I attended a short speech/Q&A session today with a Taiwanese professor (I forget his name) from Yale Law School and activist, who gave an impassioned speech and hardsell about why Taiwan should get UN membership. He spoke briefly on the history of Taiwan and it was interesting to me that Taiwan was made a province of China in the late 19th century, it fell to the Japanese after it defeated the Qing dynasty in 1895. It was under Japanese rule until 1945, when Chiang Kai Shek, under the banner of the Allied Command took over when the Japanese lost WWII. From then on, Taiwan was under martial law, until Lee Teng Hui took over in 1984 and fully established the democractic system that they have today.  The status of Taiwan was never fully resolved because when the Japanese surrendered, it was never stated to whom the island was surrendered to. The understanding was that this issue would be settled at some point. 

The professor pointed out that Taiwan was never under direct Chinese rule since the late 19th century, even before the Japanese rule. The Taiwanese have fed themselves, held elections, governed themselves for the past few decades without China's interference, so how can China still claim that Taiwan is a province of China? Taiwan has 23 million people, and is a relatively wealthy industralised country. He felt it was grossly unjust that 23 million people, who have something to offer to the world, are shut out of the U.N.

I was felt truly sorry for him and like-minded Taiwanese who fight so hard to be recognised on the world stage as a citizen of a soverign state, but getting doors slammed in their faces all the time. But while I feel convinced morally that Taiwan should be allowed UN membership, the fact that China is adamant that they don't is really the crux of the issue. China's rising influence in the world also means its word gets taken seriously. When it says it will get seriously pissed off if Taiwan is given membership, do you think the other states dare say otherwise? Even the US, who used to hem and haw around this issue, gave its sternest "warning" to Taiwan this time round. What made the difference was that while Taiwan relied on other supporters to sponsor its application, it made its application personally this time round. 

To the heart, yes, undoubtedly Taiwan has a strong case for UN membership but who is willing to stick its neck out for Taiwan by angering China? Furthermore, tension in the Taiwan straits is going to affect all the countries in the region, so it's not just an issue for the Taiwanese or the Chinese. Sadly, the mind wins on this issue. I can just hear people say, I'm sorry, my heart is with you on this one but I really can't afford to stick my neck out that far for you. And that is the harsh reality. 

I really don't know what Taiwan can do, I guess the best is to leave things as status quo? China doesn't seem keen to push on this issue if Taiwan lets things be. But of course, is it fair for the Taiwanese people to remain "stateless"? 

However, I guess people who are familiar with Taiwan and its politics will know that everything there is heavily politicised. I was just thinking ahem, isn't it such an opportune moment for Chen Shui Bian to apply for UN membership and raise a referendum? Perhaps to deflect attention from his own political woes? A PRC student asked the professor that question and he said "Well, Ma Ying Jeou is more corrupt, he got indicted, you know!" The moment I heard that, I internally rolled my eyes. I wanted to ask him so you are pan-green (or is it blue?) I suppose? 

Oh well, everyone has their biases, and it's not like he made up historical facts. But the sad truth is, I just don't see that Taiwan is going to get some sort of recognition in the near future, especially as long as China remains a looming power of influence.

I was assigned to read this article called "The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy" by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. I was totally blown away by this read. It examines and questions the US' unwavering support for Israel. It argues that this is so even at the obvious detriment to US interest in the Middle East. Why is the US so willing to risk the interests of not just its own but also of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? It's quite a lengthy article but there are a few choice nuggets:

Israel is the single, largest annual recipient of US aid since 1976 and also the largest one in total since WWII. It has received over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars) in total and $3 billion in direct assistance each year. The latter sum is one-fifth of US foreign aid budget. The article also points out that Israel today enjoys a per capita income similar to those of South Korea and Spain.

Other countries receive aid every quarter, but Israel receives theirs in full at the start of every fiscal year, hence they get to earn interest on it. It is the only country which does not have to account for how the aid is spent. So it could very well be that the money is used to fund activities that are contrary to US interests. 

