Gender divides rather than unites in politics

So, the first female candidate to have made it so far and close to running (and assuming) American Presidency finally conceded defeat and threw in her support for a black horse in the race.

One year ago, Hiliary Clinton was literally a shoo-in for the Democrat choice for the White House. But a year later, she failed to live up to the promise and handed the candidacy to a(n almost unknown) first term senator politician.

The guy who is on the way to becoming the first (Black) President, if he were to be a little less careful with his words in the race against straight-talking John McCain.

So what went wrong with the power lady?

Much has been talked about how her charming hubby was more a liability than an asset in the race. Also, how she made the wrong choice to go for the bigger states than chasing the caucuses like Obama.

And her blips during campaigning (like her claims to coming under sniper fire during a 1996 visit to Bosnia).

As a member of the fairer sex, however, the singular question that I think really begs an answer is really this: Is America ready for a female president?

If the results of the primaries are anything to go by, the answer will be negative.

Further by virtue of the fact that a Black (male) has triumphed over a White (female) candidate, the next question that really begs answering is whether America is more ready for a President from an ethnic minority group than a female president.

But perhaps before we can jump to any conclusion, there is a third question that begs answering. That is, how far does American women identify themselves with Hiliary?

This is perhaps the very weakness of any political campaign (that is intentionally or unintentionally) underpinned by an overture on gender representation.

The idea of a lady president may be an appealing selling point to women voters. But this will only work if the candidate in question is able to find a voice that connects women across social and racial boundaries.

Unfortunately, Hiliary wasn’t able to get that universal endorsement from women voters. She was a polarising figure, attracting staunch support and dissidence at the same time.

Many were disappointed with how she handled Bill’s infidelity. Yet, there are also others who sympathsized with her and complimented her forbearance.

Her cold, businesslike demeanour won endorsement from some women but turned others off.

For female voters (see http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3129/why_women_hate_hillary/) have looked to an alternative representation of American politics with more feminine traits like a softer touch, more compassionate rather than rational stance towards international issues like the Iraq War.

But Hiliary failed to represent what these women are looking for. Neither did she win the men over with her political machoism.

What all these show, really, is that gender may be more a liability than an asset in the political battleground. Women continue to be judged (by both the same and opposite gender) on the basis of their gender in a field that is not traditionally feminine.

And there’s hardly any middle ground on those issues like how one should deal with marital infidelity. That will continue to divide the feminist movement throughout the history.

War works for no man

“The wars of the world don’t come from outer space. People create them, people who have a war within themselves. I want to create music that eases that war within.” – Kitaro

One more reason why I love the man and his music.

More often than not, the major wars in the 20th to 21st century are orchestrated by a few men, whose self agenda soon overtook that of the large majority.

But wars are mostly triggered off by the territorial nature of humankind. The survival instinct – to put it more kindly – to protect one’s turf and self-interests.

The argument works both ways for the attacker and the defender. The misplaced and the poor will have more motivation to attack others in order to strengthen their positions. The defender – being threatened with a loss of territory – will arguably have a more legitimate reason to fight the battle, and – in the event when they earn a victory – penalise the attacker.

Either way, it is a poison that would blind man’s conscience. To the extent which the majority is easily manipulated to support the agenda of the elite few. History will have a way of getting at these ruling elites, but before then, the damage would have been done.

War does not resolve differences. It only magnifies the problems. Victory of one party does not guarantee immunity to repercussions in the future. But self-interests at play continue the dictate the politics and economics of the post-modern world. And the majority will have to suffer but for the few who would raise war – and continue fighting a war – often in the name of nationhood and religion.

If only music is the universal cure to the poison in all men’s hearts.

Ramblings on treatment of extramarital affairs

Having an extramarital affair may be a big boo boo for public figures in Singapore and serve to taint the image of politicians in America, but it’s not likely to make a big difference amongst French.

The MIW in Singapore will probably rather die than be caught with another woman or man for that matter, (other than their legitimate partner) in bed. It certainly isn’t going to sit well with their spanky clean image. But it ain’t much difference in the so-called liberated U.S. where the much adored Bill Clinton has to suffer public ‘flogging’ for his indiscretion with an intern. Now the situation will be entirely different for Clinton if he were the President of France rather than the U.S. The French appear to be totally blase towards Jacques Chirac’s confession of his extramarital affairs in his biography which made headlines elsewhere but not at all in France.

