*How to non-disclaim your past if you have to*

This post is in a manner of speaking, an indirect comment on paper trials and the past coming to haunt you. You see it in the Supreme Court Nominations where your judgements will determine who likes you and who would love to consign you to eternal damnation. The converse also works, like in the case of Miers where the lack of the paper trial meant that the conservatives refused to trust Bush and back her. But you feel that you have something to say and you think your opinion is worth sharing with others and you're passionate about it. Does that automatically doom you to political oblivion in a local context?

Well basically, I had my eyes set on working in the civil service via way of a scholarship before I entered law school. I was pretty keen on working for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or alternatively MAS or EDB. Unfortunately, I was never even called up for an interview. I speculate that it was because of my C5 for GP or possibly the lack of Community Service Hours (my JC refused to accept that the time off we took to adjudicate debates for the secondary school constituted community service, a decision I feel is seriously flawed but anyway). I like to believe that was the case because the alternatives are too disturbing to consider.

So anyway, I have no problems working under the ruling party or in fact implementing most of their policies. I have in fact no quibbles with the policies and actions of the PAP on almost all foreign policy matters. And even on domestic issues, I only object to certain political policies, the exception of which I fully support the policies. So I have no intention of joining the opposition party something that many acquitances have mistaken where my sympathies (well I sympathise with the opposition actually but it's sympathy for them rather than their policies per se) lie. As such, I'm more than willing to 'sell out' as some of my other acquitances have 'accused' me of doing. And oh, the same goes for corporations. I hated The Corporation, much of the book was soft headed, failed socialist swill. The rest, we can discuss another day.

Anyway, the following 'disclaimer' sequence was inspired in part by a conversation I had with CL.

(Scene begins)
Cameras flash in the room which is filled with cameras. Microphones with Network signs dominate the table at which two man are sitting. The first man seems to be wrapping up his speech

Man 1: And with that I would like to conclude by inviting the new Ambassador to say a few words.

Man 2: *Cough* Can everyone hear me? The last time I asked that question, somewhat at the back said, "yes unfortunately".

(Laughter in the room)

Man 2: I would simply like to keep this to a few words before opening it up to the floor for questions. Of course, I am very grateful for the opportunity and thankful for the trust repost in me by the government in appointing me to this position and I hold to be able to repay that trust. With that, are there any questions? Yes (points to a lady in the first role)

Lady: Sir, considering that you were a member of the opposition and perhaps the foremost vocal critic of the government, do you see this a ploy to send you away where your criticisms will do less harm?

Man 2: Not at all. As I said, I am grateful and thankful for the trust and opportunity that the government has bestowed upon me and I will endeavor to make the most of them. More than that, I have always strongly supported the current administrations foreign policy goals in Parliament, even at the expense of my own party whip. Yes (points to a guy sitting in the role behind)

Guy: Sir, the latest and biggest diplomatic crisis between our nation and the one you are going to seems be centred around our continual usage of the death penalty and the fact that we seek the extradition of one of our citizens back for trial when he could potentially face the death penalty. The question I have is this, you have constantly been an outspoken critic of the death penalty, will you be able to defend this administration's view in the strongest possible terms once you're over there?

Man 2: Absolutely. What we must understand is that my personal views are simply that, personal views and do not reflect the administration's view. I will be the administration's representative to their nation and the views that I will represent will be that of the administration. On such a matter, I believe that my personal convictions should remain just that and should not taint my official correspondance over there.

Well I hope you had fun with that, it's past midnight and I think my brain is shutting down.

Peace.