The Olympic Shames

Around 18 months ago, I wrote a piece on this blog about the London Olympics, and the laughably extravagant sum of money that was invested in what one commentator described as “the world’s biggest sports day”[i]. Today I wonder, once again, whether the £9bn expenditure was worth it. Sure, London became the centre of the world for 3 weeks, but one could argue that London has been the centre of the world for the past 50 years. Today, as the British government scurries to plug gaping holes in the country’s disaster response system, wouldn’t David Cameron or George Osborne love to be able to pull an extra £9bn out of their pockets?

As I write this, one of the most expensive sporting events in history is in progress – the Winter Olympics in Sochi. This is estimated to have cost US$50bn, though (in a rare exhibition of informed journalism) an article in the Washington Post challenges this figure[ii]. Regardless of whether it is THE most expensive or not, it is unarguable that it is very expensive. Before I actually move on to the point I have to make, here are some more figures to satisfy the analytical reader.

           

• ·      Cost of Beijing 2008: US$40bn[iii]
• ·      Cost of 2010 FIFA WC: US$5bn[iv]
• ·      Cost of Vancouver 2010: US$6.5bn[v]
• ·      Cost of 2014 FIFA WC: US$14.5bn[vi]
• ·      (Forecast) Cost of Rio 2016: US$3bn[vii]
• ·      (Forecast) Cost of 2022 FIFA WC: US$230bn (yes, you read that right)[viii]

The justification for this expenditure is almost as overused as the “dog ate my homework” excuse – the events will lead to high tourist and sponsorship revenue, and leave a lasting sporting legacy. Beijing 2008, for example, leaves behind the unenviable legacy of unused and neglected venues, falling into a state of disrepair. What was the baseball stadium is now an expanse of unhealthy foliage. The volleyball stadium resembles a ghost of its former self, covered in torn posters from six years ago. This problem extends to current and future events too. Sochi’s future rests on the quicksand that is Formula One, which as illustrated by South Korea and Turkey is often an unwelcome, parasitic guest. The Arena da Amazonia in Manaus (which is being constructed from scratch for the 2014 FIFA World Cup) will be a 45000-seater, multi-million dollar football stadium in a city with no major football club.

If the 2014 World Cup teaches us a story – and it does (remarkable, considering it hasn’t even happened yet) – it is that sport no longer resembles the great unifier it once was. Consider, on one hand, the incredible story of how Nelson Mandela endeared himself to South Africa through the 1995 Rugby World Cup. Compare this example with what is happening in Brazil right now. Here we have perhaps the most football-crazed nation in the world, with a record 5 world cups; yet riots and dissent abound on the streets. A generation that idolises Ronaldo, Ronaldinho and Romario (to name a few) would rather have the most popular event in the world taking place somewhere other than in their own backyard.  

The conclusion is saddening, yet inescapable. Sport is rapidly turning into just another driving force for inequality. Those who stand to profit from sporting events are the governments, who service their own expenses through tourism revenue. Broadcasting companies, motivated by a mixture of FIFA’s greed and their own self-interest, extort hefty pounds of flesh from subscribers – nowhere is this more evident than Singapore, where it is highly likely that TV subscribers will end up paying close to $100 each to watch the World Cup. Large corporations enjoy sponsorship monopoly – think Coca-Cola, Visa and Sony (FIFA’s official partners) – granting them a month’s worth of unlimited advertising all around the globe. Meanwhile, it is the proletariat whose money is used to set the dominoes in motion. And for what? In the end, precious few locals stand to benefit from sports infrastructure. Perhaps, most damningly, the vast majority of Brazil’s football-loving public will never be able to afford a ticket to enter the very stadia they paid for.

- Chap.

