Indonesia's former President Suharto passed away yesterday.
There have been many things said about him, by political leaders, as well as by netizens.
What stood out for me in all of this was that the weighing of what he achieved was expressed largely in economic terms versus human rights. It seems that when we judge a man, if he can deliver the goods economically, then we can overlook his record on human rights.
I wonder if the same would apply to an ordinary man. If, for example, we had a man who provided for every material desire of his wife and children, but denied them the freedom to speak on family matters, would we consider him a good husband and father? This would be similar to the question of whether a political leader who did well by his country economically but had a bad human rights record would be considered a good leader.
Of course, economic prosperity and human rights are not mutually exclusive. However, the provision of both may be a greater challenge than providing each one individually combined. It might well take a much better leader than Suharto to provide both at the same time, and it is certainly something that Singapore citizens can look out for when choosing our next generation of political leaders.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Evil Food
How did some food come to be labelled ‘evil’? And what exactly does ‘evilness’ mean when used to classify food?
On one level, it can be argued that food is not termed ‘evil’ in the same way that an action such as genocide could be termed ‘evil’. Yet, increasingly, there is a tendency in the media, in popular magazines as well as more erstwhile publications, to demonise some foods.
Genetically modified food, for example, is shunned by consumers who take a moral stance against technological methods used to modify crops, fowl or animals to make them more palatable or pleasing to the consumer. Opponents of this category of ‘evil’ food align themselves with the producers of organic food and lay a whole array of modern illnesses at the door of food producers who have ‘messed with nature’.
Some foods are felicitously termed ‘evil’ and these include the traditional suspects such as chocolate, coffee and cake. The ‘evilness’ of these foods is presumably due more to the effects of consuming them rather than the means of producing them. Though scientific research has come forward boldly to confirm the incomparable sense of well-being and general goodwill to all that is created by eating a bar of chocolate, many magazines (especially those written by skinny women) continue to harangue readers about the ‘evilness’ of these foods.
Some traditional Hindus shun those who eat beef as ‘evil’ cow-eaters, due to their belief that the cow was a sacred animal, revered because of its role in Hindu mythology. This led to the much publicised torching of the first McDonald’s opened in India and the subsequent adjustments that the fast food giant had to make to its menu to concede to the cultural sensitivities of the country.
What else makes food 'evil'? And are there 'good' foods? Any thoughts?
On one level, it can be argued that food is not termed ‘evil’ in the same way that an action such as genocide could be termed ‘evil’. Yet, increasingly, there is a tendency in the media, in popular magazines as well as more erstwhile publications, to demonise some foods.
Genetically modified food, for example, is shunned by consumers who take a moral stance against technological methods used to modify crops, fowl or animals to make them more palatable or pleasing to the consumer. Opponents of this category of ‘evil’ food align themselves with the producers of organic food and lay a whole array of modern illnesses at the door of food producers who have ‘messed with nature’.
Some foods are felicitously termed ‘evil’ and these include the traditional suspects such as chocolate, coffee and cake. The ‘evilness’ of these foods is presumably due more to the effects of consuming them rather than the means of producing them. Though scientific research has come forward boldly to confirm the incomparable sense of well-being and general goodwill to all that is created by eating a bar of chocolate, many magazines (especially those written by skinny women) continue to harangue readers about the ‘evilness’ of these foods.
Some traditional Hindus shun those who eat beef as ‘evil’ cow-eaters, due to their belief that the cow was a sacred animal, revered because of its role in Hindu mythology. This led to the much publicised torching of the first McDonald’s opened in India and the subsequent adjustments that the fast food giant had to make to its menu to concede to the cultural sensitivities of the country.
What else makes food 'evil'? And are there 'good' foods? Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)