Rituals and politics appear to be unlikely combination but this article shall expound upon how rituals, whether we like them or not, are essential parts of politics. David-Floyd (1996) defined a ritual as a “patterned, repetitive and symbolic enactment of a cultural belief or value; its primary purpose is alignment of the belief system of the individual with that of society”. To the extend that rituals may contain elements of irrationality, they are seen by some to be diametrically opposed to politics whereas in the post-Enlightment period, rationality is emphasized.

The efficacy of rituals lies in the symbols that are utilized to bring about orectic and cognitive resonance. As such, this delineates how one’s ontological and epistemological viewpoint is heavily influenced by one’s cultural background. In short, an unmediated reality do not exist for the way an individual perceive reality is, via the mental categories conferred upon by one’s culture and language. The fact that the Inuit have more than 20 labels for ice and snow is a clear manifestation of how the way an individual perceives the world is impacted by one’s culture and language.

Have you always had an interest in current affairs?  Have you always wanted to pit your knowledge of current affairs against youths from across Singapore?
 
Wait no longer as the NUS’ Political Association proudly presents the Chancellor’s Challenge Shield (CCS) 2009, the annual current affairs and general knowledge competition.  Into its 17th edition, CCS 2009 promises to be an exciting encounter as participants compete over rounds of interactive quizzes to win attractive cash prizes and awards.
 
The competition is open to all matriculated NUS undergraduates.  To register for the competition, form teams of 3 and submit the following details to nuspa.ccs@gmail.com by 30th January 2009.
 
·         Team Name
·         Name of Participants
·         NRIC
·         Matriculation Number
·         Handphone number & Email address
 
For enquiries, please email to nuspa.ccs@gmail.com or contact Kee Meng at 9272 2814.
 
CCS Sub-Committee
NUS Students’ Political Association

Yet again, Singaporeans love to ponder over whether we have or are developing any culture. We are like a patient with amnesia trying to recall who he is. Sadly, I feel Singaporeans do not have any distinctive culture.

The reason for this is obvious. We are a young nation. I would say Singapore is similar to America in that we are both countries made up of immigrants. If America needed almost 200 years for its culture to take shape, the same would apply to Singapore.

Some may argue that Singapore has 200 years of history, starting from the time Raffles landed here. However, I wish to point out that the history from Raffles till independence does not count when we are defining our own distinctive culture. This is because our forefathers' cultures were those which they brought from their country of origin, and so the culture that existed then was the culture of these countries rather than Singapore's unique culture. I am sure they did not even care whether Singapore had a culture of its own, as their main aim was to earn enough money to support their families and eventually return to their homeland. Therefore, our history really started when Lee Kuan Yew shouted "Merdeka". Hence, we are too young to dream about having a culture.

“Thailand will host the delayed 14thASEAN Summit in Bangkok in mid-February”. Thailand’s political turmoil caused not only the delay of the summit but also threatens to cripple her already battered economy by bringing Thai politics to a virtual stalemate. In this short discussion, I would like to present to you two of the many plausible reasons for the situation facing Thailand which could then provide the critics of Singapore’s political system with more thoughts to think about.

Having a strong opposition party in the country may not actually serve as a check and balance and may result in political instability. Traditionally, the support for the opposition in Thailand has always been strong which resulted in numerous changes in the Thai political regime within the short span of a few decades. The situation is raised to a whole new level of complexity if one were to consider the influence of the almost independent Thai military and the moral authority of the Thai King. Thailand’s political system is in huge contrast to that of Singapore where we are generally regarded to have a one-party political system. Critics who advocate that Singapore should have a strong opposition in order to keep check of the government are actually critics of the existing Singapore political situation and not the political system; moreover, more often than not, they are short in giving concrete examples in areas where the government is seriously lacking. In retrospect, the one dominant party situation in Singapore is a result of the consistently good performance by the government and not because of weak opposition parties. The government affects the citizens of the nation through the policies implemented; in this aspect, I can safely say that our government has successfully implemented ‘self-check’ mechanisms as all the policies are carefully researched before implementation, and even during implementation there is constant evaluation. Henceforth, it may not be essential to have a strong opposition in order to fulfil the crucial ‘check and balance’ purpose as it can be self-fulfilled.

2008 has been a rather tumultuous year – some of the more memorable events probably would include the US elections, the cyclone in Myanmar, the Beijing Olympics, and more recently the Mumbai bombings, and our local economy going into recession. To an average undergraduate, these issues would seem coffeeshop talk fodder, with the intense media coverage available. Yet, even students from one of the top universities in the region can easily be dazzled and confused by the sensationalized messages that often get communicated as “news”. To be blissfully unaware of the world around us is one matter, but to be quick to assume is another.