US has also given Israel staunch diplomatic support. Since 1982, it has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all other Security Council members. It blocks the Arab countries' efforts to put Israel's nuclear ambitions on the IAEA agenda. (This I found to be extremely disturbing, especially when US is the loudest when it comes to giving grief to countries like Iran and North Korea who have nuclear ambitions as well. And Iran was inspected by the IAEA and found to have peaceful ambitions for nuclear energy.)

It also states that Israel does not shy away from activities that "betray" the US like providing sensitive military technology to China (a US rival) and even spying on the US.

But the main thrust of the article was that there was such a powerful Israel lobby in the US, so pervasive in its political system, that it pretty much gets its way. The authors state also that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the lobbying because that's what lobbyists do, much like trade unionists, environmental activists etc. But this group is much, much more powerful. The picture depicted was one that people who were perceived as hostile towards Israel or the lobby's objectives were vilified. Academic institutions, Columbia included, who hired professors with pro-Palestinian stances were also put under immense pressure. These groups even push to the point where they want the Government to monitor what these academics say and those perceived with anti-Israel biases would be denied federal funding. 

Most of all, the article goes into some detail to suggest that the Iraq war was also to further Israel's interests! 

We were supposed to discuss the readings in class and for some reason, the people assigned to lead the discussions left it till the end. I could sense some unease in having to discuss it. I thought it was interesting, here I was, sitting in NYC, in supposedly one of the freest countries in the world, in one of its best universities, and there was this sense of discomfort about having to discuss this. People here discuss everything out in the open. You can read debates on race, religion, abortion, homosexuality, everywhere, but people seem loathe to touch this topic with a bargepole. Anyhow, we did in the end touch on this, and I must say I understand why people don't want to discuss this. The discussion was controlled and measured and civil, but you can definitely detect the strong emotions people have on this issue. There was one guy who declared he was strongly pro-Zionist, and one girl who was indignant on why people who didn't agree with the lobbyists were crucified. Most fell in between. I said basically I don't know much about this, and to be honest, this issue doesn't directly affect people in other parts of the world (i.e. I don't really care). 

But what I do care about, is that given the US' influence in the world today, the rest of us have no choice but to deal with its decisions. I am just really disturbed that on such a vital issue concerning the Middle East (and the one billion Muslims who must feel something with regards to Palestine), they would allow Israel to dictate its foreign policy direction, even if it's indirectly. It's just bizzare.

I do admire the authors for writing this. I'm sure they knew how much shit they were going to get for this. They have a new book out, which expands on this topic. And they're heading to Columbia on Monday! I really want to go but there's another info session I want to attend at around the same time. Argh!

p/s: A reviewer from the NYT gave a scathing review of their book and criticises many of their arguments. Do give it a read as well for an alternative perspective.

ST had an article on how the Charity Council dismissed the need for a separate code of governance for religious charities. This matter arose when some churches felt that some clauses of the code should not be applicable to them. (The existing code of governance covers all charity organizations, including religious ones.) 

2 issues were particularly prickly:

The code of governance states that the governing board and the management staff should be separate entities. The Methodist Church claimed that its doctrines and polity did not allow them to exclude clergy from their governing bodies. 

The code of governance also has rules on fund-raising activities, but churches argue that since church members donate money voluntarily as part of their religious beliefs, and do not solicit from the public, they should be exempt from this clause.

However, the Charity Council has assured these religious charities that there would not be a one size fits all approach and that their "special" circumstances would be taken into consideration.

I totally agree that there is no need for a separate administrator to oversee religious charities. At the end of the day, it's about accountability. So what if the church members are giving voluntarily out of their beliefs? Their intentions could be pure, but you can never know about the intentions of those who are running these organizations. I may be cynical, but history has proven this point time and time again. And if such an unfortunate thing happens, at least there is some form of recourse for those who are cheated of their money and emotional investments. It is the State's responsibility to ensure that the system does not allow for crooked individuals to manipulate and cheat its citizens of their hard-earned monies. And the amount we're talking about (excluding those from mosques) was apparently around $740 million in 2004. It's not a figure to sniff at!

