First official week at NUS, plus a little bit of politics.

I. First official week at NUS

One week of classes is in the books. To be fair, I only had two classes, which is all I'm taking this year. For my McGill readers (who probably make up all of my readership), I thought I'd do a short list of some of the things I've found striking. Of course, I couldn,t tell you what things were a result of a stark difference between NUS and McGill, and what's due to the equally stark difference between undergrad and postgraduate education.

-The profs here are dynamic and come from interesting backgrounds (which is not to say McGill profs don't). The two profs I have this semester are both Singaporeans of mixed background (including part-Westerner), who earned their PhDs in the US (Berkeley and Harvard). Many profs are like this. Some are Westerners (Americans, Aussies, Europeans) who, for some reason or another, decided to end up in Singapore. The sheer diversity of the faculty here makes things interesting.

-The students here (at least the one's I've talked to) are extraordinarily friendly, worldy, and knowledgeable. Yesterday, while I was innocently trying to find a space to do my readings, I kept bumping into people I had met previously and started talking to them, which turned into an interesting exchange of ideas. The different people here are really easy to talk to in this way, and I feel as though a large part of my education here will come from such an exchange of ideas. I suppose this is true and any top-tier university, but here there is such an abundance of people from backgrounds with which I'm not overly familiar.

-Readings are abundant. 200 pages per week per course is not rare. Unlike at McGill, readings are not always pre-copied for the student. Instead, sometimes even at the undergraduate level, the student has to locate the reading (more oftan than not is a chapter from a book, sso its not online), and manually photocopy it. The advantage to this is that due to the relatively cheap price of photocopies (SGD 3 cents per page), expenditures on readings are rather low. However, it is a bit of a waste of time to have to scavange for all of these readings- time, of course, that could be spent on the readings themselves.

-Things close early. Most stalls in the canteen are closed by 7. The library loans desk closes at 9. The library itself closes at 10 (although this might change closer to exams). All forms of transportation end at 11. This means that, unless I want to find a cab somehow, I can't really stay on campus as late as I'm used to. Fortunately, at elast for the moment, the place I'm staying at has a study room that I could use for as long as I want. And 24 hr hawker centres are just a 2 minute walk away. But gone are the days where I could stay on campus until 2 am (although if I move closer to school this also might change).

-Power outlets (called "powerpoints") are not abundant. In study areas, they are only at specialised points which, of course, are usually quickly taken. They are also at random points in the middle of the library, where there is no where to sit (safe for the floor). Although there are a bunch outside, in a reasonably decent spot... which, becuase it's shaded, is actually not too hot.... just the mosquitoes are a bit annoying. This is part of a national obsession in saving power, but it's not very convenient to laptop users. And of course PCs in the computer labs are in high demand...

Now, for something totally different:

II. A little bit of politics

Even on the other side of the world, my daily dose of BBC online keeps me informed about certain things going on in the US, notably the current health care debate, which seems to be surprisingly impassioned. I do support health care reform, although I'm not sure what the best reform is. Not that the Canadian system is horrible, but I don't see it as an amazing improvement to the current US system. At any rate, while I do lean towards some sort of healthcare reform which has the end result of having ALL AMERICANS covered, I do respect the alternative view. However, what I don't respect is the rhetoric and arguments which the majority of people opposing healthcare reform have been adopting. This rhetoric I believe only portrays them as uneducated hicks who have never left their country and who are grossly misinformed (very possibly by fox "fuax" news), about the state of healthcare in different parts of the world.

Let me do this by looking at the rhetoric itself, for example, found in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8202275.stm, and this closely related video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8200844.stm.

1. Obama is a Nazi-like dictator.
-I don't even know where people get this from. I've seen drawings and posters of Obama, like this: http://roguejew.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/adolph-obama.jpg, although I suppose we can dismiss this sort of thing as coming from the craziest faction of the Republican party. After all, I suppose some asshole will do something like this for every president we've ever had, and ever will have.
-Although it's easy enough to dismiss this as completely lunatic and coming from an extremist fringe. Sarah Palin who, far from being the most qualified and respectable member of the Republican party but is still, paradoxically, among the most respected, called Obama's plan "evil". (See http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=8280701). Not that I should be altogether surprised coming from someone of her intellectual calibre, but I'm not sure how I understand how the endeavour to provide 45 million Americans with healthcare is evil. It might be niave, impractical, fiscally unwise, even stupid... but "evil"?
-My problem in this respect is not that I believe these opinions are wrong (which I do), but I have a problem with how they are expressing themselves, particularly in the case of Mrs. Palin. Such rhetoric is simply uncalled for and, for someone potentially seeking to be president herself, is simply unacceptable. If you want to engage in this debate, there is no reason to use such horrid attacks.

