Philip Jong

Last month, the province of Ontario in Canada held its general election for a new government. In the end, the incumbent Liberals won another majority government, while other parties, including the Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats, all lost after disappointing supports from voters. Regardless of one’s political affiliation, however, the biggest disappointment for Ontarians of this election was the poor rate of voter turnouts that barely hit over 50%—the lowest in history for a provincial election. This was despite that the fact that this year’s election also included a historic general referendum on electoral reform that would have replaced the existing First-Past-the-Post system with an alternative Mixed Member Proportional system (the latter was ultimately rejected in the referendum). As a proud Ontarian (and Canadian), I take pride in exercising my right to vote freely for my electoral representative and voice my opinion on the choice of an electoral system. Yet, with so many Canadians now disillusioned of our political system, I fear that someday our government and politicians will no longer truly represent the majority of the people’s interests. Protecting our political freedom and liberty must not only be a right, but also a responsibility, for all of us.

Rightly or wrongly, the prowess of a country is often measured by its financial wealth. In today’s global economy, the strength of a nation’s currency against another is a common source of pride for its people. Even the Canadian dollar is a descendant of the Canadian pound (in use until 1871) which has its roots in the mighty British pound that has long been a symbol of British colonialism.

Last month, Canadians saw the rise of the Canadian dollar that momentarily reached parity against the US dollar (and even exceeded it) for the first time in 31 years. While this was largely attributed to a weakening of the US economy rather than a strengthening of our own, many Canadians saw the opportunity to proudly proclaim that this was the proof of our financial independence as a nation from the dominating US. As an average consumer, I must admit that it is more of a source to boast my national pride for my country than a real monetary growth in my own wealth. For a brief moment, at least, I can proudly waive my Canadian dollar (which is actually a coin now and not a bill anymore) south of the border and proclaim a win of our mighty loonie over the withering green buck!

Years ago, I chose to register my own name as a .com domain. At the time, I did it more for novelty than for a need to secure an identity for myself. For most people, the need to establish oneself as a global individual seems both superfluous and egotistical. Yet, as we choose to increasingly congregate in this global village (both virtual and real) of ours, we are also unwittingly forfeiting our individual identity to exist in this shared space. This is because, in the history of civilization, societies have never seen a need to establish a global system to identity their citizens. Such identities are not meant to be exploited by a government to control its people. Rather, they are meant to liberate the people to exist with a global presence so that any oppression of an individual can be openly challenged. Much like a global corporation that struggles to keep its brand, a global individual must fight to maintain a distinct identity. We cannot afford to be lost in this world, and the world cannot afford to lose us as individuals.

Last month the American Medical Association (AMA) rejected a controversial proposal to classify video game addition as a mental disorder. As both an avid gamer and a health professional myself, I applaud the decision by the AMA to instead recommend that more rigorous scientific research be done to study this phenomena (or epiphenomena). I make no claim to have any medical knowledge on addiction; still, I find it troublesome to label the overuse of video gaming as an addiction akin to alcohol or drug addiction. This is because the mere overuse or overindulgence of an activity, such as video gaming, cannot by itself define it to be an addiction. Not only such an act wrongly promotes a societal stereotype (of a video game “junkie"), the act of labeling (someone to have a disease when there is none) may even be medically harmful. It may lead to a misdiagnosis of an underlying illness (mental or physical) for which so-called video game addiction is simply an epiphenomena or a mere sign of an undiagnosed disease. Undoubtedly, there are rare cases of individuals (particularly adolescents) reported by the mainstream media in whom playing video games has led to addiction-like behaviors. In these cases, however, it is more (or equally) likely that these individuals are suffering from some other legitimate mental disorders for which playing video games has simply become a platform for the underlying disease to manifest. In other words, until science can validate such claims, diagnosing video addiction today may be akin to diagnosing “female hysteria” centuries ago, a practice that once led to the ludicrous use of pelvic massage to treat a phantom disease.

The internet is increasingly becoming a platform for creative self-expression and exhibitionism. It has become a public stage for anyone who is willing to perform for the masses to see. Nowhere is this more true on the web than with the current popularity of user-generated contents in new media creation. Web services such as YouTube and Flickr allow users to upload and share self-made videos and photos online with anyone freely on the internet. The subject matters in these user-created media are often personal and frivolous, and the contents within are largely unfiltered and juvenile. Mostly, for the creators of these media, they serve little purpose except as a form of self-liberation. Equally, for the viewers of such contents, they serve little purpose except as a form of guilt-free voyeurism. In the extreme, this form of online exhibitionism uses live video and audio feeds to broadcast a person’s daily life, online and nonstop 24/7, on the internet. In effect, this is The Truman Show (an otherwise fictional drama) coming to real life. Perhaps we have always been preoccupied with the need to stroke our own ego, but it is not until now that the internet has provided such a simple means to soothe our own vanity.

