by honesty?
Me: Sure, I know people will get offended and I am acutely aware of double standards and 'minority' privilege. I'm not disputing that that will happen. But as one of my sociology lecturers said, "My aim is to offend at least 2 people every lecture... I want to offend at least 10% of the people every lecture... or at least to get 10% of the people thinking about things that they've never thought about before." If we never dared to offend people, we would never get anywhere.
It's good to know that Indonesians themselves are not in accord over discriminatory pricing. I can assure you that there was no preferential treatment - the only 'advantages' we got were an airconditioned 'welcome' area and 'free' tea/coffee and mineral water.
In Singapore Malays are exempted from paying school fees, that is true. But just because a policy exists in one place does not mean that it is justified elsewhere. For example, I oppose this policy.
The Japanese do not pay to visit Meiji-jingu or Fuji-san - but then foreigners do not either. As I've said, Indonesia is the only place I've found such discriminatory pricing policies.
Where did I think Indonesia had the same standard as Singapore?! My observation about Indonesian street food was that it was junk food. This comes not from comparing it with Singaporean restaurants. One must compare like with like - I did/do not expect Indonesian street food to be of Michelin Star quality. I speak of my experience with street food (or the closest thing to such) all around the world. And Malaysian street food is better than in Singapore, incidentally.
I am not offended by criticism or rants - only by irrationality.
PS: I point out bad things about Singapore also. And I point out good things about other countries. So your hypothesis is false.
Separately, on YouTube:
My video: Spectacle at Jakarta Shopping Centre (Mall): "Totally pointless and not even aesthetically appealing"
Him: It is NOT pointless. You obviously know nothing about watchmaking. This isn't just some TOY you can control with a remote or your cheap quartz watch. The movement of the dolls are actually integrated to the clock gear system and it's very complicated to make. This is a genuine Seiko clock from Japan, custom made for Plaza Senayan. It costs tens of thousands of dollars. It's the same reason why a rolex costs $10,000 - genuine clocks are complicated to make.
Me: I have the highest respect for people who pour time, energy and expertise into setting up elaborate Rube Goldberg machines, but this does not mean that there is some worth - teleological or otherwise - in making them.
The mere complexity or cost of something does not lend it intrinsic (or even, perhaps, extrinsic) value.
You might want to look up "White Elephant" in the dictionary.
Him: You're saying that just because you think that it is "pointless" and aesthetically unpleasing, you assume that it's a white elephant. Well then, you might want to look up the term "philistine" in the dictionary. Anyway, the point of the elaborate clock is to tell the time in a spectacular way. Simple as that. I appreciate the engineering and design value of a musical clock, but I feel that it is pointless explaining the reason why to (what I assume) a utilitarian such as yourself.
Me: De gustibus non est disputandum. As I mentioned it is "not even aesthetically appealing"
Him: Oh my. Quidquid latine sit, altum videtur, non? Anyway, as I have implied, just because you think that it is not aesthetically appealing, doesn't mean that it's pointless. Unless you can convince me otherwise.
Me: You missed out the "dictum" in "dictum sit"
[Addendum: Comment he posted on my YouTube profile:
"I like you, Gabriel. I thought you were disdainful but I was wrong. You're complacent, condescending, acerbic, and have a penchant for proverbia latina - you remind me of my very own self. Latine loqui coactus sum quoque. Perhaps somewhere in a parallel universe, we can actually be amici. Salve!"]
In conclusion, I draw your attention to the Google results for "indonesia sucks" with those for "indonesia rocks" - though there are more for the later, virtually none of them are praise for it; most are for some rock concert or for geology-related sites.
someone: "wow, that eric person is really sad
i'm like...dude, i know your country used to be a great empire with lots of civilisation, culture, history etc, but that doesn't change the fact that it's now a shithole
and few sgpreans wd disagree with him that sgp is boring and sterile and has no culture or history next to indonesia...but at least its a boring and sterile with first world amenities"
Post ID: 2790317860278366053
The West is the most Evil Bloc except all those other blocs that have had hegemony from time to time
"The main dangers in this life are the people who want to change everything - or nothing." - Nancy Astor
***
Oliver Stone's history of the world
"Known for being hysterically outspoken and politically on the left, he has made a career of portraying the United States establishment - from Presidents to the intelligence services - as murderous villains and, as a result, his broad shoulders have been subjected to a fair bit of flak...
