Entry #7

Green Light for Dorm Plans

PLANS for a dormitory to house foreign workers in Serangoon Gardens will go ahead, despite unhappiness expressed earlier by some residents there.

(This is not taken by me. This is not my family, and neither did I stalk them. It is taken from the link above.)

Unless you have been living under a lovely rock, or is not a local, you must have heard about the Serangoon Gardens controversy. A disused school near the area will be converted into a dormitory to house foreign workers, and unhappy residents, fearing that the foreign workers will defile the area, wrote a petition to protest against the plan.

Why did the residents protest against such a plan? Here are a few reasons why.

#1: The foreign workers will dirty the place
#2: The foreign workers will rape our women silly, because foreign workers enjoy staring at women
#3: The foreign workers will chat with their maids and distract them from what they are supposed to do
#4: The foreign workers will host great parties, drink lots of alcohol, and will make the area too chaotic to live in
#5: The foreign workers will commit great crimes such as rape, rape, rape and robbery.

We pride ourselves as a multi-racial community who can live together harmoniously, and yet such issues still persist. Yes, this is called racism, but somehow our media refuses to call a horse a horse and avoids the term "racism" as much as possible. It is such a farce. Obviously, the years spent in educating our young minds into thinking that everyone, no matter the race, is born equal and should not be treated any differently, has gone down the drain.

This is, not surprisngly, a case of prejudice. Many of us holds very negative feelings for our foreign workers. We discount them. We look down to them. In time, we exaggerate the crimes they commit. It is sad, but it is true. I remembered someone (I shall not reveal who, lest I get attacked by that someone) telling me when I was young, "Don't go near those people! They are dirty!"

The reasons given by the residents of Serangoon Gardens for not wanting the foreign workers near them, are how most of us see foreign workers. Although I would not say that such stereotypes are unfounded, I feel that they are blown out of proportion. For one thing, it does not take a foreign worker to commit such atrocities as stated above. I have seen local males do their fair share of staring and leering, although never at me. Of course, logic will also tell you that not everyone is like that. However, sometimes logic escapes people's brains and do not come back even after a long time later. Such prejudices and stereotypes are attitudinal barriers to intercultural communication, so we should always consider checking our perception to see if it makes sense.

Some people have defended themselves by asking, "Why don't you submit your addresses to the government so that they will relocate those foreign workers close to enlightened individuals such as yourself?" This reeks of xenophobia. I admit that I would not welcome foreign workers with open arms and invite them to my house for tea parties, but unlike those residents, I would not have signed the petition.

The government has taken steps to answer those concerns raised by the residents, and the majority of the residents agreed that the measures did help with their concerns. I am looking forward to more drama that might ensue in the following year.

Entry #6

"Voting No on Prop 8"



"Voting Yes on Prop 8"



According to the ever-trusty Wikipedia: Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Basically, voters who vote "Yes" agrees that the proposition should pass, and that in California, only marriages between males and females will be recognised, and same-sex marriages will NOT be recognised.

In short, it is similar to the 377a issue being raised in Singapore, except that now it is being held in California.

We are all inevitably influenced by our culture and experiences. Culture dictates where we should draw the line, separating one thing from another. It is an invisible control mechanism operating in our thoughts which kicks in when we are severely challenged. In this case, when same-sex marriage is being recognised in California in May this year, those who are opposed to it demanded that a proposition be made. Many felt that democracy was not being carried out, and such laws are only made by a few judges who decided to pass the law on a whim. Like the 377a issue, many also felt that the law does not reflect the cultural beliefs in California, so now there are two different groups in the country, with one strongly supporting the proposition, and the other who is strongly against this proposition.

It is safe to say that in Singapore, it is not in our culture to accept homosexuality, even though the idea of homosexuality is slowly being accepted by more and more people. (Sadly, social education can take years, decades and even centuries. ) Likewise, in California, many are still not ready to accept homosexuality yet. Look at the second ad on "Voting Yes to Proposition 8". You can see the horror in the mother's eyes when the girl went, "I CAN MARRY A PRINCESS NEXT TIME! YAY!" A lot of people will faint at the thought of teaching children that princes can marry another prince. It is a lot to take in, I have to admit.

