Advertisements: do they actually benefit us?

Advertising on a legitimized scale only began in the late 1800s (I think), from this soap company (you expected a more glorious starting right) called Pears Soap. Thomas Barratt decided that he needed to be more aggressive and started launching advertisements and posters featuring cherubic children in birthday suits using the soap which connoted his brand name as being full of purity and being untainted. In my opinion it’s very lame, but surprisingly it worked, and there began the history of modern advertising through symbolism and half naked people. Especially the latter.

To say that advertising is useful towards our wellbeing through the promotion of facts which becomes useful free-for-all public information, is like saying that Hwa Chong Institution advertising itself as the school with the highest SYF awards is correct. The abovementioned is true only because that includes our High School as well as Junior College side. If RI and RJC were to merge (they are going to) they would win us easily in terms of the number of SYF awards. Advertising has a bias, and will always have a bias, because that’s at the core of advertising. Even statistics thrown out, even if we concede that they are not faked or doctored, they are likely to be biased or misrepresentations. My friend once told me that we swallow up to 2 spiders in a week whenever we sleep. Firstly, that is likely to be an averaged out statistic, meaning that everyone has the tendency to swallow a lot more or a lot less spiders when they sleep. However, it is human nature to believe that that holds true for everyone, and become very disgusted and start vomiting.

Secondly, that statistic did not state the socio-economic background of those surveyed. Were they rich or poor? Where were the sleeping, a campsite? Were they even in Singapore, or Africa? There’s a reason why the BMI scale for western countries allows for fatter people than the scale for Asians. It is due to a difference in lifestyle. Global statistics, unless they’re calculated in a vacuum, are usually horribly inaccurate and inapplicable to anyone who is not “average”. But in this world, who truly is?

For my next paragraph, you all can go visit this link to show how funnily destructive competitiveness is: http://americatopten.blogspot.com/2006/12/advertisement-war-bmw-started-it-audi.html

Someone said that there are only three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics. After which, someone is supposed to say “There are only three types of people in this world. Those who can count, and those who can’t.” Unfortunately for us, advertising can easily fit all three categories. Do you truly believe Horlicks has as much calcium as 20 cups of milk, gives as much fibre/something else as several plates of spinach, etc? Yes perhaps that might be the whole carton of Horlicks, or even if it was the nutritional value of one cup, there’s no saying of how much of that artificial nutrition is actually absorbed into the body.

Yet we still trust advertising somewhat, because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to buy anything. The small “Terms and Conditions Apply” in the corner is something we brush aside to so the “bigger” and easier picture. So we buy the product.
We’re idiots.

Science and Technology

Being in SMTP, I personally feel insulted by the fact that people actually dare raise statements that science and technology actually corrupts our life. Yes that may be true to a certain extent, but what doesn’t? Over-utilizing anything, not just science and technology will result in negative repercussions. Furthermore, most of these “repercussions” are more often than not, just different interpretations of what we’ve done. For example, the whole contentious issue regarding abortion; perhaps it can be seen as a moral hazard from a non secular perspective, especially on the part of Roman Catholics, however it is essential to many people round the globe.

Science has almost always been an “enemy” of religion, because slowly but surely, religion has been losing ground on explanations for how things work, and in that sense, faith as well. Now I would like to point out the obvious fallacy in that argument; which is the fact that science had never chosen itself to oppose religion and neither are scientific discoveries made in the nature of showing how God doesn’t exist. Surely there are Catholics who not only learn science, but enjoy it and may become technicians or scientists in their own right? It is only when religion becomes over controlling and over asserting of itself, where conflict arises.

I bring the example of Galileo, the proud and boastful astronomer, physicist, mathematician, and most interestingly, monk. His discovery that a pendulum, regardless of the height with which it is swung at, will always take the same amount of time to complete an oscillation was actually chanced upon during a monk’s sermon where he got bored and looked at the chandelier swinging from the ceiling. Using his pulse to time it, he discovered a law governing motion and cured his boredom in the lecture. Truly a win-win situation. Then the Church discovered his documents (including the one about the Earth going round the Sun) and they ended up nearly throwing him in jail, but they settled for a house arrest and a written apology.

