http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/sports/olympics/13beijing.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=lip-synch%20olympic%20opening&st=cse&oref=slogin
One little girl had the looks. The other had the voice.
So in a last-minute move demanded by one of China's highest officials, the two were put together for the Olympic opening ceremony, with one lip-synching "Ode to the Motherland" over the other's singing. Lin Miaoke, the 9-year-old girl in the red dress with the pigtails seen on TV singing "Ode to the Motherland” was, in fact, only a ghost voice. The real voice, however, belonged to 7-year-old Yang Peiyi. Though her voice was perfect, apparently her front teeth were not. We never saw Peiyi’s face. Meanwhile, Miaoke became resplendent in front of nearly 91,000-strong crowd at the Bird's Nest stadium
Obviously, the officials are to blame for this decision but they also need to be sympathized. The main consideration was the national interest. “The child on the screen should be flawless in image, in her internal feelings and in her expression”, claimed a top official. Furthermore, Yang Peiyi is said to have been a good sport about the situation, reputedly declaring "I am proud to have been chosen to sing at all" despite her young age.
Unfortunately, China cannot run away with these excuses. The world's press ridiculed the move on front pages from Romania to Australia. The media commented that China has gone too far with the obsession of a perfect Olympic.
Aside from negative effects on the critics, more crucially, the message from China makes us wonder more about how important is the appearance. To which extent such that a country dared to take umbrage from others rather than showing a little singer with chubby face? We understand more why mankind is so mad about the appearance that countless women accept the myriad risks, spend a lot of time and money with only one hope that they can become more appealing.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
Democracy creates stability in society
Democracy, firstly, is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. For the purpose of the discussion, stability refers to the political stability of a society. Personally, I agree that democracy, when it is implemented appropriately, promotes stability rather than wreaking havoc.
Firstly, Taiwan is a typical example for the negative sides of democracy. The notion many parties can participate in the election turned out to cause chaos in this island. Bitter rivalry between the ruling Democratic Progressive Party and the opposition Kuomintang has brought Taiwan to a standstill. The plight can be described succinctly as whatever one party proposes then its rival opposes. The debate over the government Budget for this year has been stalled on account of bickering over a proposal to amend the make-up of a key election committee. Taiwan appears to go around in circles when their competitors are surging ahead.
However, let’s take Switzerland as an example; their form of government includes direct democracy in which individuals participate directly in the decision-making process in all government matters. Therefore, decision-making is shared among all Swiss men and women over 18 years of age. If a citizen intends to reject parliament’s proposal or wish to propose new law, he has to gather 50,000 signatures to support him. Likewise, any citizen can demand a change to the Federal Constitution, known as an Initiative, by gathering 100,000 signatures. In this way, the rights of the citizens are protected and the country’ stability is promoted.
The dissimilarity between the two countries is that Switzerland is a wealthy nation with educated citizens whereas Taiwan has just adopted democracy for years and its people to some extent are not educated enough. Thus, a society with solid foundation is more likely to implement democracy better.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to conclude that Switzerland stands out as a role model for other countries. Mankind would move towards the wrong direction should democracy is imposed on nations all over the world. Historical and geographical differences must not be overlooked. For instance, Che Guevara, a historic figure and a legend to many generations, committed a great mistake when he tried to so-called export communism to other parts of the developing world. After the resounding victory in Cuba, he dreamed of a day when human would all live under Communism and strived for that utopia. Consequently, he was defeated. The eminent reason for this fiasco was that he attempted to fulfill his ideal regardless of differences among countries.
Similarly, democracy may also become history if leaders try to spread democracy reluctantly and disregard of small nations’ specific situations. “Rule of majority” needs to be changed and adapted in a flexible way to many countries. Based upon that idea, individuals can hope to have a bright future when democracy would create a stable society and make human suffer far less.
Firstly, Taiwan is a typical example for the negative sides of democracy. The notion many parties can participate in the election turned out to cause chaos in this island. Bitter rivalry between the ruling Democratic Progressive Party and the opposition Kuomintang has brought Taiwan to a standstill. The plight can be described succinctly as whatever one party proposes then its rival opposes. The debate over the government Budget for this year has been stalled on account of bickering over a proposal to amend the make-up of a key election committee. Taiwan appears to go around in circles when their competitors are surging ahead.