Baffled by the nonchalance of the French, the Brits put this question out to a French woman about a fortnight ago on the BBC. Apparently, Chirac’s public achievements appears to have overshadowed his private indiscretions in France. And while the feminists may scream foul play, the same freedom is also accorded to a married French woman. So if the Presidents are allowed mistresses, there’s no stopping any First Ladies from having their one night stands or affairs. But of course, the key is to handle these with discretion, which possibly explain the silence of the French media when it comes to such reportage. In fact, the French had found the Americans childlike in the handling of marriage or relationships.

So where does it place Singapore then? Are all our politicians or their wives or their families beyond reprimand when it comes to their personal lives or matters? I seriously think it’s impossible for anyone to be 100 per cent squeaky clean. Members of the opposition aren’t likely to be spared the heat from public scrutiny for any misconduct but I have doubts whether the MIW will be subject to similar treatment. I’ll say it’s more likely the silent treatment but it’s definitely not in the same class action as the French.

Whereas freedom and respect for privacy may be the French liberal operation modus, there is little or no appetite at all for such indiscretions in Singapore when it comes to public figures. That leaves no room at all for paparazzi and juicy exposes on our politicians in the majority league – unless of course, if and when they chose to step down.

Realistically speaking, no man and woman is a saint. I do not think our MIW and their families or for that matter, our Mediacorp artistes are entirely free of any blemish. I’m certainly not arguing for the value of paparazzi reports but methinks selective silent treatment has compromised the credibility of local press. Whether or not we ought to condone extramarital affairs has to be considered in conjunction with the respect for privacy (of the entire population not just the selected few). So if the ruling elites are spared the public embarrassment, it’s only fair the same should be extended to the man or woman in the street.

Do it the American or French way, but not a hybrid of both. You will only mess up nationhood with contradicting missives.

More lessons for Singapore politicians

Three separate cases – one direct contact and two relayed stories from friends – speak volume of a lack of media and political savviness amongst some new faces in parliament:

(1) The ‘IT’ issue in Singapore blogosphere recently – the ‘Wee-wee saga’ where MP Wee Siew Kim brushed off the public critique of an insensitive and insensible remark made by his now so-called ‘elite girl’ daughter, Wee Shu Min, with an insincere ‘apology’:

“What she said did come across as insensitive. The language was stronger than what most people could take.

But she wrote in a private blog and I feel that her privacy has been violated. After all, they were the rantings of an 18-year-old among friends.

I think if you cut through the insensitivity of the language, her basic point is reasonable, that is, that a well-educated university graduate who works for a multinational company should not be bemoaning about the Government and get on with the challenges in life.

Nonetheless, I have counseled her to learn from it. Some people cannot take the brutal truth and that sort of language, so she ought to learn from it.”

MP Wee had to issue a second apology upon subsequent (and rather predictable) public uproar.

(2) The IT and political unsavvy Minister of State

“Skype?? What’s that?” attributable to ‘He who shall not be named here’ when visiting Middle East recently. The same presumably Minister-in-making mistook two oil traders – who earlier helped him with some technical problems – for technology experts.

Wasn’t it just three months ago that ruling elites have resolved to make use of new media to reach out to younger and digitally savvy Singaporeans? Looks like there’s lots of room for improvement.

(3) The ‘Oh I see, but there’s nothing I can do about it’ MP

At a day care centre one day ago, a diabetic senior citizen fainted at the reception and was immediately moved to the treatment room in anticipation of a visit from the said MP. Volunteers and trained nurses gathered around the diabetic patient trying to revive his consciousness. She who shall not be named was naturally surprised to chance upon the obviously unconscious man whilst performing the ritual tour of the aged facility. Upon a cursory question on what happened to the man, the totally clueless MP moved on with her regular drill with nary a kind word of concern for the sick man.

On further research, I understand too she who shall not be named has reportedly passed rather inane remarks about the opposition party.

Three incidents – though disparate in their nature – raise nudging doubts of the calibre of possible rising stars in Singapore government. The first is notably a mishandling of media relations which has evolved into a PR disaster that has come to challenge the integrity of the MP. The second raises questions on how ‘up-to-date’ our political leaders are with new technology and points to a digital/generational divide yet to be bridged. The third illustates a classic case where an elite has lost touch with and displayed an apathy towards the trials and tribunes of everyday man and woman.

