An Old Friend...
Some time ago i received an sms from an old friend, the topic was about how taiwanese pop groups were used as political tools. Yesterday, the same old friend messaged me again. Again, i wasn't convinced. So here is the email I sent to him, telling him why i thought otherwise. I think, it is not so much about winning the verbal/electronic arguement that is important. What pains me is that I think this old friend of mine is a little jaded, a little suspicious and probably in need of a lot of help. I know...in my bloG, he is voiceless and hence marginalised. Therefore it would seem very unkind for me to say any more about him. But being unkind is the last thing on my mind.
Dear WS(names modified to protect privacy),
First things first. I am not about to be treat your theory with regards to 'politics and pop groups' with disdain. I have, based on your recommended websites and sources of my own, investigated your claims. I do not mean to bring down your allegations, but I think there are certain aspects worth exploring which would prove otherwise.
Now, if to say Taiwanese Pop Groups are but tools of political parties, then perhaps it would only be reasonable to ask: 'Which political party has control of these Pop acts?' The current administration under President Chen? Or do 5566, S.H.E. and Mayday (amongst those you have mentioned) work for the opposition?
Accepting your hypothesis that these Pop acts are really tools for the Taiwanese government, we should be investigating into their government's top secret files, to which we would have no access to. However, the coincidences that you have pointed out on the websites and in the names, do not serve as evidence strong enough to substantiate such a national issue. This, I would explain later.
Next, another imperative concern would be, if they really were political tools rather than just budding stars of the music industry, under what kind of agenda do they work for? What possible motives can you postulate the Taiwanese government uses them for? As from what you have mentioned, there is a struggle for 'power and wealth'. Undoubtedly, this is an on-going aspect of politics which had been going on since the rise of political ideals. But the co-relatiion between politics and music is subtle, if not lacking.
Please allow me to abruptly name an example. The boy band 5566 came to Singapore recently for the NKF charity show, and through their performance, helped our local kidney foundation raise a sizeable sum of funds. In that, I do not see how a boyband with dual identities of boy band and political tool can come to terms in helping an 'aggressive' nation raise funds. If what they did brought aid and relief to even a segment of our population, I see no reason to be suspicious of their intentions.
I believe your counter statement would be as follows : If the co-relation is obvious, then it no longer would be effective in a power-struggle. Yet if this really was the case, I think there is no more room for our discussion because everything would be on a level too high for us to make any wild guesses.
With that, I come to the most worrying aspect of your self-professed theory. I think, in my humble opinion, that you could be compulsively looking for trivial matters to fit the accusations of what you think is the case.
Let me put it this way... There is a band in English music known as 'Five for Fighting'. Then there is another known as 'Six Pence none the richer'. Do we also say that they are the Eurocentric tools to manipulate the rest of the world or their adversaries?
Or how about why Singapore's international calling code begins with 65? Is it a memorial marker of our year of independence? Or is it merely just a number?
Or how about my IcQ(last time) taking on numbers like ..47...? It would be interesting, but wrong to think that I have anything against America's Independence Day, 4th of July.
Think for a minute, I doubt those three bimbos in S.H.E know anything about historical events half a decade ago, much less to say anything about politically intense moments. This, of course, is my personal view. What is more quaint essential is that there is a realisation of how easily we can actually sway our own minds sometimes.
What I am trying to say, is that...is that, could this perhaps just be a personal prejudice? I respect your views about it, but it may become dangerous to obsessively try to find premises to link to an unfounded conclusion. Let me illustrate:
Suppose we begin with a conclusion first:
--- A dog is a mammal with four legs.
Then we see an animal we do cannot identify (for example, a pig). So we form premises:
1) It has four legs.
2) It is a mammal.
My question: Are we going to assume that the pig equals to a dog?
It is obvious what is wrong here: A weak conclusion that is vague, perhaps with even weaker if not no premises to back it up in the first place.
My purpose of this mail is no to dissuade you from your opinion. I think everyone is entitled his freedom of thought. But these are my own doubts as to why I find your arguments and evidence unconvincing.
Yours,
dOminiC
Dear WS(names modified to protect privacy),
First things first. I am not about to be treat your theory with regards to 'politics and pop groups' with disdain. I have, based on your recommended websites and sources of my own, investigated your claims. I do not mean to bring down your allegations, but I think there are certain aspects worth exploring which would prove otherwise.
