Politics Over… Food.

I read this and laughed. I may be wrong, but I think most people have better things to do, and it’s not something that I would follow as “news” – I recently ran a post on what constitutes newsworthiness – but anyway, is taking ownership of a dish (and getting into spats with your neighbours because of it), rather than simply promoting that you have that dish, really vital to promoting tourism?

Chilli crab is called chilli crab, not [country] chilli crab.

Hainanese chicken rice is called hainanese to differentiate the way it is prepared from other varieties of chicken rice.

French fries are called french (not French) to differentiate the way the fries are cut.

An Update On Temasek (from “Looking Pretty”)

Temasek recoups its losses.

I still stand by my previous post “Looking Pretty” that the PR was badly crafted. I would not be so quick to forget the bad PR, though financially Temasek has made progress from its earlier >SGD$40bn loss. It is still not their money, and it is up to them to be honest about what they are doing with it and why, and show that they take responsibility when things go wrong as opposed to the evasive PR that came up after that debacle – I think that is pretty fair, if they also want to be patted on their backs when they make good yields on their investments.

Israel, then, and Palestine, now

History has an insidious way of repeating itself.

Today I read that Israel gave the green light for new settlements in the West Bank. A line from the article caught my attention: “North Korea is going on developing its nuclear capabilities, Iran is going on developing its nuclear capabilities, we have threats all over the world and all the world international community is interested with is whether my daughter builds her house next to mine,” he (Dani Dayan, leader of the West Bank settlers‘ council) told foreign reporters. “It is all based on the erroneous perception that the creation of a Palestinian state is the magical solution to the situation here.” (italics and bold face added)

I balked. I had already been watching the Israeli/Palestinian debacle unfold for some time, but had yet to say anything, until that line jolted me into writing. It is not a magical solution. But it is the start of legitimacy. If a Palestinian state is created, the strongest power brokers in the region no longer have any excuse to allude, overtly or covertly, to the idea that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Israel cannot then be blackmailed by states claiming to support ‘Palestinian brothers’. That may be an oversimplification, of course, but I digress: I want to talk about people and a place to call home. First, a little history:

Before the existence of the State of Israel in 1948 the region of Palestine had been ruled by the British as the British Mandate of Palestine. In light of the historic irreconcilability of the Jewish and Arab communities within Palestine, Jewish immigration (both due to displaced refugees during WW2 and illegal immigration after) and unpopularity of British rule with both communities, they turned the “Question of Palestine” over to the UN in 1947.

A majority of UN nations proposed partitioning the territory while some nations proposed a single federal state with Jewish and Arab constituents. Eventually the UN General Assembly voted in late November 1947 in favour of partition, with the Palestinian Jews welcoming the plan and the Palestinian Arabs rejecting it (see map of partition plan here).

On 14 May 1948 Israeli independence was declared and the (Jewish) State of Israel created. Immediately the fledgling nation was thrust into a fight for survival in its War of Independence against Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. Note that then-Israel did not have the boundaries it has today. It neither encompassed the Gaza Strip to the southwest nor West Bank to the east (the reason it is called the West Bank is due to its position west of the Jordan River, which lay/lies to the east of Israel; see map of Israel in 1948 and opposing armed forces attack vectors here), which would have formed much of the Arab partition of Palestine according to the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

However, the West Bank essentially became a no-man’s-land seeing fighting between Jewish and Arab forces between the UN vote in late 1947 and mid 1948, with it being annexed by Jordan during the 1948 war in agreement with the Israelis in exchange for Jordan not invading the Jewish partition, or the State of Israel, proper. The Gaza Strip was annexed in that same year by Egypt.

The Palestinian Arabs lost a place to call home, once.

Israel subsequently gained control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in June 1967 during the Six Day War against Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. It has held and occupied these areas since until more recent developments saw some control pass to the Palestinian Authority (see map here). During this time Israel has slowly colonised (I’m just calling a spade a spade) the West Bank and Gaza Strip with settlements and continues to do so in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 242 adopted in November 1967 following the aftermath of the Six Day War, which expressly calls for withdrawal from these territories and the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and also in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention expressly prohibiting resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilian population within occupied territory.