If City Harvest Church, which is arguably one of the most controversial mega-churches in Singapore, can accept that and start preparing itself to adhere to the code, I don't see what's so difficult about doing it. Other organizations like the Catholic Church and mosques, are actually governed by Acts of Parliament viz-a-vis this code, which does not have legal implications. I'm sure the other Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist temples would also like to have the same people on the governing board as management staff for better control of funds and operations, but I don't hear them complaining.

We are a secular state, which means like it or not, the constitution and laws of the land supercedes those of any religion or faith. Accept that and work within the system.

The public transport system in Singapore is always the subject of much angst and passionate discussion. People bitch, gripe and complain about it and it's one topic Singaporeans will not shy away from giving their 2 cents worth of what needs to be improved and how to go about doing it. 

ST has an article today, which laid out at length GPC (Transport) Chairman Cedric Foo's views on the public transport system. I must say he does make quite a few valid points. 

Tendering out of bus routes. Theoretically, this makes sense. Carving up the island into different parcels and inviting companies to bid for them. The Government will lay down standards that need to be met like frequency, service level, etc and the penalties if they are not. Each parcel will have a mix of "profitable" and "not-so-profitable" routes so that the bidders cannot choose to operate the profitable routes. More importantly, the routes would be determined by the Government, NOT the bidders/operators. The Government, with the macro view of the situation would be able to design routes that benefit the most commuters. Leaving the operators to design the routes like the present situation is less than ideal. I mean, what incentive is there for them to operate the non-profitable routes, other than a sense of public duty? This is simply at odds with their profit maximising objectives as listed companies. So they are "persuaded" to run these routes, but do they run them well? Or is it simply a half-hearted attempt at social responsibility?

Rationalisation. This is simply due to the reason that the operators have profit making objectives. It doesn't matter whether one operator runs the buses or whether the 2 modes are run by the 2 operators simultaenously. At the end of the day, having bus routes along MRT lines is simply a duplication of resources in many aspects. It does not make business sense to do that. 

Free transfers. Right now, transfers are only at discounted fares. If rationalisation is a neccessary evil then at least make transfers free to compensate for the inconvenience to commuters. Sometimes making multiple transfers can be quicker than just sticking to one mode and one route. Commuters shouldn't be penalised for exercising that choice. After all, who wouldn't want a quick and direct way of arriving at their destination? But if the system cannot provide that, then at least allow commuters to find their way within the system to make it work best for them and without penalising them. 

Here, ALL transfers (bus-bus, bus-subway, subway-bus) are free within TWO HOURS.  So if you are an el cheapo like me (hey, I'm an impoverished grad student), you can take the subway one way and the bus back if you are running a short errand and only pay for a one way trip. Heh.

Someone recently wrote to ST Forum to float the idea of express trains. Of course, SMRT wrote back to politely pooh pooh the idea because a)our MRT infrastructure does not allow parallel tracks for express trains to operate (valid point but why didn't they consider that before)
b)it would be too "confusing" for commuters

How stupid do they think Singaporeans are? Yah, ok I was confused when I first took the subway here, what with their local and express trains and which ones stop where and where to change lines. And yes, I took the wrong train and ended up in Harlem at midnight because I was confused. But anyway, it took me less than 2 days to understand the system and now I think the concept of express trains is excellent. Sure, it means commuters might have to take more transfers between the express and local trains but I think it's worth it because it gets me home faster. Also, the passenger load for each train is significantly lesser. Plus the trains here are not infrequent. 

