42 years of rallying the nation

42 years of rallying the nation
One country, three prime ministers, 42 National Day Rallies so far. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will deliver the 43rd tomorrow. Insight examines the custom that stretches back to 1966

By Li Xueying, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

DURING Singapore's first National Day Rally in 1966, the most poignant line came in the final paragraph.

'Every year, on this 9th August for many years ahead - how many, I do not know - we will dedicate ourselves anew to consolidate ourselves to survive.'

'How many, I do not know.' The words revealed the frailties of a one-year-old nation and the uncertainty that gripped its leader - Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew - then.

Forty-two years on, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke of the 'secret to Singapore's success', and of its 'strong fundamentals' that made possible achievements such as HDB flats with views of the river in Punggol 21, and secondary school students who produce their own videos.

The annual National Day rallies provide existential snapshots of the country.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen, who was Member of Parliament from 1984 to 2006 and sat through 22 of them, noted: 'The National Day Rally captures the mood of the ground as perceived by the PM. The issues raised would be the key concerns of the population or the Cabinet at that particular point in time.'

Some equate the National Day Rally with the United States president's State of the Union address, which in turn is modelled after the monarch's Speech from the Throne in Britain.

There is also the corporate metaphor - if Singapore Inc is a public-listed company, then the rally can be said to be its annual general meeting, at which its chairman - the Prime Minister - provides a public accounting of sorts to its stakeholders.

But the rally actually originated as a private meeting. National Day Rally 1966 was addressed to a select group of community leaders. The speech was released to the media only two weeks later.

For the next four years, it remained a closed-door affair. But in 1971, Mr Lee decided at the last minute to have it televised live to the nation. Since then, the rally has become a fixture on the political calendar, held always on the third or fourth Sunday in August.

All channels on local TV and selected radio stations stop their regular programming to air it. A 'Meet-the-People Session writ large', is how sociologist Chua Beng Huat describes it.

For days after, it stays firmly on the national agenda, discussed and dissected by politicians, the grassroots, the media, regular folk. Political analyst Terence Chong calls it 'a national ritual we perform together as Singaporeans'.

And like most rituals, it comes with a more-or-less set format: First, an overview of the country's progress - good and bad - over the past year. Then, the challenges ahead (these have ranged from racial fault lines, a widening income gap and diplomatic ties with neighbouring countries, to the unpredictable geopolitical climate). Finally, the solutions that are required, and a clarion call to all Singaporeans to stand together.

In 1971, explaining why National Day rallies were to be televised, Mr Lee said: 'We cannot go on doing the things we are doing unless not only you but a lot of other people outside know the raison d'etre, the background, the reasons, the problems...'

The rally then is to get buy-in from the larger Singaporean population on important governance issues, and to 'maintain ideological consensus', as academic Kenneth Paul Tan put it in a paper last year.

It is first and foremost a motivational tool to exhort Singaporeans to unify, pull themselves up, and work hard together with the Government, a role particularly important in the earlier years.

MP Hri Kumar noted: 'I recall that much of MM's (Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew) speeches focused on the progress Singapore had made economically, and how he pushed the people to upgrade themselves economically, academically and socially.'

Two, it allows the Prime Minister to sketch his big-picture vision for the country.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1966 laid out his blueprint for Singapore's survival: an integrated society which 'gives an equally satisfying life to one and all', without leaving any groups behind on the basis of race, religion or culture.

Mr Goh Chok Tong used his inaugural rally in 1991 to signal a shift to a kinder, gentler society, saying: 'Over the next few years, I want to balance our policies of levelling up with programmes for the average Singaporeans.'

He started singling out for attention the more needy segments in society - a tradition continued by Mr Lee Hsien Loong from 2004.

PM Lee went beyond economics and social bonding to deal with the political landscape. His inaugural rally slaughtered several sacred cows - such as exempting indoor talks from licensing requirements unless they touch on race and religious issues.

Over time, the rally has also become a platform for the announcement of major strategic policies, such as liberalising laws to welcome immigrants, changes to the Central Provident Fund scheme, and measures to encourage more procreation.

Sometimes trial balloons are floated, such as the mooting of the Group Representation Constituency in 1987, and reviewing the teaching of Chinese in schools in 2002. These occasions also helped Singaporeans understand the thinking behind policies.

For instance, Mr Lee Kuan Yew gave a glimpse into the country's defence strategy in 1974: 'All we need do is to have the capacity to ward off any sneak attack for a week to a fortnight and the UN Security Council can intervene.'

The rally is also a platform for the Government to address its critics and dispel rumours. In 1988, Mr Lee, referring to speculation that the proposal for an elected President was to enable him to hold on to power after stepping down as Prime Minister, stated categorically: 'I don't have to be President and I am not looking for a job. Please believe me.'

With typical frankness, he added that he did not need to be President to be in control. All he had to do was remain as secretary-general of the People's Action Party, and he could 'have a very strong last word on PAP'.

Not least of all, the rally serves as a showcase for the various prime ministers' personalities. It proved to be particularly useful for the second and third leaders in distinguishing themselves from their respective predecessors.