Against 242 and the Convention are some claims such as:

1. Israel’s eastern border has never been defined by anyone,

2. The West Bank has not been part of any state (Jordanian annexation was never officially recognized) since the time of the Ottoman Empire,

3. According to the Camp David Accords with Egypt, the 1994 agreement with Jordan and the Oslo Accords with the PLO, the final status of the territories would be fixed only when there was a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians,

4. Neither the West Bank nor Gaza Strip were the territory of a “High Contracting Party” (parties which are signatories and have ratified a treaty, i.e. loosely, UN member states) at the time they were occupied by Israel and that therefore the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply, based on the wording of Article 2 of the Convention:

“In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.”

5. Even if the Convention does apply, it was created in the context of World War II only,

6. The Convention is only intended to cover forcible transfers and to protect the local population from displacement (Article 49(1) of the Convention), while the settlements are not intended to, nor have resulted in, the displacement of Palestinians,

7. The Convention only applies in the absence of an operative peace agreement and between two powers accepting the Convention, and since the Oslo Accords leave the issue of settlements to be negotiated, Palestinians have accepted the temporary presence of Israeli settlements pending further negotiation thus there is no basis for declaring them illegal.

Because of all this the Palestinians are losing a place to call home a second time. We can always argue on semantics, debate the supposed meaning wrung out from every single word of a lawful document and find every single loophole no matter how small it is, but at the end of the day law is about people, not about words:

In response to 1, it has, if you accept the 1947 UN Partition Plan dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab territories to belong to two different peoples. Claiming Israel’s eastern border never having been defined conveniently brushes aside the fact that Israel was created as a Jewish state for the Jewish people, in the context of the 1947 Plan.

In response to 2 and 4, the West Bank was never legally claimed by any state representing the Palestinian Arabs, but does that mean that as the only successor state to the 1947 Plan, Israel has the right to occupy all of Palestine? Technically, maybe. Morally? It conveniently forgets that the Palestinian Arabs exist as a people, even if they are not represented.

In response to 3, and 7, does no final status mean pushing the boundaries of the status quo? Does it mean Israel has the right to colonise land that does not yet have a final status – i.e. does not yet belong definitively to anyone, including Israel? The claims conveniently forget this point.

In response to 5, does this somehow diminish the authority of the Convention for other wars? It seems conveniently forgotten that the Convention was written to protect people during war.

In response to 6, 49(1) is but a mere section of the Convention. It seems yet again that the aim(s) of the rest of the Convention (that was written to protect people) has (have) been conveniently forgotten.

Right at the start I said that history has an insidious way of repeating itself. Throughout the ages the Jews have been persecuted, their land conquered and their people denied of a place to call their own. Today the same scene is replaying itself, on the same land, but the actors are different. The Jews are no longer the conquered and the denied. That was Israel, then.

And Palestine, now.

I wonder which book it was from that the principle “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” was founded. In some sick twist, it now seems that “do unto others as others have done unto you” is the principle of choice.

ואהבת לרעיך כמוך , Leviticus 19:18

Looking Pretty

I just saw excerpts of Ho Ching’s Q&A on CNA. She said, “we’re not in this to look pretty”.

But the thing is she was standing there trying to look pretty:

“You know, I think it’s like the German national football team, when you do well everybody cheers you on, but when you do badly everybody gets very angry…”

Deflect much? Just admit and apologise for the screw-up already, and outline the remedies you’re going to take clearly, since (OMG why is this happening? ->) you’re still the CEO, and maybe you won’t sound so hollow after losing more than SGD 40 billion dollars equivalent to more than 20% total portfolio… and I wonder whose pockets that money came from. Of course we’re angry, and damn right about it.