---

[i] http://democrazies.blogspot.sg/2012/08/the-cost-of-pride.html

[ii] http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/did-the-winter-olympics-in-sochi-really-cost-50-billion-a-closer-look-at-that-figure/2014/02/10/a29e37b4-9260-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/leisure/8192484/South-Africa-recoups-just-a-tenth-of-the-3bn-cost-of-staging-World-Cup-2010.html

[v] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouver-olympics-worth-the-7-billion-price-tag-study-says/article15036916/

[vi] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-29/brazil-world-cup-kick-starts-billionaire-boon-as-farmers-lose.html

[vii] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-olympics-brazil-budget-idUSBREA0M1XG20140123

[viii] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/8749931/Qatar-World-Cup-in-2022-could-cost-138-billion-according-to-financial-analyst.html

Sometimes, a state needs Mary Poppins

The term "nanny state" is loosely thrown around to define a society in which personal freedoms are curtailed by an over-protective government. Singapore is occasionally cited as an example of a nanny state, given that eating on public transport carries a fine of SG$500. More recently, a young girl was charged in court and fined SG$400 for using a power outlet at a train station to charge her phone. Ignoring the arguments involved in that particular case, it becomes clear that the term "nanny state" has barely any positive connotations, and is used when a populace feels - often correctly - hemmed in by authoritarian measures.

And yet, there exists a glimmer of hope for the nannies. This beacon of hope lies in the House of Lords, in London, where a 222-197 vote backed an amendment to fine parents who smoked in cars with children in them. Response to this decision has been ambivalent - the deputy PM, Nick Clegg, was quoted by The Telegraph as saying, "You can't sub-contract responsible parenting to the State". On the other hand, The Mirror's Paul Routledge wrote a column entitled, "A triumph of common sense over the vested interests of the tobacco industry." The debate, from what I understand, is largely based on two contrasting perspectives. In favour of the ban, the view that cigarette smoke poses a serious health hazard to passive smokers. Against the ban, the view of Charlotte Gore in the Guardian, who believes "A ban on smoking in cars with children is an authoritarian step too far".

My personal opinion on this issue is a combination of all the perspectives mentioned above. I agree with Mr. Clegg in that the responsibilities of individual adults cannot and should not be the affairs of the state. I agree with Ms. Gore when she considers this ban totalitarian in nature. I also agree with Mr. Routledge regarding the health hazards of this issue. The conclusion, to me, is simple. A government should not pass such legislation. Why? Because it should not be obliged to consider such an issue in the first place. People should be responsible enough to recognise the dangers of smoking in confined spaces. Yet, the main reason why this amendment is being passed is because obviously there has been an alarming number of cases of children being forced to inhale the toxic fumes of their parents' cigarettes on long journeys. Simply put, action to control this issue makes the government appear totalitarian. Inaction, resulting in hundreds of cases of lung cancer in 45 years' time, would make the government appear incompetent. In this case, authoritarianism is certainly the lesser of two evils.

If there's anything the above example proves, it is that a nanny state is sometimes essential if the legislature is to be effective. There exist sufficient tabloid newspapers for us to know that some parents, for example, do not take adequate care when it comes to raising their children responsibly; instead, the aroma of baby oil is replaced by methamphetamine fumes. It is common sense that one does not eat food with a rich aroma in a confined space, but there are those who treat rationality like a scab. And yes, the decision to fine the girl in the above example was contentious; who's to say that putting up signs will stop people from using power sockets at train stations? All it takes is one individual with a grossly misplaced sense of rebellion to plug an appliance into the socket, and voila. The MRT network shuts down because of a voltage fluctuation.

The conclusion this article tries to reach is simple. We need a nanny state more often than we think. This is simply because a government cannot risk trusting that all its citizens spend their entire lives acting rationally. And when irrational actions affect those other than the perpetrators, who's responsibility is it to tie up the loose ends? The answer is obvious - Mary Poppins, the wonderful nanny. 

