Analysis of a Political Article

I came across something on Young PAP, an article called “To The Devotees of Western Democracy and Human Rights.” Since I believe that idiocy has to be dealt with using a large hammer, so here goes…

First, the author has tried to justify the “superiority” of Asian values over Western values. Well, in every culture, ethnocentrism is present--the dominant values are always seen as superior over other values--it is one of the things which contribute to identity. But one has to ask the question if it is right, or even if it does make sense to use such a blanket-term like “Asian Values”.

Second, the author accuses the West of cultural imperialism. As quoted "And these were also the nations [European powers] that, at the height of their imperialism, imposed, by sheer brute force, the ‘right’ of extra-territoriality upon the countries they had subjected. And now, they are crusading for Freedom and Human Rights in their former colonies as well as the other countries of Asia." Of course the West can be cultural imperialists, since they have the might and the money.But in using the word ‘crusading’ is a bit extreme. The author has displayed his ignorance of political language and should have avoided using such a word as the very concept of Jihad by Muslim fundamentalists go back to the Crusades. For “Asian Values” overseas – what, Singapore is trying to strike back? With what force?


In fact, in my opinion, Western values are so important for Singapore that you can’t do without them. If we don’t want Western values, then we should chase foreigners out, especially the educated Westerners in our universities, and we should, of course, send our scholars not to Europe anymore! So what is being said is that for our author, he is grossly short-sighted: this smacks of a way to stay in power, by using a vague term to make one system sound better than the other. Without any agreed definitions, this is just RHETORICS.

The "Anglophile" may be despised, but maybe our author should be too, since he is doing nothing much more than building castles in the air, i.e. calling others to take up arms against the Western cultural crusade (seriously, were you with the Taliban?) based on a term which is so general that it is empty, and using the rhetoric of certain senior citizens who deem fit to travel the world and impose their own brand of imperialism under the motto of “leave us alone, you have no idea what it is like to rule an Asian country,” yadda, yadda. Yes, what were you thinking?

The Sprial of Silence Theory

This week, our communications lecturer introduced several media theories and models to us. I would like to share with all of you this media theory that has been developed by a famous scientist. I find it relatively pertinent to today's word despite it being developed 30 plus year ago.

German Political Scientist Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann developed the Spiral of Silence theory back in 1972. She suggested that when our opinions do not match those of the majority we become silent and refrain from voicing those opinions out of fear of social isolation. Researchers have found fairly strong support for this theory—particularly when those opinions concern moral or ethical issues. However, the world has changed dramatically since 1972—particularly the way we communicate publicly. Have new communication technologies influenced the Spiral of Silence theory?



In 1972, one would receive most of the news from television, radio, and newspapers. Today, new communication media abound and old media are dying. In 1972, news was disseminated fairly uniformly from three fairly similar television networks. Individuals who expressed a minority view that differed from that presented on the nightly news might be sanctioned with derision, silence, or nonverbal cues of disapproval (sneering, eye rolling, etc.) from others Of course, the primary place one could express a minority view back in 1972 was in conversation. Not many people could present their views publicly (exceptions might be writing a letter to the editor or participating in a public protest).

Today, the opportunity for individuals to speak out publicly about issues that concern them has increased dramatically. Indeed, people can make their views know publicly all without ever engaging in conversation with close friends or acquaintances. The Internet has opened doors for people to express their minority opinions publicly and still retain anonymity. The proliferation of media outlets (multiple television channels, Internet, etc.) allows virtually all minority viewpoints a hearing. So, what do these changes in technology mean for the Spiral of Silence theory?

Do we feel more or less threatened in a conversation to express an unpopular opinion? Are we more or less likely to stand up for our viewpoint in a group of people who do not agree with us?

I agree with this theory. Those who don’t agree with the majority, often risk getting shredded apart. Society almost never forgives individuals who are against “common sense.” Just look at what happened to the protestors of the Brazilian dictatorship.

But that’s all back in the world of the generatopm X’s, Baby Boomers, and Veterans. In the world of generation Y’s (our generation), this theory simply doesn’t apply. Today the norm is disagreement. The dissonance comes from young people, very young people who aren’t afraid to question, contest, and protest.


Online communities, chat forums, and social networks, are the greatest proof of this. It’s very common to see young people joining online communities where they criticize the very businesses they are applying to be a part of. They say what they think without any filters. The spiral of silence is over. Today it’s cool to disagree! And people are actually the opposite of what Noelle-Newman argues. And they are admired and respected, precisely for that.


Today we have the great freedom of being able to say what we think. I believe that generation Y and the generations after them will really benefit from this freedom, which no other generation has experienced up until now. They probably won’t realize how valuable this freedom is, for they haven’t experienced the sourness of not being able to really say what they think, as those before them did. So it seems that the theories of communication will have to silence the very spiral of silence.