It is bizarre, if not downright offensive, that Mr Stone chooses Singapore - where it is thought the Japanese murdered as many as 50,000 Chinese in just a few short years - to talk up the merits of the invading army.
On the fall of Singapore, he adds: "When that happened, it really shook the people. 'Hey, the British can be beaten.' And that was a huge step forward in the consciousness of that time. And although the British got back into Singapore, it would never be the same again. They would never be feared as they were once feared."
It is no wonder the British were never feared in the same way again, if they ever were. The Japanese took torture and murder to industrious levels, shooting, beheading and burning alive thousands of locals and British prisoners of war...
It is not so much saying that Stalin was not a bad guy - he just wants to tell the world that the Americans were just as bad, if not worse.
Stalin was the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world. Why would anyone want to enter pleas of mitigation on his behalf? For me, issues like Stalin and the Japanese during WWII are beyond the pale, just like Hitler and the holocaust...
He says his new series will lay the blame for the Cold War at the door of the former US President rather than Stalin and the Russians. This in itself would be a spectacular fete, as popular expert opinion has it that Truman was pretty oblivious to the dangers of Communism while in office...
Whatever evils Mr Stone believes Truman responsible for, how can they compare with the 10 million or so people Stalin is believed to have wiped off the earth?
I do not object to Mr Stone's politics as such, it is his default setting which sees him attack his own country at every opportunity that I do not like. How can you take someone seriously when they automatically take the opposite view of the West, no matter what the circumstances?...
I remind him that "Stalin was a monster". Mr Stone hits back defiantly: "But only to his own people."
Tell that to the thousands of Poles massacred during WWII or to the Americans who migrated to Russia fleeing the Depression and who were subsequently executed on Stalin's orders. If Mr Stone can get such basic facts wrong, how are we supposed to trust him on anything else he tells us in his Untold History series?...
Mr Stone appears to find some genuine amusement, or even glee, in the idea of incompetence among the British Army ranks."
***
Oliver Stone's history of the world
"Known for being hysterically outspoken and politically on the left, he has made a career of portraying the United States establishment - from Presidents to the intelligence services - as murderous villains and, as a result, his broad shoulders have been subjected to a fair bit of flak...
It is bizarre, if not downright offensive, that Mr Stone chooses Singapore - where it is thought the Japanese murdered as many as 50,000 Chinese in just a few short years - to talk up the merits of the invading army.
On the fall of Singapore, he adds: "When that happened, it really shook the people. 'Hey, the British can be beaten.' And that was a huge step forward in the consciousness of that time. And although the British got back into Singapore, it would never be the same again. They would never be feared as they were once feared."
It is no wonder the British were never feared in the same way again, if they ever were. The Japanese took torture and murder to industrious levels, shooting, beheading and burning alive thousands of locals and British prisoners of war...
It is not so much saying that Stalin was not a bad guy - he just wants to tell the world that the Americans were just as bad, if not worse.
Stalin was the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world. Why would anyone want to enter pleas of mitigation on his behalf? For me, issues like Stalin and the Japanese during WWII are beyond the pale, just like Hitler and the holocaust...
He says his new series will lay the blame for the Cold War at the door of the former US President rather than Stalin and the Russians. This in itself would be a spectacular fete, as popular expert opinion has it that Truman was pretty oblivious to the dangers of Communism while in office...
Whatever evils Mr Stone believes Truman responsible for, how can they compare with the 10 million or so people Stalin is believed to have wiped off the earth?
I do not object to Mr Stone's politics as such, it is his default setting which sees him attack his own country at every opportunity that I do not like. How can you take someone seriously when they automatically take the opposite view of the West, no matter what the circumstances?...
I remind him that "Stalin was a monster". Mr Stone hits back defiantly: "But only to his own people."
Tell that to the thousands of Poles massacred during WWII or to the Americans who migrated to Russia fleeing the Depression and who were subsequently executed on Stalin's orders. If Mr Stone can get such basic facts wrong, how are we supposed to trust him on anything else he tells us in his Untold History series?...
Mr Stone appears to find some genuine amusement, or even glee, in the idea of incompetence among the British Army ranks."
Post ID: 3608093894825448616
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Latest posts (which you might not see on this page)
