Headlines

The newspapers show a lot of what's wrong with the world, whether they intend to or not. Such stupid stuff makes it into the news. For one thing, this ad about making space to sit for pregnant women, elderly and handicapped on the LRT that was shown on TV a while back (probably still on) just provoked a stir with a few MPs. I admit it was a pretty crappy ad and ridiculously obvious and semi-utopian. HOWEVER one wonderful MP has objected to it on the grounds that "the boorish young man depicted is Malay" and "the bulk of Malays are courteous people" (NST, 23/3). I have nothing against his opinion of Malays. Yes, many are nice people. But what is he inferring? That other races are not courteous? That the ad should feature a faceless actor/actress so that no race will be offended? How narrow minded can you get? I admit there may be a sense of bias here, the racial situation in M'sia being what it is. Nonetheless, what the heck are people who are too blind to see beyond "Malay antagonist - objectional racism!" doing running the country? For that matter, who thinks this story is really worth printing at all?

Another thing - China has labeled its anti-secession law as "a way to reduce the tension" with Taiwan. Indeed. "Relax, if you try and walk away we'll blow you apart but relax." At this time, France and Germany are moving to remove a long-standing arms embargo, put in place over the shooting of pro-democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square in 1989. The US (big surprise) is pressuring the EU not to budge on the embargo. I agree in principle with the embargo's introduction. The US has justification in saying that the anti-secession law is ridiculous and should receive international criticism. However, I'm pretty certain that that isn't the real motive of the US government - they and most of the Western governments have a history of opressing Communist governments, without regard for the ethics of it. The Soviet government in 1917 had to endure a civil war because of the Allies' fears of the new state and because they wanted more Russian peasants to die fighting Germans. The Chinese Communist Party overthrew a corrupt government (the Kuomintang) that had during WWII wanted to eliminate the Communists before defending China against the Japanese invasion. The nationalists fled to Taiwan, where they were given huge amounts of aid by the West. Fledgeling Communist states that needed economic aid were attacked - North Vietnam and
North Korea. When Vietnam, under Communist rule, deposed Pol Pot and the barbaric Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the US supported anti-Vietnamese troops in Cambodia. My history teacher and I looked at two islands - Taiwan (received aid from capitalists - huge economy) and Cuba (US tried to covertly and later more openly overthrow Castro - Cuba is still struggling).

Anyway by now, no nation actually follows the Communist ideal. Died with Lenin IMO. Stalin's grabbing power just wiped chances of that out. But look at it this way. My dad has expressed/supported this view - when everyone is against you, and conditions are hellish, who wins out? Moderates or hard-liners? Hard-liners, however opportunistic, megalomaniacal and unscrupulous they may be. If the Communist nations had gained support early on, a whole lot of tragedies might have been averted. Well, that's capitalist greed and the elites maintaining the status quo for you. Incidentally, the right of nations to self-determination and hence their right to secede from a Soviet/Communist State was imortant once. Communist countries today? Lost sheep. One last thing. If the pro-democracy demonstrators had had their way and a democracy like the US or Britain arose in China, would things be ANY better?