Now let’s look to all the times where religion has tried to over assert itself. Like science, and perhaps even worse than science, religion has (not so) clearly done more damage. More people have been killed in the name of God than any other reason. The Holy Crusades (yes, all of them) are among the most pointless of wars in the history of Mankind. Today we have Osama bin Laden who just can’t keep his mouth shut about how everyone else except himself is an infidel. Considering how intolerant religions are of each other (if you don’t believe in my God, you go to my hell, and my followers will send you there quickly), it is remarkable that we’ve come the distance that we have.

Science and technology on the other hand, have been advancing largely in terms of their practical use to mankind. As pointless as deep space physics appears to be, it is still believed that these fundamental rules of the universe are the key to unlocking our origins. It was discovered that every single human is created from “stardust”, meaning that the matter we’re made of was originally from another star. I would like to see in what way mankind differs from animals if we do not have science and technology. Anarchists can go to hell. IR8 rice saved India from starvation in the 1960s. People can rant on about how it is unethical to modify genes, but in the end lives were saved, and if they’d like to complain perhaps theirs’ shouldn’t.

Pornography

Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

Is the dictionary’s definition, while its secondary usage has a pretty interesting social role of teasing others. For some reason all females are convinced that 90% of guys watch pornography, and the other 10% is gay. The actual facts for the United States indicate that there are approximately 50 million people out of 300 million who watch pornography, regularly. And that only counts in consumers of magazines like Playboy and etc, because it is nigh impossible to monitor web usage.

The main argument against pornography is that it degrades the overall perception of females in general. I do believe that it is true to a large extent seeing that if the only purpose of pornography is to satisfy a sexual need, and it objectifies females into performing such acts. However if we’re speaking about this sexually, it is the social norm for males to be the more domineering one, and it has always been so before pornography even came into existence in the first place. Outside sex, in areas like the political workplace, we have women, like a certain what’s-her-name who recently broke the hypothetical “glass ceiling” to become the first woman minister.

Simply put, if Barrack Obama can be the President of the United States, anything can happen.
Of course, implementation of any policies to stop pornography can screw itself over because the regular 50 million people of USA aren’t likely to not source for a black market to suit their needs. Regardless of what the government tries, due to either the internet or loopholes in the law, pornography, a huge industry as it is, will not stop.
A world free of pornography would be a nice one, but sadly that’s like saying one wants a world with no famine, nuclear weapons, etc.. Living alongside this vice in society is the only way we can deal with it.

President's Star Charity Show

A few years back, there was a craze in Singapore: celebrities doing stunts not unlike that done by a circus, for the sake of charity. Death defying feats like driving around motorcycles inside a ball cage to scaling the heights of buildings all for the sake of charity. Inbetween those really lame stunts, they would show a few video clips of the plight of the people afflicted by their affliction.

All very carefully engineered propoganda to get people to join HwaCh- I mean, donate to charity. The sights and the sounds raise and drop the emotions within us all, and thus compelling us to dial the number. Ironically enough, the numbers are "lucky" for the Chinese, being like $8, $88, and $888.

I can't possibly imagine calling a number to donate $444 to a dying patient.

I digress, but I've always fantasized about diverting my calls to the most expensive hotline during these Star Charity Shows. Then tell all my friends to call me. Then proceed to lead a very lonely life. But I digress.

I do wonder though, is it hypothetically possible for funds to be raised through the normal means? Even if it does not, does it necessitate the prancing of famous artistes onstage? I don't think the fact that it has become more of a performance changes anything, that it mocks the patients in any way.

If anything at all, what we should be concerned about is the following:

"Poor donating more than rich

According to the SALT magazine (For Volunteers, Donors and Non-profits) of Jul-Aug 2007, “For Richer or For Poorer ?”, the lower income donated the most, compared to the highest income. Donors earning less than $ 1,000 a month, donated 0.65 per cent of annual income, those earning $ 8,000 - $ 8,999 and $ 9,000 - $ 9,999 donated only 0.04 and 0.13 per
cent respectively.