Earlier this year Microsoft finally released the long-awaited computer operating system Windows Vista. With an installation base of more than 90% of all personal computers worldwide, this upgrade constitutes the largest consumer-based computer software implementation in history. Few companies, if any, in the technology industry enjoy the monopolistic dominance which Microsoft has in the computer software business. While companies that are in a position as Microsoft is in undoubtedly deliver innovative products to the benefits of consumers, the lack of competitions also means that consumers are left with little or no choice in what they can use. At a time when our daily lives are so intertwined with technology, most of which are dependent on software such as that made by Microsoft, it is frightening to speculate on the consequences of this dependency if a major breakdown ever occurs in the software on which our technology depends. Moreover, when there is only a single source or provider (Microsoft or otherwise) of the software that drives all of our technology, the risk of a breakdown and the magnitude of its consequences on our living are doubly increased. More than ever does our way of lives depend so readily on some binary strings of 1’s and 0’s in a computer program, written to serve a purpose larger than it is originally made to do.

I will be the first to admit that I am terrible in both making and following my New Year’s resolutions. Like every year before this year, I have made it one of my New Year’s resolutions to follow through all of my unfulfilled resolutions from last year (if you must ask, my list of resolutions for 2007 is indeed very long). Surprisingly, the tradition of making a New Year’s resolution is not rooted to modern times but to Roman mythology and the ancient god Janus. The two faces of Janus—one facing forward to the future and one looking back to the past—symbolize the transition with changing of the years. The month of January, which the Romans named after Janus, is then designated as the first month of a new year. Despite this, early Christians had once chosen to instead celebrate New Year Day on the day of Nativity (December 25) or the day of Annunciation (March 25); it was not until later that the Julian calendar was revised so that New Year celebration would return to January 1. As a Chinese myself, I also celebrate the new year according to the lunar Chinese calendar, which for 2007 falls in the month of February. In other words, I may have yet another month to procrastinate on my unfinished resolutions, before I have to add them to my list for this year!

With the holiday season approaching, I wonder what the true meaning of Christmas is in a multicultural society such as Canada today. As a secular tradition, Christmas Day is originally a Christian celebration that marks the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. It is now celebrated worldwide, partly because of the widespread of Christianity and the influence of western culture in many countries. The tradition of winter festivals, such as the Natalis Solis Invicti celebrated by the Romans or the Yule celebrated by the Pagans, to which Christmas in part owes its origin as a festival holiday, has largely been forgotten by history. Instead, in modern times, Christmas is often celebrated in conjunction with or in place of other religious holidays. Hanukkah, a Jewish celebration that starts on the 25th day of Kislev in the Hebrew calendar, is observed by those who are seeking a Jewish alternative to Christmas, even though the Hannukkah festival can fall in as early as November and as late as January instead of December that is for Christmas.

Today, Christmas is recognized as both a secular and non-secular holiday. As a Chinese myself, I do not celebrate Christmas as a religious festival but an opportune holiday to spend time with my family. In a multicultural society, the new meaning of Christmas goes beyond that of the celebration of a single religion; it is an opportunity to celebrate family values and to be together with those who love us and those who we love back, regardless of religious beliefs.

This month the public witnessed the unfolding of two very differently held elections in the United Status and Canada. In the United Status, the midterm elections heralded the downfall of the Republicans and the ascension to power by the Democrats in both the House and Senate. In Canada, the municipal elections in Toronto (where I live) oversaw the domination of incumbent mayor David Miller over the two frontrunners Jane Pitfield and Stephen LeDrew. Notwithstanding any obvious dissimilarity in the landscapes of these two elections and in the policies by which they had been driven, an understated difference was the presence in the former and the absence in the latter of a major political controversy over which the respective voters had to contend. For the United Status, the continuing war with Iraq had deeply divided the country during election and ultimately became an embarrassment for George Bush and his administration. By contrast, for Canada, the election was a low-key affair for which David Miller had coyly avoided any political scandal in the media that would have attracted unwanted criticism by the voters. In the end, the defeat of George Bush and the victory of David Miller stand as a great example in the study of elections in extreme. In politics, after all, no news is perhaps truly good news.

Last month many Muslims openly accused Pope Benedict XVI of insulting the religion of Islam during an academic address given at the University of Regensburg in Germany where he had seemingly characterized the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed as evil and inhuman. The controversial speech sparked much outrage and backlash among many followers of the Islamic faith, despite a prompt apology by the pontiff that the offending comment about the holy wars reflected neither his personal nor the Vatican’s view. At least one killing, that of Sister Leonella Sgorbati in Somalia, had been attributed possibly as retaliatory attack to the pope’s remark. While an informed (or even heated) exchange between two religions should never be discouraged (or snuffed), to this day I question exactly how many of these protestors were truly informed of the whole context in which the pontiff’s remark was made. Little was told of the fact that the inflammatory statement was actually not of his own words but a straight quote he made of the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Moreover, a complete reading of the text would reveal the fact that the pope was not at all arguing for a condemnation of the Muslim belief but, to the complete contrary, a rejection for the use of religion as a motivation for violence, Muslims or Christians. This observation proves that when a religion is so blindly followed among faith seekers without understanding the full context in which these beliefs should be asserted, then such practice is no different from that of simply acting out the roles in a fantasized tale, regardless what God or Prophet it may involve.