Originally posted by Atobe:
When the national leadership will allow false hope amongst their
citizens even by purposefully risking their own national reputation
- to go the full length of tweaking the truth for some pieces of
rocky outcrops - we had better be prepared for some fall-out even
if the ICJ should find any resolution to the present case for
Malaysia and Singapore to accept.
True... But to many countries, their "national reputation" pales
in importance to their domestic agenda.
Its not often that you find an electorate, even in mature
democracies, vote in a government because of its foreign
policy.
Is it any surprise that every agreements will have to be a
win-win situation, in which ''everyone'' in the system will
''benefit'' from any agreement ?
Is it not a surprise that such a practise can only encourage the
festering of the continued habit of ensuring that the ''benefits''
will trickle down the political system ?
Aiyo... Signing a deal from a perspective of mutual benefit is
not the same as wanting a cut under the table.
Truth be told, if it was that simple, we wouldn't be at the ICJ...
either party would've been bought off by the side that has more
money to spare for this venture.
It require a political will of a disciplined national leadership
to change the mind-set of the society that encourage positive
social values. It certainly do not help when the national
leadership succumb to the characteristics of the herd that they are
leading.
U assume that the people who are called to positions of
authority are individuals of a higher moral standing, or who are
subject to a higher standard of morality then the "herd"...
It has been proven time and again that this is often not so... Bill
Clinton for instance... But then again, what is a BJ enjoyed in the
comforts of the Oval Office when compared to starting a war and
causing the death and destruction of a country that is all but
broken by sanctions?
Another point is that of accountability, for who will guard the
guards themselves? Its circuitous isn't it? When we assume that
Leaders need to set positive examples for the untidy herd to
follow, so... How does the untidy herd check the powers of the
leaders? Since the untidy herd is not of a sufficiently high moral
standing as compared to the leaders (or they would be the leaders
wouldn't they?)
So it comes down to the point where the leaders eventually descend
to the levels of the untidy herd, if it is indeed, the duty of the
untidy herd to check the powers of the leader.
It has nothing to do with alpha-males or herds... Its simply a
matter of pple getting the leadership they deserve... Through
voting, through participation and through plain and simple CARING
for what's going on around them.
We can argue till the cows come home on the lack of political space
in SG, and the oppressive climate of the ruling party, but
seriously... How many pple care?
Our views differes but I know you care. I do too. How many of us
are there?
The failure of the Indonesian legislature to accept and ratify
the negotiated and formalized treaty between the Governments of
Indonesia and Singapore - was perhaps a failure of the Indonesia
Government to present the matter to the legislature before
formalising the agreement with Singapore.
Singapore should have realised this required process before raising
their own misplaced faith in the believing the show is over after
the ink is dried on the Agreement.
To be fair to the poor civil servants who had to fly over and do
all the leg work before getting the big-wigs to come over and sign
on the dotted line, I actually believe that there was a great deal
of good faith between both parties.
Unless u believe the "conspiracy theories" that it was tied to the
sand, that was incidentally being held by the Indonesian
authorities at that time.
So in any event, nothing was agreed to and nothing was
settled.
Its actually no worse that where we were before since its well
known by now that SBY doesn't have enough clout to call the shots
anymore.