- Chap

Links to articles:

1. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/30/ban-smoking-cars-children-authoritarian-step-too-far?commentpage=1

2. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paul-routledge-ban-smoking-cars-3095327#.UusecfmSzLk

3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10606598/Why-not-ban-TV-too-Clegg-opposes-car-smoke-clampdown.html

Thomas Hobbes & India's Supreme Court

I’ve spent the first 2 days of my winter break reading for an essay titled “Why, according to Hobbes, should subjects obey the sovereign?” A quick run-down for those of you who haven’t got the chance to read Hobbes’s stuff- he had some rad ideas about how essentially man was perpetually in the state of nature and how it was the ultimate need for self-preservation that led them to kill one another, and how in order to escape this state of nature every man had to transfer their complete will and authority to make decisions to a sovereign who took the decision as to what constituted a threat to society and how to deal with it. This is literally the basis of modern politics.

Hella rad guy

The reading was going great till the Indian government, as it does from time to time, decided to mess with it (not with my reading specifically, but life in general).

Section 377 of Chapter 16 in the Indian Penal Code (dated 1861) criminalized sexual acts that were “against the order of nature”, apparently any sex that wasn’t penile-vaginal penetration, effectively outlawing inter alia oral and anal sex. In 2009, the Delhi High Court had decriminalized homosexuality on the basis of human rights in a country that has 30 million (declared) homosexuals. 4 years later, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and outlawed “unnatural sex”. People who practice this unnatural sex (read: homosexuals) can face up to a maximum of life sentence. The people who raped Damini are probably going to serve the same sentence as those practicing consensual oral sex in their bedrooms (let’s face it- India hangs people once in a blue moon, and there are 476 convicts on death row as of February).

Hobbes claimed that the sovereign’s decision took precedence over all- if we want order and self-preservation we listen to the sovereign. However, he also stated that the sovereign couldn’t dictate every aspect of our lives. Now, if the sovereign were to decide that homosexuality was illegal, there was nothing the subjects could do. Technically the sovereign could make decisions about anything that didn’t result directly in inflicting harm or death upon oneself and the subject would have to obey. Hobbes didn’t think that the sovereign should do this, only that he could. The states that we live in today have more power than Hobbes imagined his Leviathan could ever have, and yesterday the Indian Supreme Court demonstrated this by effectively forcing their way into the bedrooms of millions and placing their hand over their genitals and saying “Private parts? We beg to differ”.

Section 377 criminalizes consensual, non-procreative sexual relations. Overnight, every sexually active Indian having intercourse without the intention of reproducing has been turned into a criminal. Obviously this has been ignored- nobody’s going to target heterosexual couples having sex! If I’m being absolutely honest, chances are this, like every other legal matter in India, is probably not going to be enforced even remotely strictly and that life will continue in the bedroom as normal. But the fact that the SC has declared that private parts are no longer private parts is a symbolic setback for the entire country. It claims that the High Court’s decision in relied extensively on other countries’ decisions regarding homosexuality but that it cannot be applied “blindly” to India. This is in regard to a law that is dated over 150 years ago and was put into effect when the British ruled the country. If the SC is such a big fan of ancient manuscripts, why don’t they look at the Rigveda (one of the four sacred texts of Hinduism)- “what seems unnatural, is also natural”. The SC claims that this law affects everyone who practices non-procreative sexual relations with “man, woman and animal” and yet it doesn’t take much to figure out that this gives people the reason to target homosexuals and makes it especially difficult for them to seek help for HIV/AIDS related issues.

For a country that condemns China, Saudi Arabia and Russia for being oppressing its minorities regarding ethnicity/gender/political opposition, India’s doing a bang-up job of going back on its word to protect human rights. The good news is that this is rallying supporters the way sexual harassment rallied supporters in the last few years. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, this probably wont have much effect on what goes on anyway. However, the very act of re-criminalizing this sets India back a couple of centuries. Hobbes said the sovereign holds all will and authority to prevent summum malum- in the strictest Hobbesian sense the Indian SC is clearly failing to grasp the concept that homosexual sex has little to do with societal order and the protection from death.