However, let’s take Switzerland as an example; their form of government includes direct democracy in which individuals participate directly in the decision-making process in all government matters. Therefore, decision-making is shared among all Swiss men and women over 18 years of age. If a citizen intends to reject parliament’s proposal or wish to propose new law, he has to gather 50,000 signatures to support him. Likewise, any citizen can demand a change to the Federal Constitution, known as an Initiative, by gathering 100,000 signatures. In this way, the rights of the citizens are protected and the country’ stability is promoted.
The dissimilarity between the two countries is that Switzerland is a wealthy nation with educated citizens whereas Taiwan has just adopted democracy for years and its people to some extent are not educated enough. Thus, a society with solid foundation is more likely to implement democracy better.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to conclude that Switzerland stands out as a role model for other countries. Mankind would move towards the wrong direction should democracy is imposed on nations all over the world. Historical and geographical differences must not be overlooked. For instance, Che Guevara, a historic figure and a legend to many generations, committed a great mistake when he tried to so-called export communism to other parts of the developing world. After the resounding victory in Cuba, he dreamed of a day when human would all live under Communism and strived for that utopia. Consequently, he was defeated. The eminent reason for this fiasco was that he attempted to fulfill his ideal regardless of differences among countries.
Similarly, democracy may also become history if leaders try to spread democracy reluctantly and disregard of small nations’ specific situations. “Rule of majority” needs to be changed and adapted in a flexible way to many countries. Based upon that idea, individuals can hope to have a bright future when democracy would create a stable society and make human suffer far less.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Fidel Castro, Hero or Zero - A dubious question
Recently, Fidel Castro’s retirement has made a buzz around future of Cuba, a communist country which has been imposed embargo on by the US. Analysts are meditating whether this event will open a new democratic era for Cuban political system and if Cuban commoners will benefit from this change or not. Besides, the ailing 81-year-old leader, who had stayed out of sight, too sick to venture out for 19 months, is being questioned by people about is he a tyrant or a national hero.
A national hero? Of course, it is undeniable that Fidel Castro is the founder of Cuba when he from Mexico launched the Cuban revolution half a century ago, in 1959, that overthrew the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. This miraculous accomplishment had become, in Latin American mythology, a unique act of successful liberation from the powers that be. He soon sworn in as the Prime Minister of Cuba and then the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba and led the transformation of Cuba into a one party-socialist republic. Furthermore, his half-century battle against US embargo also intensified his great image in minds of Cubans, or even people all over the world. His appeal is the same as that of Che Guevara, to whom so many Latin Americans have paid adolescent homage by wearing that iconic T-shirt which illustrates, in one powerful image, a utopian ideal and the region's soft spot for strongmen.
This charismatic leader, however, also is deemed by a great number of people anachronisms. A stalwart communist in an age of free markets and democracy, he ruled a Cuba largely cut off from a world prospering through international trade. These antiquated policies has made young and enthusiastic Cubans covet such things foreign peers often take for granted as: the freedom to travel abroad, unrestricted Internet access or enough disposable income to buy a cell phone or an iPod. People have to worry about too low salaries, lack of food production and dysfunctional distribution. "These young students are asking, 'Why are things banned, why are we not allowed to leave the island?'" noted a dissident who once held a high-level post in the Cuban Foreign Ministry. The distressed and constrained atmosphere is easily perceived here. Throngs gathered to protest for greater autonomy or people who expatriated either by hurling themselves into the sea on rafts or by arranging marriages of convenience with foreigners are vivid evidences of a multitude of malcontents.
To sum up, the controversy ex-president of Cuba, evoking both praise and condemnation at home and internationally, probably made many serious mistakes than achievements. Revolutionizing his beloved country with his immense abilities, making crucial changes in branches like public funded health care and education for his people, but then these factors were not worthy the exorbitant price Cubans had to paid for decades owing to his dogmatic decisions, including atrocious life conditions, infamous civil service system and violation in human rights.
References:
León Krauze , L (2008 03 03 ). Retire the revolutionary myth. From http://www.newsweek.com/id/114691
Joe Contreras, J (2008 03 03 ). Fidel’s children. From http://www.newsweek.com/id/114678
TIM PADGETT , T (2008 03 03 ). Cuba's Chance. From http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1715284,00.html
( 2008, 03 05 ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_castro
References:
León Krauze , L (2008 03 03 ). Retire the revolutionary myth. From http://www.newsweek.com/id/114691
Joe Contreras, J (2008 03 03 ). Fidel’s children. From http://www.newsweek.com/id/114678
TIM PADGETT , T (2008 03 03 ). Cuba's Chance. From http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1715284,00.html
( 2008, 03 05 ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_castro
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)