The last point is the duopoly of the 2 publicly listed transport operators. I won't go into detail about this because an informed argument would probably go into the nitty gritty of economics and business operations, which I'm close to clueless about. But it's just disturbing that their returns on equity are 6-8% higher than SIA's, which is apparently one of the most profitable airlines in the world.

p/s: Sirens are constantly going off here, mainly from the fire engines. But what is amusing is that whenever these emergency vehicles have their sirens on, they always sound the horn as well. And the horns are LOUD. So if they are reaching an intersection, it would be the cacophony of the sirens AND the horn blaring like nobody's business. These guys are really aggressive, it's not like oh, please make way for me but they sound the horn to tell you to get out of the way coz they're hurtling in your direction. Maybe the emergency vehicles in Singapore should be more aggressive. I always hear them just with the sirens on and helpless if some callous fella decides to not give way. They should lean on the horn as well and preferably admonish the jerk over a built- in loudspeaker.

Exhausting first day of orientation. Basically listened to professors and deans talk all day about the different programs. Information overload. Zonked out. 

Then I came across this gem: "Outdoor events by political parties banned" (ST 28 Aug), which basically reported on how Prof Ho Peng Kee explained in Parliament why the application by WP to hold a cycling event at East Coast Park to celebrate its 50th anniversary was denied. The reason given was the usual rigmarole of security and public order. The esteemed Prof Ho said, "You may be well-behaving but other people whom you come across when you cycle, may stop you, may want to debate with you, and that may attract a crowd and therefore will result in problems that the police would want to avoid."

Erm, oookay if you say so.

But what really got to me was that he made a snarky remark about WP's Low Thia Khiang's supposed hearing disability - "If you listened very carefully, I don't know whether his hearing aid is with him because he wears one..."

Yah, and your point is? 

I mean ok, you are adversaries in the political arena but when debating in Parliament, at least treat your fellow parliamentary colleague with respect, even if they are the opposition. After all they are elected representatives of the people as well and they are not there to be sitting ducks to soak in your insults. Look, people actually actively voted for them, i.e. queued up at a polling station and crossed out a ballot paper with their name on it, which is more than can be said for MPs in walkover wards. So insulting them is tantamount to disrespecting the people who voted for them. And even if you really need to be insulting (perhaps to distract others from the fact that your speech has no substance? Or for cheap thrills?), at least do it with more wit and flair. Making fun of someone's disability is just not on, man. 

The time now is 5pm and I'm trying not to sweat like a pig as I type this. The fan is 2 feet away, circulating lukewarm, sticky air in my room. One thing I realised here is this: the weather forecast actually means something. Hah! I actually have the weather forecast website in My Favourites folder. So if I'm heading out, I'll check the temperature and decide on what to wear. Just a few days ago, the temperature was a teeth-chattering 14 degrees and now it is 30 degrees. Wtf!? Also, although the summer temperatures here can be a killer (like now), not that many people have airconditioners because NYC only gets 3 months of good (i.e. warm) weather. (My flatmate just came back dripping with sweat and exclaiming "WHAT A HOT DAY!" haha)

My first week here was mostly a flurry of activities. Buying stuff for the apartment, settling administrative stuff etc. I did a little sightseeing too in between, like Chinatown and Wall St downtown. My apartment is in the Upper West Side so I've only been traipsing up and down this area. I'd want to go to the Upper East Side, to see how the rich people live. =P Now that I've settled in mostly, I thought I'd pen down some first impressions of Manhattan.

It's not that hard to adapt to for Singaporeans. It's a bustling city, everyone's in a hurry to go somewhere. Most things wouldn't be too foreign and plus if you speak English well, it makes things a lot easier. 

Things are expensive here. You can get a simple meal here for about USD 7 or USD8. There are no hawker centres or food courts here, only cafes, delis and restaurants. So I guess you pay cafe prices even for a bowl of noodles. Groceries, however, aren't too expensive. Things like milk, pastries, drinks, etc are probably about the same or slightly more than Singapore. What's most expensive is probably rent, and if you're driving, parking. 