-Lassie 

P.S. Apologies for not writing for 9 months, further apologies for probably not writing for another 9 months- like the Indian judiciary system, I plan on being useful only once in a blue moon. In other news, university is treating me gr8

Images:

http://images.cpcache.com/merchandise/514_400x400_NoPeel.jpg?region=name:FrontCenter,id:68853317,w:16

http://globalvoicesonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/3476618-800x600.jpg

Why PIGS won't fly

A popular acronym used in publications like the 'The Economist' and 'Harvard Business Review', granting some form of financial authenticity - it refers to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. Widely considered to be derogatory since as true as it is, no Communist likes to be called 'Red commie' and no Eastern European wants to be known as 'Polack'. But why is it that the West is involuntarily falling to its demise and Asia isn't capitalizing on it?

The West has had its 15 decades of fame, the British Empire colonized a few hundred states, the US was able to coax most of South America and miscellaneous Far East nations into doing its bidding and generally the imperialists of the past and present generation have had their fun in the sun, but that's being slowly overshadowed by the rise of Asian Economies. 'Chindia' is set to become the next global superpower by 2020 if only they had more cooperative governments and a slightly more ideal bureaucratic situation. The unemployment rate in Greece is ~50% (official figures may say around 28 but we know the truth).  The average age of Europe is increasing, mortality rate is falling (who knew it could be a downside), lifespans are disproportionately increasing and as a result the economies of former superpowers and G-8/EU nations are falling massively in productivity. As Asia's youth becomes more educated and people are beginning (albeit slowly) to realize their true potential, it's no wonder that international schools in Thailand and Malaysia are no longer craving Caucasian teachers to educate their youth about international politics and business.

The only problem is, the world as a whole is awful at globalizing effectively. If the entire world had the youth and workforce of Asia and the political systems of a successful Western nation (an amalgamation of any and all successes would be best since no single nation is an ideal example as of now) , the global industry would be at its productive peak, with literally no room to improve. But alas, what nations focus on is how impressive they look in comparison to other (competitive) nations. How Pakistan has more black money than India in Swiss banks and how the Cayman Islands is releasing confidential bank information to the IRS in order to support their deeply rooted causes. And to fund Obamacare of course.

Another problem is that, with the severe inefficiency of many Asian governments (with most leaders being products of top western universities , imagine that), we are still trying to match the west in terms of Human Development Indexes and GDP's instead of focusing on how we can concentrate the youth into being intellectual powerhouses that overshadow their western counterparts in any and all aspects. The quintessential example of what is falling in the west is Harvard University's course on Economics and Philosophy, which is taught by a Bengali Nobel Prize Laureate - Amartya Sen. If that doesn't represent the fall of the Allied Powers then i don't know what does.

- Introducing Mec, our new contributor.

India isn't the only rotten apple

One India-related term which I have never liked much is NRI. The three letters stink of arrogant, upper-class attitudes and this really sickens me. Living in Singapore makes me a member of this "exclusive" club and means that I get to interact with many other NRI children who think Hyderabad is a district in Bangalore and Visakhapatnam is in North India. The tricolour flies high during the farcical Diwali celebrations and disappears otherwise. The NRI youth thinks of Indian politics as being a shoddy affair, and then proceeds to praise American politics for being much more effective and people-oriented. On a side note, three weeks ago, the approval rating of the US Congress fell to 9%.

Most of the content of the above paragraph is in no way relevant to what this article is actually about. To get started on that, I will paraphrase someone I know who said "I don't want to go to Indian university because you can just buy your way in." Even many parents support the above line of thought. This though, is not an entirely unimaginable conversation in a typical upper-class NRI household.

Mummy-Papa: Beta Rahul, we don't want you to study in India, because we are apprehensive about sending you to a school where people buy places.

Rahul: But mummy-papa, I failed my exam. Where can I go?

Mummy-Papa: Don't worry Rahul beta, we have made a donation of $100,000 to a college in America. We even bought you their official hoodie, a plushie of their mascot, and a coffee mug with their crest and motto on it!

