The last few days, I spent in Changi Airport studying for the upcoming 'A' level exams. Everything was going on as usual, people were coming and going, departing and meeting with a steady handshake; and once in a while you see really odd people walking up and down with absolutely no sense of direction.

But this was not the airport I saw 4 years ago. Security is definitely tighter these days; you can no longer freely walk up to the check-in counters to speak to the receptionist; ever sector is blocked by security personnel, and occasionally you will get to see Army or Police squads armed to the teeth partroling the paves. The world has changed, to a more un-certain and watchful era. And today, the world will change again.

It has been a really tight race this one, the American Elections. 2 men, with rather similar backgrounds, but very different stand on things, stand to decide.

President George W. Bush, to me, has brought about many new introductions and reforms, which are ambivalent in nature to many. Free trade aggrements were celebrated with increased trade flow, exchang of ideas and greater cooperation among nations of the world. But the war in Iraq and the fight against terror split the world into a new "security-bloc". One camp say its a religious clash, and the other say its a isolated, extremist group that we need to sift out. Either way, it was coming anyway, George Bush or not. In my mind, Saddam Hussien had to go, its just a matter of time. How long can the world exist with a tyrant breathing down your neck, whispering "nuclear, nuclear, AK-47" every few years? Perhaps yes, the timing was wrong, the method could have been refined, but if the ousting of Saddam was inevitable, then better now then never. And if George Bush did it, ok.

Senator John Kerry was relatively unknown to the world early 2004. I'm not saying he's not good, I'm just saying it would be a biase argument with the coffee shop uncle because one has to take an effort to research on the background of the Senator. But thus far, after all the arguments and commercials, I still have an allusive idea of the Senator. People say, that his background as a Vietnam War Veteran, would allow him to assess the war in Iraq and the war in terror. But isn't it a fact that firstly, it's a different war, different circumstances, different ideology. We ain't no hunting communist now, who always declare a home base to work off and wear red. Ask any military analyst, where he thinks the main terrorist threat is, and the answers would range from Southeast Asia to Afganistan. Secondly, is the next 4 years of America going to be focussed on war? I hope not, so why focus it as a pre-set to choosing a leader?

The senator is also suggesting to reduce out-sourcing, bring back the jobs and to increase the domestic work market, reducing un-employment. What would this spell for all the foreign workers in America and those who are not, but employed by American MNCs? This sound some-what like the Chinese Exclusion Act of the 1800s, where asians were refused entry to America and had to fit a quota. Of course, this reform would work in the short run, but in the long run, world un-employment rate may increase and world money may dip. And he is suggesting to reduce taxes, in the face of a 851 million dollar deficit. Where is he going to get the money from?

Personally, I am supporting the President George W. Bush. Not so that his reforms look any better, but I feel that perhaps, he needs another term to show the fruits of the already in motion reforms. The fact is, he set out to oust Saddam and win democracy in Iraq; he achieved that. Even a form of democracy is commendable. The fact is, September 11 happened in his term, so tough for him. The fact is, although many people think so, the President did not cause the arising of Terrorism, the attack of Iraq that not form the word terrorism; terrorism existed even in the 18 century. So to blame the President for increased terrorist presence is like saying Macdonalds caused heart attack.

I agree that the world and America need a change, and George W. Bush may make it worse, maybe. But it just so happen that we only have George Bush, and John Kerry to choose from. And at this present stage, I don't think the world can take a sudden change in climate to the economy, global job-market, and the mass withdrawal of army troops. Not now. Maybe if the Senator ran for President in 2000, or again in 2008, then maybe he would stand a higher chance. I don't think if the Senator does become President, that he would be a more likely target for Terrorism. To the Terrorist, who is the President doesn't really matter, as long as American, as a symbol falls. But the time-lapse for the Senator to draw out and try to reverse many of George Bush's reforms and implementation would create a massive scene of change that the terrorism would be dump not to take advantage of.

This elections is an important one, almost every allied country like Britain, Italy and Japan are holding back reforms so as to see who is the next president. But it is also an election of season; a season of tight political watch and apprehension towards the dealings of terrorism in Muslim countries. I just hope they finish the job, and since George Bush started it, I believe he had end it, somehow.

No matter who wins, the world is going to change, and 4 years down the road when i'm in the University....we can only know then.

And Nader is just really cute.


CNN.com Election 2004 - U.S. President