“when you do well everybody cheers you on, but when you do badly everybody gets very angry…” – i.e.: “people get angry because they tend to… it’s like that”

Are you shifting the blame for the outcry to the people?

“…that’s an indication that they love us, they want us to improve” – i.e.: “uh… it’s not so bad… we still feel the love, you know…”

NO. 40 BILLION DOLLARS IS BAD.

I wonder if the PR people who “carefully crafted” the PR statements realise that no matter which way you go about it, losing 40b is going to look bad. So stop dressing up the truth fancily already – trying to varnish something to make it look pretty (instead of prettier – there’s a subtle yet very big difference). Varnish smells, you know?

The backstory: http://www.reuters.com/article/etfNews/idUSSIN47470020090729

—–

An update to this saga here.

Mudslinging Does Not Just Happen in Politics

Check this out. From the UK’s Daily Mail Online. It is an article about a film that is, maybe, no good, and the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). I haven’t seen said film so I can’t comment, but I want to talk about the article’s mudslinging at the BBFC, using a couple of excerpts. Actually it even goes as far as slinging mud at the EU.

“They have given the film an 18 certificate. As we all know, this is meaningless… thanks to the gross irresponsibility of some parents, any film that is given general release will be seen by children.”

Whenever this invalid “argument” is used I find it stunning that people are expected to cover in advance for others’ lack of responsibility. If a parent lets a child watch an M18 film it is not the censors’ fault, but it seems passing the blame is popular, and always presented as some valid infallible argument.

“As soon as it’s released on DVD, Antichrist will harm children… But when did this principle of protecting only children arise anyway? What about harming adults?”

The ones who have harmed children are irresponsible parents and movie theatres and DVD store owners who don’t ID customers buying restricted items. Next, the “adults” mentioned shouldn’t be referred to as such if they cannot think for themselves. Or, if you found the previous sentence too harsh, if the suggested “protect adults” notion is looked at from another angle, would you, if you are an adult, like an errant journalist to bascially just assume that you are lacking in sentient capacity?

Article author Hart also invokes many instances of ad hominem – hardly what I would call logic. The article, too, is full of sensationalism at the same time as it is devoid of logic. It reads like a dramatic imbecile rant. If sensationalism was Hart’s objective, he has succeeded.

But sensationalism is worthless. (So is mudslinging.)

—–
Notes: Joseph Pulitzer and Horace Greeley would have shook their heads at this being one of the “top ten breaking news” items in a newspaper. Research the history of the common newspaper to know more about sensationalism in the context of news writing, if you don’t already know about the concept.

Ignorance and Self-Righteousness

This one is going to be pretty gross, so if you want to stop reading now, stop reading.

Otherwise, I want some opinions. Informed ones, please. I’m going to go about this in a very technical way with feelings detached. Bear with me.

Let’s just say there was a conversation started in a game lobby between some unrelated people about human relationships and sexual intercourse. Along the way, with the usual machismo, dirty-mindedness and lameness, it got nuttier and nuttier until it degenerated from sexual intercourse to the theme of “humans doing animals”. Two of the original number kept harping on and on about, well, doing animals (insert [animal] in place of [girl/boyfriend]), and alas two spectators who arrived only during the later half immediately started berating them for it.

I defended the original two by bringing up:

1. The two spectators who arrived halfway did not know the original context, that is, the topic of sexual intercourse degenerated via lameness/boredom/too lively an imagination into the later topic.

2. The two original people, given the context (see 1 and paragraphs above), were being sarcastic about the animal parts.

I said they did not deserve the two later spectators’ self-righteous judgement, and I was then immediately castigated for it, labelled ignorant, insulted and in general talked down to.

They kept insisting that humans/animals actually do happen so I shouldn’t defend anyone joking about it, and somehow they insisted the context to be rape, which wasn’t the case, so that they could hold “the high ground” by appealing to the helplessness of supposed rape victims, in this case the animals the original two were talking about.

Argument after argument and reasoning upon reasoning fell on deaf ears.