One thing that puzzles me and irritates me in equal measure is the ridiculous attitude that many Indians - NRI or otherwise - have towards India. Sensing a whiff of political discussion? Enter the stale, recycled monologue on how a desk clerk once asked for a ₹100 bribe to transfer a file quickly. Raise the topic of how the second and third highest-ranked officers in the US Navy are being investigated for bribery that allegedly allowed an Asian defence company to secure contracts worth $200 million, and prepare to be greeted by a stale silence. Oh, bribery happens outside India too? Let's just sit around and take shots at a country where, let's be honest, stark inequalities exist across city streets. I am not denying that corruption and bribery are a problem in India, but I have a serious bone to pick with people who say "India is corrupt so I have given up on it". To me, the implied extension of that sentence is "I am in a sufficiently good position in life to not need anything from India so I don't really care what happens."

Today, patriotism is celebrating Virat Kohli square-cut a Pakistani fast bowler to the fence at deep point, or going to a Diwali function sporting expensive ethnic clothes and an artificial American accent. Patriotism is also going through a phase of national self-reflection twice a year, and appearing blissfully oblivious for the remaining 363 days. Patriotism is ignorance that recognises one rape incident every eight months*. Patriotism is, oddly enough, pointing out faults that exist in many countries but only seem to be a problem in India. Patriotism is, in short, as predictable as an enraged bull elephant. 

The point here is this. People who complain that Indian university places can be bought are possibly correct, but they are also hypocrites. The debate about whether legacy students buy their way into the Ivy League is just as well supported by evidence as the above argument. In the UK, the debate about whether expensive private schools are unfairly favoured during university applications rages on. Therefore, complaining about India alone is really quite ridiculous, especially if it is followed by an application to a private university in the US supported by a five-figure "donation". Education, much though we hate to admit it, has become a business; given increased demand, one could argue it is among the most lucrative industries. It is not just Indian institutions that are cashing in on this. Certainly our lopsided sense of patriotism should tell us that other countries are much better at sniffing out money than we are.

- Chap

* In August, when a photojournalist was raped in Mumbai, a popular page that occupies itself with posting memes about Bangalore posted something along the lines of "from #Delhigangrape to #Mumbaigangrape. Hope to never have to put another city's name in this."

Children in Africa need the internet

The English – rather arrogantly – like to claim that they invented everything useful that exists today, including the internet. One is reminded of a scene from the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics where Tim Berners-Lee sat at an old computer, inventing the internet. Though the internet was invented by Mr. Lee and a few other people at CERN, let’s just assume Mr. Lee was the mastermind. Okay so. What am I trying to say? Well, it seems that someone has decided that it is time that the internet is reinvented – a group of highly skilled professionals in California, who call themselves Google.

So what is Google’s plan to reinvent the internet? Well, Google has trialled wireless broadband networks in Cape Town, using three masts as broadcast centres to create a network. Their plan is to launch this technology in developing countries, using masts, blimps and satellites. One pictures a little boy in Burundi spotting a big balloon floating in the sky, running home, and looking at a picture of the blimp on a computer. Google are aiming to do just this – they want to bring the internet to the most remote rural areas – they want to spread the digital revolution to all corners of the world.

Unfortunately for Google, an old man who lives in their backyard feels that this is a bad idea. He says that there are more pressing concerns in the regions of the world where Google is looking to implement this technology. This old man, Mr. Bill Gates, said of the plan to implement this technology in sub-Saharan Africa;

“When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there’s no website that relieves that.”

There are some people that have suggested that Mr. Gates’ comments are motivated mostly out of jealousy because he didn’t think of the idea himself. These people are probably the same people who believe that what under-nourished children really want is a blue iPod for their next birthday. Even if we ignore the misinformed stereotype that Americans are stupid, I’m sure Google understands that malaria, cholera, illiteracy and discrimination require more investment that flying internet balloons. Furthermore, I am amazed that Google didn’t consider the following flowchart.

Internet <-- Computer <-- Keyboard <-- English/Other language <-- School

Basically what this flowchart conveys is that to use the internet, one has to go to/have gone to school. Considering that this is a qualification absent from the CVs of most people who live in these regions, Google really should have thought about buying some paint before painting the wall.