2. Obama is an arrogant elitist.
-Well, I'm not certain if he is, although he might be. But what is wrong with that?? I simply don't understand this problem so many Americans have with elitist people. From the dawn of civilisation, progress has been a result of specialists. In the context of ancient Sumeria or Tiwanaku, specialists might include people trained in pottery, writing, or religion (among many other things). Obama, and other political elites, are people who have been extensively trained to lead the country. Obama is a Harvard graduate which, for some reason, has earned somewhat of a negative connotation in the US for being elitist. And to an extent it's true... after all, people from the "old rich", such as George W. Bush, can attend these institutions based on the wealth of their parental units. But Obama is not a member of the old rich (nor was Bill Clinton); he is what we can call the "nouveau riche". He, along with his wife, is an individual who worked hard, got himself educated, became prosperous, and is also incredibly bright. In addition to being qualified to lead the country, he is a striking example of what's possible in the US- with hard work and quick wits. Surely the most patriotic people should be proud of this? Despite having an extraordinary story, doesn't his middle class roots make him more like the rest of Americans? Someone from Sarah Palin might talk and think lost most Americans, but that's only because most Americans are simply unqualified for public offices. What I think these people don't understand is that public office is meant for people substantially trained and qualified in their field - not just people who believe in God and like to hunt. So in sum, if Obama is an arrogant elitist (which he actually may be), then so what? Throughout the history of the world, the best leaders have been arrogant elitists. (and some of the worst too....)

3. National healthcare is socialist
-Well, this may be true. But why is this a problem? You have to realise that the average American (as a result of the Baby boom from 1940-59) grew up during the cold war, and these old mindsets are hard to eliminate. Too many people have this cold war mentality that communism should be feared like the plague. My problems with this?
a) The idea that communism should be feared comes from a national propoganda movement. While communism may not be the best policy, and certainly hasn't been working well in North Korea, it remains to be seen is a properly instilled communist government, that doesnt subsequently receive embargoes from the rest of the world could actually work. This is something we simply don't know, since the (relative) failure of communist regimes in places like Cuba have resulted, at least in part, from an American self-fulfilled prophecy. In short, I'm not quite so sure why communism at its base was ever so feared, excpet as a threat to American ideological hegemony.
b) The fear of communism is woefully out of date. The cold war is over, and has been over for some 20 years. Communism is no longer a threat to American hegemony. People have to shake off this mentality of a dichotomous world where communism is prone to overtake the democratic world.
c) There is a distinction to be made between socialism and communism. Communism, as it has been practiced, has been in the form of a totalitarian police state. Socialism, as it is currently practiced in different parts of Europe, just involves the state controlling more aspects of society than, say, a free market society like the US.
d) People have to swallow their pride and borrow certain elements from alternate ideologies that work. Some might say, "we can't have national healtcare because it's socialist" with the idea that everything socialist might be bad. But if some aspects of socialism work better than some aspects of capitalism, what is so bad about adopting it?

4. National healthcare doesn't work in Europe/Canada
-Really? Despite having lived in Canada for 4 years, I cannot claim to be a sort of expert. I do believe that the Canadian healthcare system is not among the world's best, and may or may not be any better than that in the US. In other words, I don't care to suggest that healthcare is or isn't better in Europe. My problem is that people make these claims based on ignorance, as in the article I posted above. For example:
-The idea that everyone in GB and Canada hates their healthcare system, almost as if they are actively dying on the streets in a pool of medieval pestilence.
-The suggestion that the British healthcare system is poor based on the stereotyped perception that British people have bad teeth.
-And, what gets me the most, that people make these accusations without ever having stepped foot in this countries. Why? As one elderly man said, "if I go to England, I'd die".
It's this kind of ignorant mentality that makes intellectual argument with these people impossible. People are making these statements based on some arbitrary believe, perhaps perpetuated by Fox News and other outlets of the Republic media. Of course, people who actually DO make it out to other countries realise this belief is wrong, as evidence, for instance, by the man in the video who had actually been to the UK and said their system actually works.
-Oh, and life expectancies are higher and infant mortality rates are lower in CAnada and most countries in Western Europe as compared to the US. This doesnt necessarily mean that their healthcare system is better, as there are many other factors to consider... but what it does mean is that the NHS in Europe and Canada aren't utter failures.

5. It costs to much money
-This, I will grant, is the best argument this side has. And it's certainly valid, after all, the US is already in debt up to its eyes, and already spends more of its GDP on healthcare than most other industrialised country. This, I believe is a fair argument against healthcare reform.
-My problem? This argument comes from a lot of the same people who supported the Iraq war. The Iraq war, as we all know, costs much more than any healthcare system, was based on much more dubious principles, and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to improve the lives of ANY american; rather, if anything, it further endangered Americans by perpetuating the "threat of terrorism". So where were all these fiscal watchdogs when Bush wanted to invade Iraq?

My conculsion, after this rather long discussion? I do support healthcare reform, but I don't have a problem with people who don't. However, people should use an informed and respectful rhetoric. The popular rhetoric which has been exhibited, in my opinion, reflects a Republican party which, to a very large extent, does not base its opinions on anything ressembling facts, but propoganda and some sort of imagined national ideal of a country better in all ways than Europe and every other part of the world. If the US is to progress at all, this stubborn ignorance has to disappear. Or at the very least, it should be kept marginalised and ridiculed like the Republican party currently is. If Republicans truly want their opinions to be respected, and to keep Democrats at base, they should inform themselves on the issues and should refrain from using counterproductive and inflammatory rhetoric.