Yes, it has happened before. There was this guy who did a goat and was ordered by a court to marry it. Search the BBC. (I quizzed them about it and apparently they didn’t know about this case. So much for accusations of ignorance. They even tried to use this against me.)

But a case like the above is *not the norm*. So since it is not the norm, I saw no reason to believe that the two original chatters actually did what they were talking about for real. But the two later spectators insisted that it be treated as if it was the real deal, that the original two really could be doing it, which goes against the logic I’m appealing to above: that it is not the norm, plus given the conversation’s original context, so that I see more reason to believe they were sarcastic rather than serious, and thus didn’t deserve righteous fury.

They even tried to use the “kid could be seeing this convo” argument. In a first-person-shooter game environment with blood effects, headshots and nutshots, where you get shot in that sensitive area. It shows up as a big pop-up “NUTSHOT” when you do that to someone else. Oh, please - shouldn’t they also be lambasting the game’s developers/boycotting the very game they were in? I think it pretty ironic.

In no way did I claim that human/animal was not wrong. But it so happens people believe only what they would like to believe, think all others ignorant, utterly disgusting and hopeless fools, and apply standards selectively.

Anyone who’s only got half a worldview i.e. half-witted i.e. selective standards i.e. bleeding hearts and animal lovers, please refrain from emotional commenting.

Just joking. Note sarcasm. If you would like to say something, just please keep the tone neutral. Comments displaying a tone other than that will be binned, and so will trolls.

They even tried to use the “kid could be seeing this convo” argument. In a first-person-shooter game environment with blood effects, headshots and nutshots, where you get shot in that sensitive area. Oh, please.

Newsworthiness and Public Interest

Recently Twitter was hacked and the hacker sent the spoils of his efforts to TechCrunch, a technology blog, which published at least some or part, and are set to publish more, of the stolen documents (read here, here and here).

The head honcho of TechCrunch, Micael Arrington, has defended his posting of confidential information as being “newsworthy”. Further commenters on the blog justified the act as being in the “public interest” and good “journalism”.

While I cannot comment on the legal ramifications of the whole episode, it disgusts me to see the above three terms in quotes being horribly misappropriated. I feel the need to clear up their meaning.

Let me start first with journalism and its inextricable ties with the notion of a public sphere. GOOD journalism contributes to this sphere in which citizens are able to put forth ideas and discuss freely the things that concern them directly. This, of course, also happens to underpin democracy. It is then not too hard to see the meaning of public interest. It is not simply an “interested public”. “Public interest” is anything that directly concerns the public at large and affects their well-being (i.e. defining the interest of the public and only the public, i.e. not government or business) or that of the public sphere. Information that is in the public interest or of public interest is news, and such information is termed “newsworthy”. Anything else is gossip, and “good journalism” brings out the newsworthy and avoids gossip.

Let’s now put the Twitter/TechCrunch saga in context. The confidential documents that have been posted on TechCrunch include a financial forecast (others that remain unpublished so far include executive meeting notes and partner agreements to the meal preferences, calendars and phone logs of various Twitter employees).

Is this newsworthy? Is this in the public interest? No. The documents aren’t. The only thing that is in the public interest is news of the hacking, revealing security flaws in the online company, which could affect the information and security of the public at large. All else is gossip. The posted financial forecast is gossip, gossip is not newsworthy, and anything that paints the un-newsworthy as news is not good journalism. Let’s not forget that the documents are confidential information obtained by ill means, although that does not matter in the logic here about newsworthiness (for example, if, say, a government department was hacked into and information was found revealing plans to suppress the rights of the public-at-large – that information would still be confidential and obtained by ill means, but would be in the public interest and hence newsworthy).

Good journalism has been slandered in this debacle.