Said Mr Chong: 'The National Day Rally is crucial for the PM. It is literally a platform for him to express his personality and character to Singaporeans, and to revitalise his cachet with the electorate.'

The first prime minister brought the full force of his flinty personality and towering intellect to bear on his rally speeches.

The next prime minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, brought more 'heart', note observers. It was at his first rally that the former deputy prime minister was seen as coming into his own, dispelling ideas that he was 'wooden'. He was self-deprecating and funny, using many personal anecdotes that indicated empathy for the common man's experiences.

Recalled Dr Wang: 'He demonstrated he could hold the attention of the audience, on site and at home, for three hours, and that he was really not that 'wooden'.'

MP Ellen Lee, a grassroots leader since the 1980s before entering politics, added: 'His consultative style of government was welcomed by the younger generation although the older grassroots leaders who were used to MM's authoritarian style felt that he should not be seen to be soft.'

Mr Goh, an avid golfer, also had a fondness for sports analogies, for instance urging Singaporeans in 2000 to play like a football striker, not a goalkeeper, in the new economy by innovating, and not just by being productive.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister from 2004, also used his inaugural rally to set his own style, with an emphasis on inclusiveness. Beyond seeking consensus, he sought involvement too, noted Ms Ellen Lee.

A hallmark of his style, note observers, is spotlighting ordinary Singaporeans, and including them in the audience at the rally. It was PM Lee too who first invited opposition MPs last year, and has done so again this year.


'Guidance and goodies'

DESPITE its red-letter day status in Singapore's political calendar, questions remain.

Do Singaporeans really care? Beyond politicians, grassroots leaders, party members and some more politically aware folk, do Singaporeans bother with the rally, beyond the goodies announced?

It has its fans like lawyer and former Nominated MP Shriniwas Rai, who said he has never missed a single rally. 'To me it is an opportunity to know the PM's thinking on national issues,' he said.

However, trade officer Joan Teng, 37, last caught the rally more than three years ago. 'My friends, who are single girls in their late 30s, are too busy looking for love and making sure that they pay their bills and occasionally looking forward to a planned vacation,' she said.

Noting the uphill task at each rally, law lecturer Eugene Tan said: 'With an increasingly sophisticated and diverse population, the PM has increasingly to justify and explain his policy measures, and persuade people they will work for the greater good.'

MPs say that Singaporeans tend to be more interested in the rally when the going gets tough.

During economic crises such as in 1998, and the Sars period in 2003, 'more Singaporeans looked toward National Day rallies for guidance and goodies', said Ms Ellen Lee. Will this year prove another, given that growth is slowing and many other countries are heading into recession?

Said Dr Wang: 'When the economy is in a rough patch, every Singaporean will be interested in what new policies the Government will announce to help the nation out of its economic difficulties.'

16 Aug 2008, ST
xueying@sph.com.sg

Prea Vihear

Preah Vihear

(Both countries have long held claim to the temple, but the World Court awarded it to Cambodia in 1962.) Aug 17 2008

Name: Temple of Preah Vihear
Creator: Suryavarman I and Suryavarman II
Date built: 11th & 12th Centuries CE
Primary deity: Shiva
Architecture: Banteay Srei style and others
Location: Preah Vihear Province, Cambodia

Construction of the first temple on the site began in the early 9th century; both then and in the following centuries it was dedicated to the Hindu god Shiva in his manifestations as the mountain gods Sikharesvara and Bhadresvara. The earliest surviving parts of the temple, however, date from the Koh Ker period in the early 10th century, when the empire's capital was at the city of that name. Today, elements of the Banteay Srei style of the late 10th century can be seen, but most of the temple was constructed during the reigns of the Khmer kings Suryavarman I (1002 -1050) and Suryavarman II (1113 -1150). An inscription found at the temple provides a detailed account of Suryavarman II studying sacred rituals, celebrating religious festivals and making gifts, including white parasols, golden bowls and elephants, to his spiritual advisor, the aged Brahman Divakarapandita. The Brahman himself took an interest in the temple, according to the inscription, donating to it a golden statue of a dancing Shiva

The temple complex runs 800 m (2,600 ft) along a north-south axis, and consists essentially of a causeway and steps rising up the hill towards the sanctuary, which sits on the clifftop at the southern end of the complex (120 m/390 ft above the northern end of the complex, 525 m/1,720 ft above the Cambodian plain and 625 m/2,050 ft above sea level). Although this structure is very different from the temple mountains found at Angkor, it serves the same purpose as a stylised representation of Mount Meru, the home of the gods.

The approach to the sanctuary is punctuated by five gopuras (these are conventionally numbered from the sanctuary outwards, so gopura five is the first to be reached by visitors). Each of the gopuras before the courtyards is reached by a set of steps, and so marks a change in height which increases their impact. The gopuras also block a visitor's view of the next part of the temple until he passes through the gateway, making it impossible to see the complex as a whole from any one point.