However, this ad missed out a little something. According to California's Education Code, there are parental rights and exemption on education, i.e: "...parents and guardians have the ultimate responsibility for imparting values regarding human responsibility to their children." and "...respect the rights of parents and guardians to supervise their children's education on these subjects..." Proposition 8 is only about recognising marriages between a male and a female and not same-sex marriages, and is not about public education.

Why leave that out...?

(An interesting point to note is that Pepperdine University of Law also did not want to be associated with the Professor who appeared on the commercial. Haha.)

I do not know about how anyone else feels about this issue, but I can see why some people are FOR the proposition. I mean, if same-sex marriages are legalised and accepted, the idea of the traditional marriages will be threatened. The sacredness of marriages will be tainted, and, oh dear, people will be wanting to marry their beloved chickens next! Pedophiles will be requesting to marry children! If not, they will be complaining about their civil rights. Rapes will be legalised! Bestiality will be legalised! (By the way, I am not making these up, people out there do think that way.)

Why do people see homosexuality as a disease that needs to be stamped out? Can't pure love exist between a couple of the same sex? Cases to note: Have you ever seen Lindsay Lohan so happy and blissful before she met Sam Ronson? What about the famous lesbian couple, Ellen and Portia? Homosexuality will not undermine hetrosexuality; in fact, it will just emphasize that (as cheesy as I sound) true love can exist. In this day and age, with divorce cases happening as often as the sun attacking Singapore with its blasted rays, and with Britney Spears getting married to some guy for 55 hours, trust me when I say that legalising same-sex marriages will not undermine the sacredness of marriages.

We live in a collectivist culture, where social behaviour is determined by the views, needs and goals of the group rather than of self. Social norms are defined by the society, and if we do not conform, we could possibly face rejection. In India, a lesbian couple committed suicide because their families tried to prevent them from seeing each other. Instead of thinking about what our culture wants or expects us to do, why don't we determine how we act with our personal feelings and goals?

Frankly, I am not optimistic about how this will turn out in California, but I would definitely have voted "No" to Proposition 8.

Entry #5

From left: James, Grant, Aaron, Spencer, Tim, Chris

Before you go, "Hey, whoever this band is, they have no relevance to me whatsoever!", I just want to say that this entry is not going to be a critic on the band's music, but more of how the band communicate within their group. Their interview in this magazine is a rather interesting read, because unlike other musical groups who seemed to be able to get along really, really well with each other, they came close to dispbanding before releasing their latest album last month. Even though they are closer now, the tension still exists in this band.

So who is this band? This is Underoath, a rock band from Florida (and a very, very fine band they are!), and they gave an interview for the "Alternative Press" magazine last month. Formed in 1998, the band's line-up consists entirely of Christian members, and their religion greatly influenced their music and lives. Currently, this is the band line-up, for those who might be interested:

Spencer Chamberlain - screamed vocals, additional guitars
Tim McTague – lead guitar, backing vocals
James Smith – rhythm guitar
Christ Dudley – keyboards/synthesizers
Grant Brandell - bass guitar
Aaron Gillespie - drums, clean vocals

The interview was about how the band coped with a very difficult period, when they were touring in 2006. For a period of time, Spencer, the lead vocalist of Underoath, was wrestingly with a very serious cocaine addiction. Finally, looking for help, he broke down and told his bandmates about his problem. Instead of giving him a helping hand, his bandmates - who usually limit their partying to beer and junk food, and would barely curse - turned their back on him, and some of the more millitant members even decided that they do not want Spencer in their band anymore.

This is characteristic of "groupthink", in which people who are deeply involved in a cohesive group strive for unanimity, and override their motivation to look for alternative courses of action. Being an all-Christian band, their religion has played a strong part in their group identity. Probably having a shared stereotype against drug abusers; they could not accept that Spencer is a concaine addict, and he became an outcast. Even worse is the band's pressure on dissenters; they also find it hard to accept that Spencer is different from them...so much so that they could not see that he was reaching out for help from them.

In the interview, Spencer said that "the most fear you could ever have is when you reach out to someone for help, and they leave you in the shadows and turn their back on you." This quote says so much about how Spencer felt at that time, and even up till now.

Thankfully, the band finally realised their mistake, and became aware of what they are doing to Spencer (although they also attributed their change to God). However, such incidents are hard to get over, and Spencer still suffers from the backlash he received from his bandmates.

