we are sheep.
"Singapore is one of the few countries in Asia that does not allow its citizens to freely and openly assemble even though our constitution guarantees us that right. Even the governments of China, even Cambodia and Malaysia allows public gatherings.The only countries in Asia that continues to outlaw public rallies and protests are North Korea, Vietnam, Burma and Singapore. We are in bad company.Without public gatherings, apartheid would still rule South Africa today, blacks in America would still have to go to a separate toilet from the whites, Taiwan would still be labouring under a dictatorship and Hong Kong would not be able to beat back China’s intentions to impose Article 23. If we did not have public gatherings Singapore would still be a British colony.Mahatma Gandhi once said: "Democracy is not a state in which people act like sheep." I was in Australia and observed how sheep behaved. For anyone to control the flock in such a manner three factors are crucial: There must be fear, you must deprive the individual animal of information, and you must make sure that those that step out of line are quickly chased back in. Of course it helps to have a bunch of dogs running around.Can it be that Singaporeans are really so incapable of expressing ourselves in peaceful protests and demonstrations? Are the Brits somehow more responsible than us, are the Japanese somehow superior in their political thought, are Hong Kongers somehow more trustworthy, are our Malaysian counterparts better citizens? Or is it that our government is simply more repressive than others?
The question is not whether one country holds elections or not but whether the elections are one, genuinely free and fair, two, whether voters have access to information through a free media, and three, whether there is freedom of association, speech and assembly. None of these conditions exist in Singapore.
If elections are the only measure of whether a country is democratic or not, then Cuba, former Soviet Union, the Philippines, Iraq and Indonesia are all democracies because Fidel Castro, Marcos, Suharto, and Saddam Hussein, all conducted elections."
Dr Chee Soon Juan
International Youth Conference for Democracy
July 26, 2003
i like motion pictures
Rules of Engagement (2000)
the lure of this military/legal/political film is the central question of right vs wrong, blurring that thin line under extreme conditions, a frequent issue in the military. very much in the same vein as A Few Good Men. i must admit i didnt come in expecting too much, due to its lack of fame, but i must say i came away satisfied and enthralled. Tommy Lee Jones was the standout, blowing us away with his performance as the average soldier, average lawyer, but with values hard as hell. Rules Of Engagement also pits the hardcore battle-worn soldier against the high-flying scholar, and explores to what length is the rulebook a bible, when hard but morally ambiguous decisions have to be made.---
Guy Pearce plays Maj Biggs, the prosecutor.
Maj Biggs: Sir, if I may say something? I accepted this assignment... 'cause I believe in the merits of the government's case. I am not gonna stack the deck against this guy. I will try this case on good evidence only.
---
Maj Biggs: This guy is the warrior's warrior. A Navy Cross, two Silver Stars for composure in battle. He has no wife, no kids, just the Corps. He was our best. That's why he was sent. He's not on trial for the good service he gave the country, but for what he did in Yemen, period.
anonymous Marine officer: Major, nobody wants to say it, but it occurs to me we're trying to set an example here. So let's set it and show the world we mean business. The first charge supports the death penalty, and I say we go for it.
Maj Biggs: No more death. I'll see that he never gets another command and I'll put him in jail, but I will not seek death for a man who served his country honorably.
---
Maj Biggs: What do you think would happen if a Yemeni killed 83 Americans? He'd have a trial that would last for one day, and they'd take off his head.
Lt-Col Hodges: Major, do you know what the life expectancy was for a second lieutenant... dropped into a combat zone in Vietnam in '68?
Maj Biggs: I don't have time for 20 questions, sir.
(later, to himself, solemnly) Two weeks. Life expectancy of a second lieutenant... in combat in Vietnam was two weeks.
---
Lt-Col Hodges: Were your men annihilating that platoon of marines?
Col Cao: Yes.
Lt-Col Hodges: Did Colonel Childers force you to call your men off?
Col Cao: Yes.
Lt-Col Hodges: Do you believe his actions were calculated to save the lives of American marines?
Col Cao: Yes.
Lt-Col Hodges: Would you have done the same thing Colonel Childers did if the situation had been reversed? Colonel Cao, would you have shot a captive American radio operator in the head if you thought it would persuade Colonel Childers to spare the lives of your own men?
Col Cao: Yes.
Lt-Col Hodges: No more questions.
---
Lt-Col Hodges: I'll make you a deal. If you can tell me right now what the life expectancy was for a second lieutenant dropped into a hot LZ in Vietnam in '68 I'll tell you everything I remember about Ca Lu.
Maj Biggs: One week.
Lt-Col Hodges: Negative. Sixteen minutes, Major. Sixteen fucking minutes. And that's all I remember.
---
and the final scene. i saw it coming and waited for it to happen in the courtroom. but the best was saved for last. Col Cao and Col Childers saluting each other, eyes filled with respect, though once war enemies, yet understanding that what had to happen, happened, and they did what they had to. war is never about right or wrong. it's about each fighting for his own right.
but. drawing from this film's wiki entry, i hate its guts for what i vaguely felt while watching it. it is seriously an immensely racist film.