The fifth gopura, in the Koh Ker style, retains traces of the red paint with which it was once decorated, although the tiled roof has now disappeared. The fourth gopura is later, from the Khleang/Baphuon periods, and has on its southern outer pediment, "one of the masterpieces of Preah Vihear" (Freeman, p. 162) : a depiction of the Churning of the Sea of Milk. The third is the largest, and is also flanked by two halls. The sanctuary is reached via two successive courtyards, in the outer of which are two libraries.

The Dispute

In modern times, Prasat Preah Vihear was rediscovered by the outside world and became subject of an emotional dispute between Thailand and the newly independent Cambodia.

In 1904, Siam and the French colonial authorities ruling Cambodia formed a joint commission to demarcate their mutual border. In the vicinity of the temple, the group was tasked by the two governments to work under the principle that the border would follow the watershed line of the Dângrêk mountain range, which places Preah Vihear on the Thailand side. In 1907, after survey work, French officers drew up a map to show the border’s precise location. The resulting map, which was sent to Siamese authorities, showed Preah Vihear as being on the Cambodian side.

In 1954, Thai forces occupied the temple following the withdrawal of French troops from Cambodia. Cambodia protested and in 1959 asked the International Court of Justice to rule that the temple lay in Cambodian territory. The case became a volatile political issue in both countries. Diplomatic relations were severed, and threats of force voiced by both governments.

The court proceedings focused not on questions of cultural heritage or on which state was the successor to the Khmer Empire but on technicalities of the border demarcation work early in the century and Thailand's subsequent treatment of the resulting map.

Arguing in the Hague for Cambodia was former U.S. secretary of state Dean Acheson, while Thailand’s legal team included a former British attorney general, Sir Frank Soskice. Cambodia contended that the map showing the temple as being on Cambodian soil was the authoritative document. Thailand argued that the map was invalid, was not an official document of the border commission, and violated the commission’s working principle that the border would follow the watershed line, which would place the temple in Thailand. If Thailand had not protested the map earlier, the Thai side said, it was because Thai authorities had practical possession of the temple, due to the great difficulty of scaling the cliff from the Cambodian side, or had not understood that the map was wrong.

On June 15, 1962, the court ruled 9 to 3 that the temple belonged to Cambodia and, by a vote of 7 to 5, that Thailand must return any antiquities such as sculptures that it had removed from the temple. In its decision, the court noted that over the five decades after the map was devised, the Siamese/Thai authorities did not object in various international forums to the map’s depiction of the temple’s location. Nor did they object when a French colonial official received the Siamese scholar and government figure Prince Damrong at the temple in 1930. Thailand had accepted and benefited from other parts of the border treaty, the court ruled. With these and other acts, it said, Thailand had accepted the map and therefore Cambodia was the owner of the temple.

Thailand reacted angrily. It announced it would boycott meetings of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, with Thai officials saying this step was to protest a U.S. bias toward Cambodia in the dispute. As evidence, Thai officials cited the pro-Cambodia vote of an American judge on the court and Acheson’s role as Cambodia’s advocate; the U.S. government replied that Acheson was merely acting as a private attorney, engaged by Cambodia. Mass demonstrations were staged in Thailand protesting the ruling.

Thailand eventually backed down. In January 1963, Cambodia formally took possession of the site in a colorful ceremony attended by close to 1,000 people, many of whom had made the arduous climb up the cliff from the Cambodian side. A fit Prince Sihanouk, Cambodia’s leader, bounded up the cliff in less than an hour, paused to sip lemonade, then made offerings to Buddhist monks. In the ceremony, he made a gesture of conciliation, announcing that all Thais would be able to visit the temple without visas, and that Thailand was free to keep antiquities that it had taken away from the site.[3]
Civil war began in Cambodia in 1970; the temple's location high atop a cliff served to make it readily defensible militarily. Soldiers loyal to the Lon Nol government in Phnom Penh continued to hold it long after the plain below fell to communist forces. Tourists were able to visit from the Thai side during the war. The Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh in April 1975, but the soldiers at Preah Vihear continued to hold out after the collapse of their government. The Khmer Rouge made several unsuccessful attempts to capture the temple, then finally succeeded on May 22, 1975 by shelling the cliff, scaling it and routing the defenders, Thai officials reported at the time.[4] It was said to be the last place in Cambodia to fall to the Khmer Rouge.

Full-scale war began again in Cambodia in December 1978 when the Vietnamese army invaded to overthrow the Khmer Rouge. Khmer Rouge troops retreated to border areas. In January, the Vietnamese reportedly attacked Khmer Rouge troops holed up in the temple, but there were no reports of damage to it. Large numbers of Cambodian refugees entered Thailand after the invasion. In June 1979, Thai security forces forcibly expelled tens of thousands of them back into Cambodia in the vicinity of Preah Vihear. Unknown numbers were killed by landmines, gunfire and exposure; the government that Vietnam installed in Phnom Penh put the number of fatalities at more than 300.