A Response to a Specific Quote by Steven Pinker

This post concerns the concept and role of eugenics in this age of genetics. Steven Pinker, responding to a “conventional wisdom among left-leaning academics that genes imply genocide”, proffers the following (it is quite an old quote dating from 2002):

“But the 20th century suffered “two” ideologies that led to genocides. The other one, Marxism, had no use for race, didn’t believe in genes and denied that human nature was a meaningful concept. Clearly, it’s not an emphasis on genes or evolution that is dangerous. It’s the desire to remake humanity by coercive means (eugenics or social engineering) and the belief that humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones.” [The other, unmentioned in this quote, is fascism]

While he is not arguing, per se, for genetic determinism, he gets this partly right. It is not that dealing with genes inevitably implies genocide, but the concept he seeks to highlight as a retort to this is a little more complex than what he is suggesting. There must be two mental steps: first, the ideological perception of the superiority of certain (insert noun here, genes/traits/race/class/anything), then the ideological condemnation of inferior (noun) as somehow undeserving of the same treatment/rights/humanity. It is this condemnation of inferior (noun) that led to the genocides and which continues today to lead to social/racial/ethnic stratification and discrimination.

While the first step establishes the space for the second to “operate”, the second is the one that is the “action” step. You can think you are superior, but you don’t necessarily have to condemn/ostrasize/etc, though of course, it probably happens more than naturally in most cases. Both steps may well be equally important, however, when there is no actual ground for establishing the superiority of one over the other. If there actually is such a ground (i.e. actual, not perceived superiority), then only the second is relevant.

—

Admittedly, I struggled with this for a while – a key question was: does superiority contain the implicit assumption that the inferior was undeserving, or are the two steps I mentioned consciously separate? Question is open to discussion.

Tiananmen

A few years ago China called for Japan to apologise for killings during WW II and remove references in textbooks neutral to/positive of Japan’s actions.

Today China continually refuses to discuss Tiananmen in spite of calls from its own people.

Today’s China is different. But to continually hold another country guilty for actions, in war, against your people, while sweeping under the carpet actions, in peacetime, in your own backyard, seems wrong, at least to me. Why is the subject of Tiananmen still taboo? Is China all too ready to blame another country for one civilian massacre while apparently not being ready to do some soul-searching for another civilian massacre?

Today’s Chinese administration may not directly be accountable for Tiananmen, of course, despite being the same party. But if today’s China is different – why is it not prepared to discuss mistakes of the past, of a past China?

Anyone else see a disconnect here? What is the message China is sending to ordinary observers like me? Certainly, for a country which cares a lot about “face”, juxtaposing these contradictory actions would seem to “throw face”. Here, China is only tarnishing its own image.

Additionally, it may be able to block its own bloggers and its own people – but it will not be able to block everyone else, and it will lose “face” not only with its own people, but with everyone else.

We Pay, You Deliver.

Look at all the regulations universities have. Look at some of the lecturers universities have. It’s always been way too top-down, and some people take advantage of that. Somewhere down the road students should produce a Students’ Bill of Rights. And two of the clauses will be:

• Homework shall be graded and returned in time for and solutions posted prior to exams. It is not just for your amusement at having a chance to take points off our final grades.
  (US students will find this clause handy)

• Lecturers shall possess good presentation skills and be well-versed in the medium of instruction to be able to put together an effective delivery.
  (My Singaporean friends will like this bit)

Tuition fees going up, universities moving towards “privatisation” (I know NTU is), but that means that…
IF WE PAY (MORE), YOU DELIVER (MORE).

Otherwise… would you like to sign in black and white, individually for each student, a mutually acceptable contract that includes the terms above that we can hold you legally responsible for should you fail to meet such terms, or hold you accountable in a court of law for misrepresentation, should you fail to meet the standards you advertise (“university of global excellence” comes to mind…) ?

I’ve always wondered what it would be like to sue a university. Should I try? Since the fashion of our time seems to be the commoditization of everything; even education is being commoditized now. It’s ugly and it sucks and I’ve pointed it out before, that education should not be some kind of product. But since that’s the way it is now, then play by the rules. I’m not satisfied. We pay, you deliver.

Read this related material from the New York Times.