Now, if to say Taiwanese Pop Groups are but tools of political parties, then perhaps it would only be reasonable to ask: 'Which political party has control of these Pop acts?' The current administration under President Chen? Or do 5566, S.H.E. and Mayday (amongst those you have mentioned) work for the opposition?
Accepting your hypothesis that these Pop acts are really tools for the Taiwanese government, we should be investigating into their government's top secret files, to which we would have no access to. However, the coincidences that you have pointed out on the websites and in the names, do not serve as evidence strong enough to substantiate such a national issue. This, I would explain later.
Next, another imperative concern would be, if they really were political tools rather than just budding stars of the music industry, under what kind of agenda do they work for? What possible motives can you postulate the Taiwanese government uses them for? As from what you have mentioned, there is a struggle for 'power and wealth'. Undoubtedly, this is an on-going aspect of politics which had been going on since the rise of political ideals. But the co-relatiion between politics and music is subtle, if not lacking.
Please allow me to abruptly name an example. The boy band 5566 came to Singapore recently for the NKF charity show, and through their performance, helped our local kidney foundation raise a sizeable sum of funds. In that, I do not see how a boyband with dual identities of boy band and political tool can come to terms in helping an 'aggressive' nation raise funds. If what they did brought aid and relief to even a segment of our population, I see no reason to be suspicious of their intentions.
I believe your counter statement would be as follows : If the co-relation is obvious, then it no longer would be effective in a power-struggle. Yet if this really was the case, I think there is no more room for our discussion because everything would be on a level too high for us to make any wild guesses.
With that, I come to the most worrying aspect of your self-professed theory. I think, in my humble opinion, that you could be compulsively looking for trivial matters to fit the accusations of what you think is the case.
Let me put it this way... There is a band in English music known as 'Five for Fighting'. Then there is another known as 'Six Pence none the richer'. Do we also say that they are the Eurocentric tools to manipulate the rest of the world or their adversaries?
Or how about why Singapore's international calling code begins with 65? Is it a memorial marker of our year of independence? Or is it merely just a number?
Or how about my IcQ(last time) taking on numbers like ..47...? It would be interesting, but wrong to think that I have anything against America's Independence Day, 4th of July.
Think for a minute, I doubt those three bimbos in S.H.E know anything about historical events half a decade ago, much less to say anything about politically intense moments. This, of course, is my personal view. What is more quaint essential is that there is a realisation of how easily we can actually sway our own minds sometimes.
What I am trying to say, is that...is that, could this perhaps just be a personal prejudice? I respect your views about it, but it may become dangerous to obsessively try to find premises to link to an unfounded conclusion. Let me illustrate:
Suppose we begin with a conclusion first:
--- A dog is a mammal with four legs.
Then we see an animal we do cannot identify (for example, a pig). So we form premises:
1) It has four legs.
2) It is a mammal.
My question: Are we going to assume that the pig equals to a dog?
It is obvious what is wrong here: A weak conclusion that is vague, perhaps with even weaker if not no premises to back it up in the first place.
My purpose of this mail is no to dissuade you from your opinion. I think everyone is entitled his freedom of thought. But these are my own doubts as to why I find your arguments and evidence unconvincing.
Yours,
dOminiC
posted by sUmmEr heAt at 10:05 PM
2 Comments:
1st let mi hv e honour of saluting u coz if i were u i wun even bother abt replying him, let alone typing out such a long email to let him feel that sum1 act do care abt wat he is saying. of course every1 is entitled to his or her own opinions like wat u said juz like how our CW bro has opinions abt malays n PRCs. next i muz salute again for ur reasoning nvr fail to amaze mi. ur explanation is to rebute him yet is phrased in such a way that if he were to rebuke u back would make him seem so narrow minded assuming that he still has a sensible state of mind. gd luck 2 him in wateva he is going to do since he is qutting sch man. -jm
Yes...I am pretentious. I write in the most cold blooded manner. I'm not so sure what was I doing. It could be one or more or all of the following:
1)Trying to tell him how stupid his warpped theories were.
2)Trying to apply academic criticism to a non-academic subject.
3)Trying to win an argument with words.
4)Trying to be a hypocrite because I do not really care about the subject.
5)Trying to kill time.
6)Trying to stop him from his impending insanity should he carry on with these obsessive ideas.
7)Trying to tell him my stand so that he will not bug me ever again.
8)Trying to find my own opinion through a response to his.
Whatever...
Post a Comment
<< Home