Guerilla warfare continued in Cambodia through the 1980s and well into the 1990s, hampering access to Preah Vihear. The temple opened briefly to the public in 1992, only to be re-occupied the following year by Khmer Rouge fighters. In December 1998, the temple was the scene of negotiations by which several hundred Khmer Rouge soldiers, said to be the guerrilla movement's last significant force, agreed to surrender to the Phnom Penh government.[5]

The temple opened again to visitors from the Thai side at the end of 1998; Cambodia completed the construction of a long-awaited access road up the cliff in 2003.
On July 8, 2008, the World Heritage Committee decided to add Prasat Preah Vihear, along with 26 other sites, to the World Heritage Site list, despite several protests from Thailand.

As the process of Heritage-listing began, Cambodia announced its intention to apply for World Heritage inscription by UNESCO. Thailand protested that it should be a joint-effort and UNESCO deferred debate at its 2007 meeting.

Following this both Cambodia and Thailand were in full agreement that Preah Vihear Temple had "Outstanding Universal Value" and should be inscribed on the World Heritage List as soon as possible. The two nations agreed that Cambodia should propose the site for formal inscription on the World Heritage List at the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008 with the active support of Thailand. This led to a redrawing of the map of the area for proposed inscription, removing the 4.2sq kilometres of border territory awarded to Cambodia but still occupied by Thailand and leaving only the temple and its immediate environs.

Thailand's political opposition launched an attack on this revised plan (see New dispute over ownership) , claiming the inclusion of Preah Vihear could "consume" the overlapping area of the dispute lands. In response to the political pressure at home Thailand withdrew its formal support for the listing of Preah Vihear Temple as a World Heritage site.

Cambodia continued with the application for World Heritage status and, despite official Thai protests, on July 7, 2008 (July 8th in Cambodia) , Preah Vihear Temple was inscribed on the list of World Heritage sites.

The renewed national boundary dispute of 2008 has been a reminder that despite the World Heritage ideals of conservation for all humanity, operating a World Heritage site often requires use of national authority at odds with the local cultures and natural diversity of the landscape. Prior to listing, Cambodia considered Preah Vihear part of a Protected Landscape (IUCN category V) defined as "Nationally significant natural and semi-natural landscapes that must be maintained to provide opportunities for recreation." However, Category V is generally defined as "Land, with coast and seas as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, cultural and/or ecological value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area."

Around 1994, Thailand held a World Heritage proposal conference in Srisaket in which the local cultural traditions were considered along with monuments like Preah Vihear that stimulate more nationalistic sentiments. Reportedly the use of passes in the Dongrak Mountains tied together cultural communities and practices divided by a militarized (and imperfectly demarcated) modern border line. A Mon-Khmer ethnic minority, the Kui or Suay (the ethnonyms have multiple spellings), used the passes to hunt and capture elephants in the forests below the Dongrak cliff edge, including the Kulen area now a Cambodian wildlife sanctuary. Kui in Cambodia were skilled ironsmiths using ore from Phnom Dek.[6]

While elephant hunting in the vicinity of Preah Vihear was touched upon in the International Court of Justice proceedings, the World Heritage plans overlook local culture and species protection to facilitate national revenues from tourism. One international law professor has urged that practicality calls for laying aside exclusive sovereignty in favor of an "international peace park."[7] A scholarly article concurs in concluding: "since Thailand and Cambodia have brought only blood and bitterness to this place, it might be desirable to preserve it from both. It could be given back to nature and the indigenous peoples, to be managed cooperatively between the two governments in equal partnership with local communities, as a transborder Protected Landscape-Anthropological Reserve (IUCN category V and old category VII)."[8] Given the massing troops in 2008, perhaps such a transborder reserve would create not only a demilitarized buffer zone in which any future demarcation can be amicably undertaken, but a recognition of the added ecological and cultural aspects of an area which both Cambodia and Thailand may still save from the destructive and exploitative impacts of rapid development so often suffered in other ASEAN countries.


2008 Cambodian-Thai stand-off began between Thailand and Cambodia as the latest round of a century-long dispute involving the area surrouding Preah Vihear Temple between Amphoe Kantharalak, Sisaket Province and Choam Khsant District, Preah Vihear Province where Thailand claims that demarcation has not yet been completed. [9]. It has now extended to the Ta Moan Thom complex between Surin Province and Oddar Meancheay Province which eventuate from Preah Vihear stand-off. Furthermore, historians and scholars expect that this stand-off will be extended to Sdok Kok Thom Temple, currently located in the boundary of Amphoe Aranyaprathet, Sa Kaeo Province, Thailand

The Latest

CAMBODIA and Thailand geared up on Sunday for renewed border settlement talks after both sides ended a month-long armed confrontation by withdrawing most of their troops from disputed territory around an ancient temple.
Thai and Cambodian foreign ministers are scheduled to meet in the Thai resort town of Hua Hin on Monday in a bid to find a lasting solution to a lingering border dispute that brought the two neighbors close to an armed clash.

The new meeting follows two inconclusive rounds of talks.