Underoath is a band that takes themselves very seriously; if they see their standards being compromised, they do not always act in a positive way, as evidenced from Spencer's incident. Personally, I would think that they are too uptight for my liking. Every group has norms that members should keep in mind of in order to gain support from other members. However, Spencer failed to stay within those boundaries. Should he be condemned though? Like any other forms of communication, problems can be solved through effective group interaction. In this case, the members of Underoath took time off to reconnect with each other, and went for a holiday trip.

I am a huge fan of Underoath's music and they are definitely one of my favourite bands. However, this liking only extends to their music; I do not like them much as people. It is not wrong to have high expectations of each other, but to me, they are blinded to their own friend's call for help. What happened to looking out for your friend? They also have stands on other issues that I do not agree with, but that is another topic for another day.

Entry #4

Does anyone watch "The Class" on Channel 5? (Yes I don't have cable and have to resort to Channel 5 screening shows after midnight-DO THEY THINK I DON'T HAVE SCHOOL THE NEXT DAY?) Because it is one of the most hilarious shows in the world, and it does NOT have a sequel. Can you believe it? It has the potential to be as popular as "Friends" in my opinion (the creators of this series is the same creators that bring us "Friends") and Lizzy Caplan (first female on the front row from the left) is the coolest and the funniest actress in the entire series. Too bad it lasted only one season, to be replaced by another comedy series which is probably not as funny.

Anyway, "The Class" ended its run on Channel 5 last Tuesday on a cliff-hanger, and I am devastated to say that there is no ending to it. The show is basically about how a group of people is brought together by a former classmate, Ethan Haas (protrayed by Jason Ritter, the guy in blue on the first row) who wanted to celebrate his engagement to a girl he met in the class. However, the girl dumped him in front of the entire class. Slowly, the rest of the class got to know each other.




One pair of friends, in particular, caught my attention. Ethan and Kat are both very different individuals. Ethan is quite the sensitive romantic (as you can see from how he wanted to surprise his ex-fiancee with the class reunion), whereas Kat is the cynical, sacarstic girl who seemed oddly attracted to him. They formed an unlikely friendship based on their dissimilarity; in a way, they compliment each other perfectly. They started becoming close friends after their first meeting at the class reunion, and although Kat would hate to admit it, she really likes Ethan. In various episodes after this, she spends time together with Ethan, and eventually looks to him for comfort after she broke up with her boyfriend. Ethan obviously enjoys her company too, and formed their friendship based on this reprocity as well.

Ethan also becomes good friends with another guy named Kyle (the first guy from the right on the first row of the picture). Both of them become friends, probably due to their similar interests (they play racket ball together quite often).

Personally, I love how the show protrays the relationship between the characters. All the characters in the show are hilarious, and they managed to weave a bit of drama into these humour. The most touching scene in the entire series is when two of the characters reconciled after a setback in their relationship.

What happens in the end? No one knows. (NO THANKS TO CBS, WHO TOOK THE SHOW OFF THEIR CHANNEL.) Fans of the show campaigned for the show not to be taken off-air, but their prayers are not answered. I highly doubt that they will revive this show, as the actors for this series have already moved on to other projects. :(

Do you have any experiences in which your favourite show is taken off-air? Or when a horrible series is constantly renewed for new seasons? (i.e: the stupid, stupid "My Sassy Neighbour" show starring Patricia Mok. The show makes me hate her and it keeps having new seasons.) If you do, please elaborate why and hand it up on this post with a minimum word requirement of 5546214783 words, to be handed in latest by next week, Saturday afternoon at 1 pm. I'm just kidding.

Entry #3

This is a little NSFW, but nothing outright pornographic. This is one part of Levi's new advertising campaign, "Live Unbuttoned", called "Secrets and Lies". It is shown in Singapore on Channel 5, but only after around 11 pm and after midnight since it is incredibly good to look at, and because it is a rather steamy advertisement.
In this ad, two teenagers are confessing the truth about themselves before they decided to do the sacred act of fornicating with each other...in someone else's house.

