hm i wanted to write abt smth else, but this newspaper article caught my eye. its 'The Politics of Regret: Saying 'sorry' is just the first part' in the Straits Times by Andy Ho 3 april.
it leads off wif politics in malaysia, abt one mr zaid making apologies for the government's sacking of top judges in 1988 (wonder y..), then goes into a list of examples of leaders who have apologized on behalf of their country for their country's past transgressions. and it puts forth an interesting idea that some leaders do not apologize because they feel themselves elevated on a moral high- ground above their predecessors; apologizing implies that they, too in some way, either share responsibility for, or could have been guilty of the same actions had they been in such a situation. hm.. well this brings up the question whether the acknowledgement of a country's leader of their collective past wrongs is going to change anything. seems to be a rather ineffective anodyne relli. and whether it is representative of the populace's sentiment. and of course, whether theres any reason to dig up the past?y cant they just bury the hatchet and walk away. i suppose im being insensitive if i say that apologies r hollow and dun do anyone any good other than care-bearing; which makes the whole business seem like a country- scale emo session. because ultimately, when the old generation passes on, is it fair to put the burden on the next to recompensate. seems to be a bad excuse for demanding favours actually. hey, we're only human right, and to be human is to err. this is jus a larger scale affair.
anyway i digress, what was interesting is this: the apologiser must also throw himself at the mercy of the victim, who becomes morally obligated to respond mercifully, forswear revenge and thus break the cycle of tit- for -tat."
oh ya before that theres an interesting international policy note: "in his 2000 book, the guilt of nations, elazar barkan argued that the politics of regret was born in the collapse of communism. there had been very little
space, he argued, during the Cold War to address issues such as colonialism, apartheid, human rights and so on. With the end of the Cold War, the obsession with realpolitik was supplanted by questions of morality in politics. in particular, justice and human rights came to be seen as universal, the addressing of which became the raison d'etre of global diplomacy. / and with the demise of millenarian visions, the future was no longer the focus, so perhaps the past could be looked at proplerly. perhaps righting past wrongs might help us to live better in the present."
so anw, and oh ya, i cant rmb who was it tt said tt there were disputing views over human nature - but the whole social contract thing, and man's state in nature and in war should come into play here; the question is whether kissing and making up is really good. we should also find some way to draw the line, or perhaps invent a spectrum for violations of others' rights: is subjecting yourself to the mercy of the victim something you should really be doing? well mebbe in a utopian society, but i tink theres a high incentive for the victim to do smth worse and wrong u 2. well i tink this is descending into one big conumdrum in, i dunno, a moral quandary? uhh.. i tink i'll jus quote
shakespeare ^^
portia:
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.
on a side note, i wonder why theres elision of "strained" in the first line... is it really necessary? ppl dun relli wrench the um, pronunciation, and if they do they put an accent. uhh.. wonders.
as an aside, mebbe all these newspaper reviews has smth to do wif all the similar hw i did in primary sch.. habits huh.