Bill Gates, of course, is an individual who has worked tirelessly towards the improvement of living standards in the chronically impoverished regions of the world. An outstanding example of philanthropy, there is no doubt that he is more likely to know what it’s like in these regions that the boffins at Google who usually spend their day designing doodles that commemorate the birth of a 19th century physicist. I can’t help but wonder why Google is doing this. It is understandable that they may try to be to computing what Henry Ford was to cars, but unfortunately the majority of their target audience probably doesn’t care.  

In conclusion, more people using Google equals more money for Google equals cake and wine. Unfortunately, however, if you are one of the people that walks four kilometres every day to obtain a pot of drinking water, a floating balloon isn’t going to help you at all. You might as well just gaze at it for hours, wondering if it will drop something for your family – a container of potable water, for example. If you’re Google and this idea isn’t taking off, I have an alternative. I own a phone which has LTE connectivity, a dual-core processor, a super AMOLED screen and a Carl Zeiss camera lens. I have seen advertisements for phones that are supposed to work underwater and phones that are supposed to be everything resistant. Mobile phones have even been used on Mount Everest. If, however, you have a clue as to how to make any of these contraptions work in the ultimate proving ground – an elevator – do what is necessary – invent something, build something, or put a blimp in the elevator shaft. Just make it work.


- Chap.

5 Rupees, Sahib

While Sanjay Jha attempted a faux pas behind a veil of well-articulated English, Arnab Goswami (Times Now news anchor) had only one question for him, which he asked over and over again – “What can you buy for five rupees?”

A bit of background, for those of you that remain blissfully oblivious to the affairs of the proletariat. The current poverty line in urban India – as set by the government – is ₹33 per head per day. Mortified that the government thinks that US$0.50 is enough for a person to survive, the outraged public BJP has voiced its concerns, suggesting that the figure is ridiculously low in an age where apples cost ₹180 a kilogram. In what can only be described, I think, as a feeble attempt at a humorous retort, Congress member Raj Babbar claimed that it was possible to have a nutritious meal for ₹12.

Ignore, for a second, that said comment was callous, offensive, misinformed and highly condemnable. Just think for a second. What can you actually buy for ₹5? Five strips of Boomer chewing gum? One egg? A pencil? A ruler? A glass of water? Lok Sabha seat? Whatever it may be, I highly doubt it is remotely as nutritious as the traditional Indian meal – rotis, dal, rice and some vegetable. Some of you may be exploding in your seats at this juncture, romanticising about the wonderful meal you had for ₹8 on the roadside once upon a long time ago. I would just like to remind you all of the baritone rumble of your digestive system two hours after your meal. Also, while you’re at it, try remembering the next morning which you must have spent entirely in the bathroom.

Last year, I wrote an article about the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), an initiative which failed spectacularly owing to an appalling lack of foresight. To summarise the policy, the EU allocated strict quotas of fish to each country, and the obligation to adhere to these quotas meant that fishermen threw away tonnes of fish simply because they weren’t supposed to catch that kind of fish. Like the CFP, the current fiasco is just another example of the red tape that has the lives of the starving all tied up. In his famous 1984, George Orwell speaks of the Party’s deceptive propaganda by using an example of boots. The protagonist Winston Smith remarks that on paper, astronomical numbers of boots were being produced annually, while on the other had half the population went barefoot. The boardroom politics that govern this sort of thing are a cause for major concern.

The counter-argument offered by the Congress is that they have lifted millions of people out of poverty since they came to power back in 2004. Of course, if you set the poverty line so ridiculously low, people are lifted out of poverty almost instantly. But I don’t think that’s the main problem here. The problem here is that I highly doubt that the BJP – or any other one of India’s 40+ regional parties – cares what the poverty line actually is: ₹3, ₹34 or ₹340. All they want is a reason to make some noise and blame the Congress for everything that’s wrong with the country. Very likely, if this benevolent BJP came to power next year, their generosity might just manifest itself in a revised poverty line of ₹33.50. Still better than the Congress, right?

- Chap

(I may have said this before, but just to remind you, this blog is not reputed for its factual accuracy)