Levi's is getting more and more blatant with their advertisements these days. This is obviously screaming "Wear Levi's Jeans, and you will get laid." Look at their body language; they are obviously eager to get it done, as you can see that they are happily unbuttoning their jeans as they go up the inviting, dark alley. Plus, in terms of their vocal nonverbal cues, the laboured, breathy panting of the two teenagers suggest that they need to satisfy their primitive urges. They maintained their eye contact throughout the entire advertisement, as they walk up the stairs to the house, and never once broke the eye contact they shared with each other. Phyiscally, they are very much in touch with each other, and in terms of proximity, they keep a very close, intimate distance that shows that they are clearly comfortable in each other's presense. All these nonverbal cues obviously shows that they want to perform the sacred act of fornicating with each other.

The twist in this advertisement, is that right before they perform this very act, they were basically telling each other that they have lied about themselves. The guy said, "I'm not really in a band," (Actually I heard "I'm not really a man," but well, I think I heard wrong) and the girl replied, "I don't really work for a label." The lies go so far as to the girl finally confessing that she did not invite him to her house to have that sort of fun; that was not her house at all.

Aren't this kind of confessions normally declared (or not at all) after you do the act? You probably will not want to talk about this kind of things before you do it, since it could deter the other person from wanting to fornicate with you. The reasons seem obvious enough; he or she might not be impressed with you, or even turned off by how you lied to him or her, therefore leading to the possibly of not having any sexual relations.

However, because the two teenagers are wearing the amazing Levi's Jeans, nothing can possibly go wrong, can they? I think you could be telling your partner, "I have this disease in which blisters grow and burst within seconds, all over my skin.", and she might reply, "I love seeing blisters growing and bursting within seconds, it is incredibly attractive." Levi's Jeans are amazing, the ad says. It does not matter what you were lying to your partner about previously; as long as you wear Levi's Jeans, you will get what you want, including the opportunity to fornicate with attractive people.

This advertisement works well. Sex in advertisments will always garner attention, whether you agree with it or not, and this one is no exception. It might backfire on Levi's, if their target audience finds it offensive, or it might influence them to get the jeans or even change the way they live their lives. Obviously, Levi's finds that it is worth the risk. Although I think that this advertisement is effective, I did not think that it is ethical. This is very blatantly promoting sexual promiscuity. If advertisements like this is shown rampantly, sexual promiscuity will not only seem acceptable, but even necessary. In the end, it is up to the viewers to be critical about what they see on the media and not take the advertisement, or any advertisements, at face value.

I will still buy Levi's Jeans though.

Entry #2

(First off, a HUGE thank you to all who had commented on my first entry, it was very encouraging. :) Please please please continue to do so for the rest of my entries if possible, and for those mysterious folks, could it be possible to let me know who you are? Because it keeps me awake at night, wondering who helped me. Thanks again so so much, I really appreciate it, and will continue to send good luck and karma along your way.)

Today, my post will be based on the article, "Pretty Scary" (Or "Busy Body", based on the cover of the papers), the "Mind Your Body" section of the Straits Times, dated September 11, 2008.

This article is about piercings, be it facial piercings or body piercings. According to the article, teenagers are into facial and body piercing because it is cool and trendy. However, doctors adviced against having too many piercings because the risk of infection will be high, whenever foreign objects (be it rings, tattoos and even eyelash implants) are introduced under the skin's surface. They also advices us on how to care for our piercings.

The reporter who wrote this article obviously has her own interpretation on piercings. She interviewed several teenagers, and even had a seperate interview on a 21 year-old young adult (the adult as seen on the picture above) about his feelings on piercings. Her conclusion? Teenagers love piercings, and do not think of the long term effects of piercings. Perhaps it is her past experience with meeting teenagers with piercings, or perhaps there is a cultural difference in which people with multiple piercings are seen in a different light.

However, is it fair for her to say that? How many teenagers did this reporter interview and quote in this article? I did a check and found out that it is a grand total of three, including the young adult on the cover. Suffice to say, she really does make a lot of teenagers with piercings sound like mindless young sheeps who are just blindly following the trend of having multiple piercings because it seems "cool".

Firstly, I would like to introduce the definition of perception: It is the process of selecting, organising and intepreting information to make sense of the world around us. One factor that affects the selection process is the mass media (i.e.: the newspaper from which this article originates). This article labels most teenagers with piercings as people who rush into decisions without consideration for their future; as one psychiatrist said, "...don't care about how their body modifications affect their future job prospects or how people view them..."