While it may be rash to prejudge the capabilities of the ruling elites based on these three random instances, they are no less visible proof of a widening gap between haves and have-nots and the troubling emergence of ‘Two Singapores.

Some may argue these are only isolated incidences and that we should be more tolerant towards newbies on board. However, MPs/Ministers are strictly speaking public servants – their function is to serve the public interest. That being the case, it does appear these newer faces in the parliament require further training in political or media savviness to deliver their promise as future leaders of Singapore. Coming back to the recent debate on Minister/MP paychecks, is this indicative also of a need to consider public opinion as part of their performance evaluation? Perhaps its time to have independent opinion polls in Singapore? Just some off the cuff wild thoughts at this point in time.

Teflon vs Velcro politics

Freaking funny how Matt Frei has termed the US presidency. So it seems, the non-stick Teflon politics work better for Reagan than the Velcro politics for Bush? I would think so too.

Much ado about nothing much really …

… on the Iraq War propaganda, ie going by how Jon Stewart has interpreted what Bush’s been saying…

Direct Link here

Don’t you just love the guy – the one on the left of course.

Faces of strained multilateral relations

Bitchy post – am bitchy cos my brain is so damned fried.

Ok – enough ranting. Now for the disclaimer: below post contains hyperboles entirely based on the author’s reading. It’s entirely up to the discerning reader to develop your own intelligent views of the current situation. Do not proceed to read if you are sitting on the fence now or have any nudging doubts of holding your own stand regarding the ‘North Korea issue’.

Just thought over the panel discussion on 8.30pm two nights ago on CNA about the nuclear test in North Korea.

And it’s not surprising, how strained the discussion was.

You have David Nye trying to engage an obviously helpless Korean professor, a disgruntled Japanese professor and a (western) onlooker.

Each is supposed to represent the viewpoints of the key stakeholder nations (minus China but of course!) post-nuclear test. So it ain’t no wonder, there’s an apparent lack of any interaction between the panelists. The entire discussion contained anecdotes of each panelist stating his view or representation of his nation’s views.

My sympathies go to the (South) Korean professor who’s caught between the devil and the deep blue sea when David Nye tried to probe on South Korea’s standpoint on economic and political sanctions/the Sunshine policy.

My personal view here entirely – there’s a moment during the discussion when the Japanese professor articulated a rather strong statement against the Chinese role in the North Korea affairs. In my opinion, this was really a classic example of the long overdrawn Sino-Japanese tension.

And then you have the onlooker – he who was often called to break the ice when David Nye’s questions seemed to draw a blank from the other two. He who seemed to stand for the (western) authority over the entire situation, he who seemed to hold the power to decide the road ahead.

To me, the entire panel discussion – though lacking in sparks between the panelists – seemed to be an ironic microcosm of the world politics. And with this entire lack of consensus or even the willingness to openly discuss the options – well the news nowaday appears to point to a (false) temporal optimism on the breakthrough in the discussion amongst the members of the Security council – but seriously, aren’t the actions of the so-called irrational or at times constructed as insane actions of the Middle Eastern ‘terrorists’ or the ‘mad man of North Korea’ a clear enough sign of a struggle against the power imbalance in this world?

To all those in power: take heed, when you think you know the world.

“To speak starting from the already known also paralyses the becoming of the one and of the other… [B]etween the master and the disciple – as between the father and the son – there is no real exchange of meaning… For there to be an exchange, it is essential that the other touch us, particularly through words…

The best measure … appears to be the parent – even paternalistic – relation, which, in fact, does not know a real proximity or approach. Besides the fact that it is calculated in terms of precedence of age, or power, of goods, it is also hierachical with respect to alternity and does not behave toward the other in a relation of approximation. What results from this is a lack of differentiation between one and another which prevents every possibility and even every sense of approach between those who are different.”

Luce Irigaray – the Way of Love

Ironically, for my piece at least, I have to seal this piece with a quote from a (western) philosopher. But hey, she makes good sense of what’s going on here (big sigh!). Oh by the way, I’m not naming names here for the panelists – so this post is entirely not meant to be personal digs. Please read between the lines or don’t read this at all if you are really out to find fault with the rest of the world.