On July 28, the two nations' foreign ministers agreed on a plan to withdraw their troops from disputed area near the 11th century Preah Vihear temple to reduce tension.

Both countries completed moving most of their troops from a nearby temple on Saturday, said Hang Soth, director-general of the Preah Vihear National Authority, a government agency managing the historic site.

He said the two sides are currently keeping only 10 soldiers from each side in the compound of the pagoda, which is located in a border area claimed by both countries.

'The tension has eased considerably. There is no more confrontation,' Hang Soth said on Sunday, calling the troop withdrawals a 'good process giving us hope' about the new talks.

Information Minister Khieu Kanharith confirmed Sunday that there were only 20 soldiers - 10 Cambodian and 10 Thai - in the grounds of the pagoda.

The standoff began on July 15 after Unesco, the United Nation's cultural agency, approved Cambodia's application to have the Preah Vihear temple named a World Heritage Site.

Both countries have long held claim to the temple, but the World Court awarded it to Cambodia in 1962.

About 800 troops from Cambodia and 400 from Thailand confronted each other in the area for a month.

Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej had backed Cambodia's World Heritage site bid, sparking demonstrations by Thai anti-government protesters who claimed it would undermine Thailand's claim to the surrounding area.

The protests left Mr Samak politically vulnerable, and he sent troops to occupy the Keo Sikha Kiri Svara Buddhist pagoda compound adjacent to Preah Vihear to appease his critics. Cambodia responded with its own troop deployment. -- AP

Foreigners benefit S'poreans

Foreigners benefit S'porea
ns
By Irene Ngoo
PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong gave the reassurance that improving the lives of Singaporeans will always remain the Government's key responsibility, even as he sought to restate why foreign workers and talent are needed to keep the economy more vibrant and diversified.

Delivering his National Day Rally speech in Mandarin at the University Cultural Centre on Sunday night, he said without foreign workers, there will not be enough Singapore workers to grow the economy
Contrary to fears of some Singaporeans and feedback from NTUC that foreign workers are taking away jobs from Singaporeans and depressing wages, he said they have instead helped to enlarge the pie.

PM Lee said the fact that Singapore's jobless rate is only 2.3 per cent - considered by economists to be full employment - and that elderly workers have found it easier to find jobs, shows that foreign workers have not taken away the rice-bowl of Singaporeans.

'We allow in foreign workers and new immigrants because doing so will benefit Singaporeans,' he said. 'Our economy has become more vibrant and diversified because of foreign workers. Without their participation, there will not be enough workers to grow the economy.'

He gave several practical examples to drive home the need for foreign workers.

The two Integrated Resorts at Marina Bay and on Sentosa Island, which are being built, will need another 20,000 workers. They will not be able to recruit Singaporeans to fill all these positions, said Mr Lee.

'In fact, they would not have decided to invest here had we required them to recruit only Singaporeans,' he added.

Foreign finance specialists are needed to help Singapore grow its financial centre. This is how London and New York have become global financial centres because they are able to draw talent from all over the world, said PM Lee.

Foreign workers keep many small and medium entreprises (SMEs) in business by lowering their costs.

'Without them, local workers and SMEs bosses will also lose their jobs,' said Mr Lee.

Outside of economics, he said foreign talent has also lifted Singapore's ranks in sports.

Of the 24 Singaporean athletes taking part in the Beijing Olympics, half of them are new immigrants who have become Singapore citizens, said PM Lee, speaking coincidentally just before the start of the Singapore-China table tennis finals at the Beijing Olympics.

In fact, the English telecast of PM Lee's speech, originally scheduled to continue after the Malay and Chinese speeches, has been pushed back to 8 pm on Monday so that Singaporeans can watch the finals 'live'.

The highly-anticipated game will star Singapore players Li Jiawei, 27, Wang Yuegu, 28, and Feng Tianwei, 21, who made history on Friday by beating South Korea to assure the Republic at least a silver, ending its 48-year Olympics medal drought.

Said Mr Lee: 'China has 1.3 billion people, we have 4 million. Based on population, China would have to win 300 medals before Singapore has the chance to win a single medal. So we cannot rely on only local talent.

'Our performance at the Beijing Olympics demonstrates this. We now have Tao Li reaching the swimming finals and the table-tennis team playing for either gold or silver in the finals tonight.

'Because we welcome talent, we can compete above our class. So we can take pride in Team Singapore, and cheer for our athletes.'

China in the Olympics

People are curious to know when China first took part in the Olympics.

Some say it was at the very first Olympic Games in 1896, or during the latter part of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), when the country was ruled by dowager Cixi (1835-1906).



Upon receiving an invitation from the International Olympic Committee, nobody at her court knew what was meant by "Olympics." When she was eventually told that it was a sports meet including running events, she burst out laughing and said, "Well, we may send some of our eunuchs who are running the court so well. They are good runners."

Perhaps this might be a mere idle tale about the unpopular dowager. It remains a riddle whether the Qing court received a letter of invitation from the IOC at all.