In average absolute dollar terms, the poorest donated $ 6.49 a month, and the rich donated only $ 3.60 ($ 8,000 - $ 8,999 earners).

If we do not acknowledge the problem of declining public donations, and focus on announcing ever record-breaking total donations in charity shows, how will Singaporeans be encouraged to donate more?"

Those who cannot afford to donate as much are the ones donating; are there any sympathisers for those less fortunate?

In the entire issue of donating, donor fatigue does exist. We give, we give and we give, but in the end we still have to give some more because the problem is not solved.

With the prices of everything still on the rise and the government paying itself more and more, it is of no surprise that people are getting tired. It is repetitive, and it is annoying.

We want something new and fresh to stimulate our interest, and that comes in a the form of creative and daring expression. We literally pay for entertainment, and hey why not, it's a good idea.

It was calculated that the sum of money spent by Europeans on cruises in a single year is sufficient to wipe poverty off this planet.

But of course, poverty and suffering are much harder to solve than that.

Regulation of political commentary

DISCLAIMER: Anything that is political that will be said is the direct fault of my English Teacher Adrian Chan, and he should be put under the ISA for torturing us with digestive biscuits. Amen.

In Asia, there are probably three countries who have stricter political control on their citizens than us.

The first one, courtesy of Kwok Shun Git, would be the Great Firewall of China, where you can't even access blogger (oh the horror) from. The government is strict, but surprisingly the citizens are happy. Some still manage to find holes in the system as always, but on the whole the citizens are not exactly striking.

The second one, is the very well known North Korea who spends a good two thirds of its GDP on one day: National Day, because the citizens heavily rely on that one day in the entire year to rejuvenate their souls and reassure themselves that they are not part of a failing country.

The third is Myanmar; is there much else needed to be said?

Before exploring what exactly the internet serves as, like a catalyst or whatever, let's first understand the true proper meaning and usage of political commentary.

Political commentary is meant to keep the government in check. There is a balance of power formed by the government and the media such that the media can make sure that every action taken by the government is carefully covered by it, and the people know what is going on, and have a faithful source of news to refer to in order to pass judgement.

Thus, it serves no little surprise that the press in these countries are indeed, one way or another, influenced by the government to no small extent. To further illustrate this:

"MediaCorp is wholly owned by Temasek Holdings, the government's investment company, while Singapore Press Holdings, which publishes 14 newspapers, including the Straits Times, is a government-linked company listed on the Mainboard of Singapore's stock market."

And the CEO of Temasek Holdings is Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's wife.

As stated somewhere in the Air Conditioned Nation, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew commented that the press checking the government would only lead to scandals and blowing up of microscopic points. Instead of the press checking the government, the government should check the press.

Another interesting aspect is how video/podcasts are banned during electorial periods, mainly because these "audiovisual devices tend to influence the receiver's mind in a manner which is neither constructive nor properly adjusted".

Therefore the PAP has banned the use of podcasts and vodcasts nearing the electorial dates, but is this paranoia misjudged?

The proverbial saying of "better safe than sorry" doesn't hold water here, because in every society for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is social science. I want to learn it in school.

However this being the INTERNET, and also SINGAPOREANS, it is highly unlikely that any social backlash will manifest into anything more serious than the Hokkien dialect being misused once again.

The internet however, is not a panacea. It cannot accomodate dissent on a national scale without the relevant authorities realising and cutting off all avenues of access. But in the first place, is what the government even doing morally right?

To ensure political stability when our government is actually doing a good job (if you don't count the huge loses in Temasak Holdings) in the economy and social stability. True enough, when you introduce radical views that can be broadcasted all over society, there will be controversy, there will be uprisings. Problem is that these uprisings may be good or bad.

Do we trust the government to be good, stay good and remain good? Will this perpetuate into a slippery slope?

At the risk of being shot, I sign off here.