Nationalistic Paranoia
Headtitle: No way to treat state that rushed to Aceh's aid
Original Article: Singapore disappointed by Jakarta demo over organic material
The motive of this entry is not to implicate the Singapore government in its responsibility in sending organic material, that were not classified as "hazardous waste" under Singapore law at the time of export, which were later dumped in Batam, and allegedly found to contain "heavy metals, which are regarded as hazardous waste under Indonesian laws". With reasonable speculation, the effects of the hazardous waste pollution must be serious enough to warrant an organised protest, which took place before the Singapore embassy in Jakarta.
What is of concern is rather how the author, Christopher Teo harangued (though in the Forum section of the ST) on how Singaporeans should "think again whether or not such a neighbour is worth helping at all". He buttress his argument by two devices; one is to praise and extol the 'tremendous' humanitarian help Singapore has provided to Aceh (who is fighting for independence from Indonesia) or raising money for the Indonesians during the Asian financial crisis (which was channeled through the IMF) and other monetary charity aid. The second point of his argument was the remarks made by then Indonesian President B.J. Habibie, which described Singapore in a relative negative light.
It is important to take note of how the implicit morale message of Christopher's letter. Namely, that is to say since we have been such a generous neighbour, you shouldn't be allowed to protest against us, even for issues that are totally unrelated. Double standards can easily be found in the most "patrotic" or the most "paranoid", and in the case we see how the two feed off each other. The responsibility that Singapore has in being the exporter of the organic material, which has adversely affected their lives, should not be ignored, and it seems for now the right steps have been taken in that direction. However, protests and demonstrations on their land is their right, although the damage to the embassy is perhaps uncalled for, it doesn't equate a shift in our allegedly 'altruistic' 'benevolent' foreign policy.
Much like how Singapore has indirectly externalised damage onto Indonesian soil, we shouldn't perform additional damage on their freedom to speak. But perhaps Singapore has a very different conception of demonstrations, the preconceived idea that they are usually borne out of 'insane', 'arachiac' or 'irrational' thought. To a certain extent, some demonstrations have been sparked on preposterous grounds, but the background grievances have to be addressed. Christopher Teo concluded in his statement that "Singaporeans should stand shoulder to shoulder when it comes to national pride", well you can find that kind of statement in Nazi or Russian Soviet Style propoganda. Instead, national pride should impede you that while recognising that the damage was unnecessary, we are concerned about the indirect responsibility in harming another nation's soil.
Original Article: Singapore disappointed by Jakarta demo over organic material
The motive of this entry is not to implicate the Singapore government in its responsibility in sending organic material, that were not classified as "hazardous waste" under Singapore law at the time of export, which were later dumped in Batam, and allegedly found to contain "heavy metals, which are regarded as hazardous waste under Indonesian laws". With reasonable speculation, the effects of the hazardous waste pollution must be serious enough to warrant an organised protest, which took place before the Singapore embassy in Jakarta.
What is of concern is rather how the author, Christopher Teo harangued (though in the Forum section of the ST) on how Singaporeans should "think again whether or not such a neighbour is worth helping at all". He buttress his argument by two devices; one is to praise and extol the 'tremendous' humanitarian help Singapore has provided to Aceh (who is fighting for independence from Indonesia) or raising money for the Indonesians during the Asian financial crisis (which was channeled through the IMF) and other monetary charity aid. The second point of his argument was the remarks made by then Indonesian President B.J. Habibie, which described Singapore in a relative negative light.
It is important to take note of how the implicit morale message of Christopher's letter. Namely, that is to say since we have been such a generous neighbour, you shouldn't be allowed to protest against us, even for issues that are totally unrelated. Double standards can easily be found in the most "patrotic" or the most "paranoid", and in the case we see how the two feed off each other. The responsibility that Singapore has in being the exporter of the organic material, which has adversely affected their lives, should not be ignored, and it seems for now the right steps have been taken in that direction. However, protests and demonstrations on their land is their right, although the damage to the embassy is perhaps uncalled for, it doesn't equate a shift in our allegedly 'altruistic' 'benevolent' foreign policy.
Much like how Singapore has indirectly externalised damage onto Indonesian soil, we shouldn't perform additional damage on their freedom to speak. But perhaps Singapore has a very different conception of demonstrations, the preconceived idea that they are usually borne out of 'insane', 'arachiac' or 'irrational' thought. To a certain extent, some demonstrations have been sparked on preposterous grounds, but the background grievances have to be addressed. Christopher Teo concluded in his statement that "Singaporeans should stand shoulder to shoulder when it comes to national pride", well you can find that kind of statement in Nazi or Russian Soviet Style propoganda. Instead, national pride should impede you that while recognising that the damage was unnecessary, we are concerned about the indirect responsibility in harming another nation's soil.
posted by Douglas Evans at 8:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home