In order to find an answer to this problem, Mr. Lu Enchun, a coach of the Chinese gymnastics team, once went to the Imperial Palace in Beijing to look into the Qing archives. But he was completely at sea among the piles of documents.

Similar effort was made by some China Olympic Committee officials from a different angle in 1995 when they visited the international Olympic Museum in Lausanne. The only answer they got from the keeper was that not every country was invited to the first Olympics.

According to a relevant document available, it's more probable than not that China was NOT invited to the first Olympic Games. That's a book entitled "Li Hongzhang's Missions to Europe and America." Li was Prime Minister of the Qing government and paid a visit to Europe in 1896. He was informed by the French Foreign Minister that the first Olympics were to be held in Europe, and it was hoped that Li would be able to come to France again. But nothing was mentioned about China being invited to the Olympic Games.



So when was China invited for the first time to the Olympics? According to historical records, Chinese diplomat Wang Zhengting was elected into the IOC in 1922. It was then that the sports organization in China was formally recognized by the IOC. And it is stipulated in the Olympic Charter that only an organization recognized by the IOC may enter competitors in the Olympic Games. It was not until 1932 when the 10th Olympic Games were held in Los Angeles that China was invited for the first time to send athletes for competition.

Four years before this, however, when the 9th Olympics were scheduled to be held in Amsterdam in 1928, China had been invited to send an observer to attend the opening ceremony through a diplomat named Song Ruhai. In addition, an overseas Chinese He Haohua registered in a cycling race on behalf of his motherland. Unfortunately, he was injured and hospitalized. Anyhow, he was the first Chinese Olympian.

In his Chinese History of Sports over the Past Century, Prof. Wu Wenzhong confirms that China was first represented by Song Ruhai at the Olympic Games in 1928- entirely in the capacity of an observer. About this Song has written in his book, " The World Games".

In spite of the presence of a Chinese official and a voluntary competitor at the 9th Olympics, no delegation worthy of the name had ever been sent by China to the Olympics until 1932. Even then, the Chinese government had no real intention to take part in the 10th Olympic Games. It happened that the Japanese invaders had occupied northeastern China and concocted the bogus Manchukuo. A plot was afoot to send a promising athlete, Liu Changchun, to the 1932 Olympics in the name of the puppet regime in order to make it accepted as a fait accompli. But the patriotic-minded athlete made a statement in the newspaper "L' Impartial", refusing to represent the so-called Manchuguo at the Olympics.



Meanwhile, the well-known patriotic General Zhang Xueliang exposed the Japanese aggressors' scheme and declared that he would sponsor Liu Changchun to the Olympics representing China. He announced at a graduation ceremony of Northeastern University that Liu and his coach Song Junfu would participate in the 10th Olympic Games on behalf of China.





General Zhang, who passed away in Honolulu, USA on October 15, 2001, has been held in high esteem by the Chinese people not only as a great patriot, but also as the supporter of the first group of Chinese to take part in the Olympics. Although eliminated in the preliminary heats in the 100m and 200m sprints clocking 11.1 and 22.1 respectively, Liu has pioneered the way for China's participation in the Olympics - a way full of twists and turns at the time and henceforward.

Olympics History - Nazi Germany, Japan, China, Singapore

The Berlin Olympics

Seeing the pictures from the 1936 Berlin Olympic Opening Ceremony is sickening. With Hitler looking on, each nation's delegation marches into the stadium in perfect goosestep. Most of the teams raise their arm in the "Olympic salute," which looks supiciously similar to the Nazi salute. Countries that will go on to be decimated by the Third Reich march and cheer along with the crowds.

What's interesting to note about the 1936 games is that many of the traditions that are considering integral to the Olympics were started in Berlin. The torch relay, a massive opening ceremony and taping the whole spectacle were started by Hitler's regime.

Hitler even cajoled filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl to go to Delphi, carve the Olympic rings into a stone, and film it, so to convince people that the rings were an ancient drawing, not the creation of modern Olympic founder, Pierre de Coubertin


By allowing only members of the "Aryan" race to compete for Germany, Hitler further promoted his ideological belief of racial supremacy. At the same time, the party removed signs stating "Jews not wanted" and similar slogans from the city's main tourist attractions. In an attempt to "clean up" Berlin, the German Ministry of Interior authorized the chief of police to arrest all Romani (Gypsies) and keep them in a special camp .[2] Nazi officials ordered that foreign visitors should not be subjected to the criminal strictures of anti-homosexual laws.

Total ticket revenues were 7.5 million Reichsmarks, generating a profit of over one million marks. The official budget did not include outlays by the city of Berlin (which issued an itemized report detailing its costs of 16.5 million marks) or that of the German national government (which did not make its costs public, but is estimated to have spent US$30 million, chiefly in capital outlays


Gold Silver Bronze Total
1 Germany (host nation) 33 26 30 89
2 United States 24 20 12 56
3 Hungary 10 1 5 16
4 Italy 8 9 5 22
5 Finland 7 6 6 19
6 France 7 6 6 19
7 Sweden 6 5 9 20
8 Japan 6 4 8 18
9 Netherlands 6 4 7 17
10 Great Britain 4 7 3 14

A total of 49 nations attended the Berlin Olympics, up from 37 in 1932. Six nations made their first official Olympic appearance at these Games: Afghanistan, Bermuda, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, and Peru.

