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.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
