"What is history, but a fable agreed upon?"

And the Lord said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech." - Genesis 11: 7

"The world today is in a shocking mess!"

So claims the media constantly (without providing any credible solutions, just constant doomsday news).

So proclaim the leaders of the great nations which drive and inspire the global economy (whose solutions are to "increase State expenditure on defence budgetting in order to fight/aid in the fight against the "War on Terror" - whatever that is).

"War" (with a capital W) as we all know, has been fought over ages immemorium.

Its been fought over trivialities of who's-son-looked-at-who's-daughter. Its been fought for possession of land and resources.Its been fought for greed.I watched three films these two days: "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore (who says in his film satirically "I was once the next President of the United States"), "Loose Change", and "Babel".

They all seemed to be addressing different issues - the first one about the US administration's lack of will to address global warming issues that are so starkly apparent, the second implying the possible fright tactics and smear campaign on the "Axis of Evil" carried out by the US Government during and post 9-11; and the third, a startlingly down-to-earth rendition of four different life stories around the world and how they seamlessly fit together amidst the cacophony of voices intoning various dialects and languages.

Yet, as I sat and watched the credits roll for "Babel", my mind was shocked into thinking about how our world has turned out from its beginning. Self-interested individual actors are we all, and this has been so since the beginning of time.

From the conception of Adam, who bit into the fruit of wisdom in order to satisfy his own insatiable curiosity and lust.

From the story of the Boddhisatva, who had actually been a Prince of a powerful realm and had killed many innocents in order to expand his empire, and later realised his massive short-comings - commiting his final years in an act of repentance at the foot of a Boddhi tree in meditation.

"Does crime pay?"

The politically correct answer often rings back in our ears "Of course it doesn't! You go to jail! You get beat up!"

Sure. You see dozens of people on the news each week, being arrested by the police - the official State apparatus for the management of "The Two Ds" (as I'd like to call them) - deviancy and delinquency. There are various reasons for people to get arrested. Some steal to support their family, because the work they are doing just doesn't pay enough. Some rob banks to fuel their passions for a life-time cruise round the world in a nuclear-powered yacht (if that exists!). Some commit shop-theft because they have too much to spend, and would rather experience the feeling of walking out of a shop with the merchandise AND the money intact.

For all of these behaviours, we label them socially as 'deviant', and our social norms have their own unique ways of dealing with them.

We throw thieves into jail. We whip rapists and murderers. We hang drug-traffickers (at least in Singapore).

There is a fixed penalty for a fixed crime. No running away from the system. Its the rational law we are talking about here.

Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong about punishment for crime. In fact, I support appropriately meted out punishment. But what about those instances which we hear about, where a 'rich kid' gets away with a certain petty theft - because "he was just learning and finding his roots...let him stretch his wings...you'll see his potential. give him a chance". But put in the same situation, a poor kid is probably going to be damned by his observers: "See? He had it coming. These under-class people...don't know what's good for them. They should just "stay out of (our) upper-middle class uncaring face". (Incidentally, an academic had actually written about this phenomenon of discrepancies in applying the law across the board in the article "The Saints and the Rednecks"...read it for SC1101E...and its in my "Perspectives of Crime and Deviance" pack here in HKU. Liked that story. Got some interesting morals behind it...)

Which leads me to the next point.

Who defines "Crime"?

Certainly not 'normal' citizens like you and I. We, like all other free-citizens of republics are the potential perpetrators of 'crime' (whatever that is).

So instead, according to Social Contract theory (Hobbes-in-motion here), we give a little of ourselves to the State, for the common good of all. But we give as little as it is comfortably possible to maintain our own individuality.

SO YES. The State manages our well-being, in the form of government subsidised education, public housing that is relatively cheap (compared to those oh-so-nice condominiums which seem like castles in the sky to you). And occasionally, like in the case of developmental East-Asian economies - there is the occurence of the "Developmental State" - which takes a totalitarian stance on nation management, along the premise that it is THE only way to ensuring successful development "From Third World to First".

Qn: What about the environment? What about the lives of the common people, whom some may still argue are a simply highly evolved version of Proletariats, living a Capitalist-driven illusion of fast cars, big houses, 'good jobs' (whatever those all are...)??

Ans: The choices 'we' (our collective consiousness embodied in the State apparatus) makes has to be rationally driven. Hence, we will care for the environment, so far as it coincides with our personal interests and agendas.

Just ask yourself...

When was the last time you switched off the lights before leaving your hall room? (I do. But I know ALOT of hostelites who don't...they take it for granted that they've already paid a "flat rate" and are "Entitled" to use all the electricity they want (and can) for a whole semester.

When was the last time you turned on the air-conditioning at home, even though you know full-well that the weather - being oh-so-cool - doesn't warrant it at all?

Perhaps you'd say you're used to "sleeping with air-con on at night", that its just "too stuffy and humid" to do so otherwise.

Well, let's put it this way: If I, a person who has been suffering from eczema and will start scratching myself to bits when I get too sweaty and sticky, can sleep without the air-conditioning on (and have been doing so for the past 23 years of my life), I don't see why anyone who is otherwise medically sound should not.

Think about it....

Lastly for the night, I'll leave you with some food for thought:

Was reading the Da Vinci Code today (yes, I know...I'm living an opulent life-style as an exchange student, catching up on reading of best-selling novels and viewing great films...when its already the third week into term), and I was struck by this quote from Napoleon:

"What is history, but a fable agreed upon?"

Certainly it wasn't cited in the context which I'm using it now (Dan Brown's use of it was more on how the Catholic Church twisted and carved the gospels to fit its own agenda of wanting absolute control over the Catholic population).

However, the idea about totalitarian control over knowledge does seem to ring a bell....especially after viewing those three controversial films.
1) Who gets to dictate environmental policies in the world?

2) Who gets to decide what is the next big enemy of the world?

3) Who decides what we see on the news each and everyday of our lives?

Democratisation of the press, the media, and the world at large is a great and ideal thing to have, but we've got to always remember that someone, somewhere is going to be reading and editting the things we see/hear - and even THINK about (if you're thinking Nineteen Eighty-Four...you're not too far).

P.S. Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" may even become reality. Just look at how its possible now to have test-tube babies who will grow entirely independant of a womb. NO more instances of parents having to find a surrogate mother for the baby. Baby grows too big? Just chuck him in a bigger sized vial...he'll survive with all the right nutrients. Eugenics...ah man.