Clips of Berlin Olympics: -
http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Opening-Ceremony-Theater-Berlin-1936?urn=oly,99210

USSR in the Olympics

(Water Polo Team)

The Soviet Union only first participated at the Olympic Games only in 1952 in Helsinki Finland. They were the second best nation on the medal tally. The USA was first.

Gold Silver Bronze Total
1 United States 40 19 17 76
2 Soviet Union 22 30 19 71
3 Hungary 16 10 16 42

China in the Olympics

China first participated at the Olympic Games in 1932 in Los Angeles USA. The Republic of China (ROC) would participate in 1948. In 1948, the 52-member delegation from ROC consisted of 33 contenders for track and field, swimming, football, basketball, as well as cycling events. The results were disappointing, as all were eliminated in the preliminary contests.

In 1952, the Republic of China (Chinese Taipei/Taiwan), listed as "China (Formosa)", withdrew from the Games on July 20, in protest of the allowing of the People's Republic of China's men and women to compete.

For the PRC, the men's football and basketball teams and one swimmer joined the Olympics. A total of 40 athletes and officials took part. The football and basketball teams arrived too late to take part in the competition, only the swimmer took part. He was Wu Chuanyu, Men's 100m Backstroke — 1:12.3 (Heat five)



(Wu Chuanyu at the 4th World Juniors and Students Friendship Game held in Bucharest, Romania. He won the gold medal in the 100 meter backstroke swimming event. It was the first time that the Chinese national flag rose in international sports arena)

World War Two and the Olympics

In 1940, the summer Olympics were scheduled for Tokyo, Japan, but were cancelled due to the outbreak of World War II. In 1937, Tokyo was stripped of its host status for the Games by the IOC due to the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War, and the Games were then awarded to Helsinki, Finland, the runner-up in the bidding. The Games were then scheduled to be staged from July 20 to August 4, 1940. The Olympic Games were suspended indefinitely followed the outbreak of the war, and did not resume until the London Games of 1948.

Germany and Japan were not invited to the 1948 London Olympics. Germany was also banned from the 1920 Antwerp Olympics and 1924 Paris Olympics.

In the 1920 Olympics, Germany was blamed for the start of World War I. Germany, together with other Central Powers allies - Austria, Turkey, Bulgaria, Hungary. These nations, which by now had new governments, were banned from the 1920 Summer Olympics.

While all other banned nations were invited again for the 1924 Summer Olympics, held for the second time in Pierre de Coubertin's home town of Paris, the ban on Germany was not lifted until 1925. This was likely related to French Occupation of the Ruhr and the Rhineland between 1923 and 1925.

Singapore in the Olympics

Singapore competed in the Summer Olympic Games for the first time at the 1948 Summer Olympics in London, England, as a British Crown Colony.

The following Singaporean athletes participated in the games:

Association Football - Chia Boon Leong and Chu Chee Seng
Athletics - Ng Liang Chiang and Valberg Lloyd, Highjump (finished 14th place)
Basketball - Chua Boon Lay


Cold War - Divided Germany in the Olympics

After World War Two, there were three German states found in Germany. There were athletes from the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, West Germany, the German Democratic Republic (GDR, East Germany) and the Saarland (A French protectorate)

Before 1956, it was decided that German athletes from West Germany and the French-occupied Saarland would took part in the 1952 Helsinki Olympics separately

The Saarland joined the Federal Republic after 1955, while the East German authorities, which had not taken part in the 1952 Games, agreed in 1956 to let their athletes compete in a united team that used the black-red-gold tricolour, but with additional Olympic rings in white placed upon the red middle stripe, as East German politicians were eager not to compete under the traditional German flag used both by West Germany and even themselves.



They competed together as the United Team of Germany (EUA for French: Équipe unifiée d'Allemagne, German: Gesamtdeutsche Mannschaft) in the 1956 Melbourne, 1960 Rome, and 1964 Tokyo Olympics.

After 1961, despite initially calling for a "united Germany" in the East German anthem, the socialist East German government intensified its separation in Germany, with the building of the Berlin Wall in August 1961, obstructing travel within Germany even more. The travel of GDR athletes for contests and training sites in the Alps was limited.

As a result of this development, Aahletes from the Soviet-occupied German Democratic Republic (GDR) appeared in a separate team after the United Team effort was discontinued. In five Games, from 1968 Mexico Olympics to 1980 Moscow Olympics and again in 1988 Seoul Olympics, the GDR participated as a separate team.




The separation was completed at the 1972 Munich Olympics, when the two countries used separate flags and anthems. This continued until the German Reunification of 1990 caused East Germany to cease to exist.