Imagine the horror of some parents after they read this article, and they have their own children coming up to them, asking them if they can have their ears, nose or lips pierced. How would you feel, if you're the parent?

Imagine if you are the owner of a huge company, and you saw someone with piercings come for a job interview. After reading the article, you might associate people with piercings as people who do not care about the long term effect, or consequences of what they do. Would you employ such a person? Of course, I am not saying that everyone are influenced so easily like that, but many people are, to a certain extent, definitely influenced by the mass media and the environment around them.

I myself have a very, very few number of piercings on my ears, and I can understand why teenagers want to pierce their body parts: some enjoy the pain, some wants to know how painful the process of piercing is, for the sake of experience, and some are just plain vain. Some piercings could even be symbolic. Personally it is more of an experience, and of course for vanity's sake too, but I definitely do think of the consequences of doing such things on my body. I did consider that I might grow out of those piercings one day, and if I do, I know that the piercings done on my ears are reversible and they will simply heal over time, if I do care for them properly. Unfortunately, tattoos, unlike piercings, are mostly irreversible, and that is why I have not, and will not, in the near future, doddle a dragon on my forehead.

There could be a possiblity that what the reporter was trying to convey was different from what I have interpreted; I could be overly-defensive. Language and words can be subjected to miscommunication. They are very arbitrary; subject to the individual's judgement. There could be multiple interpretations to what this reporter has to say about piercings in general; perhaps she sincerely cares for people with piercings and wishes to convey her well wishes to them, by telling them how to care for their piercings. Perhaps she wants to point out to the general public that people with piercings are just teenagers who are into following the latest trends, and there is nothing particularly intimidating about them. There could even be distortions of the words used in the article, that I have misinterpreted due to the different reference groups that the reporter and I have believe in. I could be a great believer in the therapeutic effects of body piercings, for example, and the reporter could believe that body piercings is never healthy for anyone.

Such things are barriers to communications, and in order to eliminate such barriers, both of us should engage in perceptive checking frequently.

In short, I do not agree with the way she has written this article, and I feel that it was unfairly written. If she has interivewed more teenagers, or done a survey, I could be more convinced.

Entry #1

I read an article on the Straits Times on Saturday, (6 September 2008) about transsexuals in Singapore. The article is basically about transsexuals in Singapore, common misconceptions about them, and how they face prejudice in their jobs and even among their own family and friends.

The common misconceptions about transsexuals are that they are mostly sex workers or prostitutes, working near Changi Village and Desker Road, when in fact many of them hold respectable jobs in law or engineering. Ignorance of transsexuality also leads people to think that transsexualism is a sexual perversion, when in fact, it's actually a medical condition.

Everyone perceive our surroundings and our experience differently, and social and psychological factors such as the individual experiences and even the culture of our society can shape our perception. In this case, transsexuality is a rather taboo topic in Singapore, and many people would think that it's embarrassing to have a transsexual in the family. There is one incident in which a woman was told by her father not to go for the sex change, or face being disowned by her family. In the end, the woman went for the sex operation in Bangkok without her family's blessings, and is now a man. Such incidents are not rare; almost all the transsexuals interviewed face hostility from their family members.

As part of the mass media, the newspaper could be one of the influences of our selection of information in our environment. I hope that it could educate and communicate to the general public about the misconception that most people have about transsexuals, and communicate to them that transsexuals are not that much different from the rest of us. Their confusion and suffering is something that not many of us can understand or even identify with, and their pain could be further compounded by how others hurt them with their stereotypical views of transsexuals. Someone named Javier started an online petition for SBS transit to ban transsexuals on buses. Imagine how transsexuals will feel if such a petition was taken into consideration by the authorities! It would only bring more pain, and the stigma against transsexuals will still prevail.

It is very heartwarming, on the other hand to hear that some people are ready to accept transsexuals into their lives. In one case, a young daughter of only 10 years old was ready to accept that her father wanted to go for a sex change. Her explaination was simple, yet very mature for someone her age; she replied that no matter how her father looks like physically, he will always be her father. Her perception was probably influenced by her social network, who is her family. Her mother, who is the man's ex-wife, was intially upset with the change. However, she joined sgbutterfly, an online community for the transgenders in Singapore, to try to understand the situation. This, I feel, is very commendable.

(I hope this is alright for a first post!)