What do you think? Does the Spiral of Silence still hold? Are you more or less willing to say what you think about controversial issues in face-to-face conversations than you were 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago?

How to survive group projects?

As we are nearing the mid-terms and facing various project submissions for our modules this semester, I have a few tips on how to survive group projects that I would like to share with all my juniors here.

From my 3-year experience in UB, I have gathered that the way to survive group projects is to team up with the awesome people & forge a bond to get around the uselessness of the rest of your group. If you play your cards right, you can overcome more incompetence than you ever thought you could! Here’s how you do it:

1. You & the awesome people will do the majority of the real work. Get used to it. This is how it’s going to be for the rest of your life. If you wanted to not do work, you shouldn’t have been so awesome. Live & learn.

2. You can give a little of real work to the competent with minor prodding people with very specific instructions. Take turns sending them encouraging & over-praising emails. Let these people think they are in with the awesome people. This keeps them happy & semi-productive.

3. Give things that are kind of important but can be done at the last minute—the works cited, executive summary, appendices, & Power Point slides—to the competent but lazy people. The key is to never give them anything that anyone else in your group will have to wait on to be able to do their part. Make them wait for the rest of you, not the other way around.

4. Give things that are necessary but time-consuming & hard to mess up—table of contents, charts & graphs, title page with everyone’s names even though not everyone worked on the project—to the incompetent but not lazy people. These are also excellent people to be put in charge of the printing, but someone from one of the competent groups needs to check everything before you turn it in.

5. Have the incompetent AND lazy people “proofread” everything. Make sure that you save the version you have before they get their hands on it.

6. When peer evaluations come around, agree with everyone that these people did not make positive contributions to the group. Do NOT do anything unless you are sure the rest of your group agrees to do it together. If you are the only giving a bad peer eval to a person & that person gives you a bad eval too, the professor will have no choice but to assume that the two of you had a personal vendetta. However if everyone in the group gives the person a bad eval & that person gives you a bad eval, the professor will assume that that person is “not a team player.” And that is the sweetest revenge.

I guess I sound a little angsty when I wrote the above tips, but I guess it's always good to heed some advice from a senior who has been through much more than you :D

Platonic Love

Love one another, but make not a bond of love

Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.

Fill each other’s cup, but drink not from one cup.

Give one another of your bread, but eat not from the same loaf.

Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,

Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.

Give your hearts, but not into each other’s keeping;

For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts.

And stand together yet not too near together;

For the pillars of the temple stand apart,

And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow.

--Kahlil Gibran (The Prophet)--

When it comes to relationships between straight women and men or other couplings of a homosexual nature, is it possible that there can be such a thing as platonic love? Of course opinions differ greatly on this subject. Some would argue that if a couple is in love they would not remain platonic and others would say that if they are platonic they are not actually in love.

There are reasons that a couple may choose to be platonic. I think that amongst those reasons are: religious beliefs, spiritual beliefs, physical limitations and sometimes, even fear. If a couple is choosing to a hold off on a sexual side of their relationship for whatever reason I believe that it is still very possible for them to be completely in love with one another. Perhaps their relationship is built more on affection and pleasures outside of the act of sex. For example, if the couple chooses not to become physical within their union until they are married, it is still entirely possible that they have connected emotionally on such a level that it can be described in no other way than pure love.

On the other side of the fence though, people would say that a relationship that is not sexual in nature is merely and affectionate friendship. The argument here, is that two people can really care for one another and genuinely have feelings but not actually be in love. One could argue that each person’s description of love is different though.

Platonic love seems to have exactly long into our history though. The thought of two people who are committed unconditionally to one another while remaining platonic has been written in stories many times over the years. The actually term “platonic love” dates back to the 15th century. The term, platonic is actually derived from Plato’s symposium concept and has been almost romanticized in our history. This is particularly the case in regards to the English High Court in the days of King Charles the first. In the years to follow however, political and social changes would make the premise of platonic love less popular.

In this day in age though, platonic love is often questioned. People are suspicious of the idea that a couple can harbor deep, emotional feelings towards one another but not engage in sexual activity. People who believe in platonic love and feel that this is a very real form of relationship have often said that the feelings and urges that are experienced with a sexual relationship are often expressed in a different form when in a platonic relationship. Some say it is more an attraction of the mind and that the urges that they experience are transmitted into more of a spiritual connection with the other person. In most cases though, what may start as a friendship can easily evolve into a platonic relationship then platonic love and may eventually lead into a loving relationship that includes sex. Most would agree that a relationship that starts in a form of friendship has the best chance of success as opposed to relationships that start out on a sexual level. This would indicate that platonic love definitely has a place in our society today.

What is your take on Platonic Love? Do you believe in it?