Germany in the 1952 Helsinki Games

In the 1952 Helsinki Games, only athletes from West Germany and the Saarland took part. West Germany or the Federal Republic of Germany (GER) claimed exclusive mandate to represent the entire country. Athletes from the Saarland (SAA) competed as a separate team, as the French-occupied state would not join the Federal Republic of Germany until 1955.



Saarland was founded in spring of 1950 in the Saar protectorate which existed from 1947 to 1956 in the Saarland, a region of Western Germany that was (again) occupied in 1945 by France. As a separate team, they only took part in the 1952 Summer Olympics, participating in boxing and canoeing, before being allowed to rejoin the German team for the summer games of 1956. Following a referendum in October 1955 that rejected the Saar statute proposing independence as European territory, thus voting indirectly in favor of access to the Federal Republic of Germany, the Saar treaty of October 1956 allowed the Saarland to rejoin Germany with effect of 1 January 1957.

Starlet Lin Miaoke mimed at Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony

Starlet Lin Miaoke mimed at Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony
Rowan Callick, China correspondent | August 13, 2008 12:00am

Read this article online at: #
Printer friendly Text size+- ShareAdd to DiggAdd to del.icio.usPost to NewsVinePost to FacebookWhat are these?

Lin Miaoke, right, replaced Yang Peiyi for the Opening Ceremony performance of Hymn to the Motherland because she was cuter.
LIN Miaoke, the cute nine-year-old girl whose solo Hymn to the Motherland added a human touch to last Friday's opening ceremony, has since been outed as a fake after being flooded with commercial offers.
The ceremony's music director, Chen Qigang, revealed that Lin was not singing but miming to a recording by another girl, Yang Peiyi, who was dumped from the starring role because she wasn't as pretty and had uneven teeth.

And it has also been revealed that the dazzling chain of massive fireworks that traced Route One north from Tiananmen Square to the main Olympic zone during the opening ceremony, amazing television viewers and the audience in the Bird's Nest stadium, was mostly computer-generated.

Music chief Chen told Beijing People's Broadcasting Station that when the opening ceremony team began rehearsing in the Bird's Nest, leaders came from various government agencies to watch, "especially a leader from the Politburo, who gave us his opinion, this has to change".

Thus while Yang cut the best recording of the song, at the Central People's Radio Station she could not be presented to the world because, Chen said, the national interest was at stake.

"The child on camera had to be flawless in looks, in her feelings and in her expression," he said.

Related Links
Re-cap: Your step-by-step guide Multimedia: Re-live the Opening Ceremony In pictures: 101 stunning images Lin had earlier performed in a TV advertisement when she was only six, and in Olympic promotions.

The state-owned China Daily yesterday described her as a "songbird", saying: "She is already well on her way to becoming a star, thanks to her heart-warming performance".

Chen said the organisers had a responsibility to explain why they had made the switch.

"It was the image of our national music, our national culture. And especially since it accompanied the arrival of the national flag in the arena, this was an extremely serious matter," he said.

In the end, he said, the change resulted in "a perfect voice and perfect image, merged together" which he thought was fair to both girls.

"When Lin Miaoke was singing (on Friday), she may not have realised that was not her own voice" echoing around the stadium," he said.

The Beijing Times has further revealed that the 55-second, 29-sequence firework footprints exploding their way up Beijing's central axis was "mostly an animated three-dimensional video that was made over a year. It was not actually live footage except the final stage" at the stadium itself.

Gao Xiaolong, a worker in the video team for the opening ceremony, said the director's staff decided to replace the originally proposed live broadcast with a recording, due to flight restrictions on the helicopters required to film it, and the timing and complexity of the challenge.

A video company named Crystal Stone composed the film.

"Looking at it from today, the video was a bit brighter than the real fireworks," he said.

"But most viewers thought it was live, so we succeeded in the effect we had wanted."

Meanwhile, the former gymnast Li Ning, winner of three Olympic gold medals, who was hoisted by wires to light the Games flame, swiftly received a massive reward for his efforts.

Shares in his Hong Kong-listed sportswear company, which has a 10.5 per cent share of China's market, had slumped 34 per cent this year, in line with the rest of the declining market.

But his starring role in the Games opening gave his stock a massive boost, rewarding him on paper by $34 million when the stock exchange opened on Monday

John Hopkins and University of New South Wales - What Do You Think?

1. The Singaporean government is known for being generous in injecting millions of dollars into international research projects. It can also be cold and ruthless if these projects fail. Singapore ended their collaboration with a medical research arm of the Johns Hopkins University in Singapore, accusing it of not delivering ‘the goods’. This will send "shock waves” through other universities and research institutes and is the first important failure of Singapore's biomedical research projects.

2. The University of New South Wales (UNSW) shut down its campus in Singapore in June 2007. This is because of a financial shortfall of $15 million a year. The target was to ahve 300 students but there wre only 148 students. Some of those enrolled have already paid betwen between S$26,000 and S$29,000 a year. In the first place, it was the Singapore's Economidc Development Board which invited the UNSW in 2004 to start up the campus in Singapore. Do you think this is damaging to Singapore's aim of becoming a global hub for education?

What do you think? Email your views