Which brings me to my next point: transportation. Nobody drives here. Ok, some people drive. But not many. Unlike many places, people here don't really seem to want to own a car. I guess if you've no kids, you don't really need one. The roads are made up of cabs, delivery trucks and some cars. The roads are also not big so if everyone drove, nobody would be moving at all. NYC has an great subway system. Ok yes, it's old, dirty and kinda crummy. There's no airconditioning in the station and I don't think there's heat either. Everything looks like it's in need of a good scrub. There's even rubbish on the tracks. And to people who complain about no barriers on the MRT platform in S'pore, there are no barriers here too and the platform space is TEENY TINY. And there's no system to indicate when the train is coming so people also regularly stand at the edge of the platform and STICK THEIR HEADS OUT to see whether the train is arriving. So why is it great? Because it fulfils the basic purpose of a mass transport mode: Getting people to their destinations as quickly as possible. The trains come frequently most of the time, it's never longer than a 10 min wait. Sure, it gets packed in some places but never such that you are kissing the MRT doors like in S'pore. They have so many different lines crisscrossing at different places so it's never overly packed at one platform. And they have this great thing called express lines where the trains would skip several stops along the line. For example, if you lived in Woodlands and wanted to take a train home from City Hall, a express line would perhaps skip half the usual stops, for e.g. Somerset, Toa Payoh, Braddell, etc. So the trains don't get too packed and people living further away, get home faster. Sure, S'pore's MRT system is nice and clean with all the frills but I think as long as a basic level of comfort is provided, I think what commuters would want is a faster ride to their destination. Afterall, if the ride is short, I think commuters would be more willing to put up with a less comfortable environment, for e.g. packed like sardines. Oh, and the subway and bus fare is USD2 one way, flat. Very cheap if you are travelling long distances as compared to what a cab would cost. You get free transfers if you change lines or take a bus (within 2 hours!) So if you are really penny pinching, you would take a train to run a short errand, and then take a bus back and you effectively only pay for one trip, i.e USD2!

Of course, I think the rate of delays and breakdowns is higher here than in S'pore. After all, the infrastructure is ancient and it doesn't look like they have spent much on improving it. Safety could be an issue late at night because you get all kinds of weird characters on the train, even at sane hours. You get pan handlers and buskers asking you for money almost everytime. But what people do is just to ride in the conductor's car late at night because at least he knows what's going on there. 

New Yorkers are quite interesting. They are quite brusque and impatient (kinda like S'poreans) but much more well-mannered. They say how are you doing, please, thank you and always hold open the doors for the person behind. Mostly everyone does their own thing and there are A LOT of things to do here. A lot of stores are open till late, quite a few like supermarkets and pharmacies are open 24 hrs.

Generally, it's quite safe around my neighbourhood and Columbia actually borders on Harlem. I live right opposite a fire station and hospital. Plus I see the NYPD and Columbia's Public Safety patrol cars go by quite often. I guess being in a campus surrounding is quite different but I never did feel unsafe even in other places. (except for the time I got lost in Harlem at night after taking the wrong train. Story for another day.) Nonetheless, I am more aware of my surroundings. I don't listen to my ipod when walking and I don't nap on the train. I also try not to be too distracted when walking and talking on my handphone. I also try to heed the advice of having my keys ready before I reach my front door. 

There are all kinds of people here. Caucasians make up half or probably slightly less than that. The other big groups are African-Americans and Hispanics. Not that many Asians around generally, but Columbia area has quite a lot of Asians. Students like me, I think. It's very cosmopolitan and the city doesn't make a big deal about it like "Oh, look how multi-racial we are". It just is. It's also not just about the diversity that is apparent on the surface, but other types of diversity and tolerance that are just as important in making a place "happening". I just had some guy asking me to do a survey on gay rights. Some other people from the American Civil Liberties Union also asked me to do a survey. One thing's for sure though, you can fly to the opposite end of the world and still can't escape survey people!

p/s: What is this about forcing us to buy annuities from our CPF? I don't like the sound of it. And you can't get the remainder back if you die before you claim back all your money? WHAAAAT is this, man? I don't need some insurance company to dole out MY OWN MONEY to me like he's my father giving me my pocket money.