The P65 Blog

I have never bought the argument that beauty queens are representatives of a nation. In this age of increasing superficiality I find something unsettling about skin-deep beauty in and of itself being celebrated as an achievement – which is what is actually happening in these competitions regardless of the marketing buzz that attempts to make them appear more than that. The very idea of a “competition” for beauty is a bit of an oxymoron in my view – and the nature of most such competitions is more like a titillating spectacle to cater to the rather less fine instincts of viewing kind – as the most popular section of the contests clearly demonstrates. The adding of a final “question” round in some competitions doesn’t really help except in providing some participants opportunity to handily stuff their feet in their mouths – as a quick check on youtube would readily show. I am not at all surprised the local competition was taken off TV this year. It had finally exhausted Singaporeans rather generous tolerance of sub-par programs.

However since the organizers of such competitions would like to portray the competitions and participants as worthwhile activities and role models, respectively, it is interesting to note that a basic background check was not, it seems, conducted for the current Miss Singapore World who, it turns out had been convicted of credit card fraud prior to the competition.

According to the Straits Times (Page A3, September 26th), over a two-month period last year she spent almost $8000 on 7 credit cards stolen from customers of a clinic where she was an assistant.

Frankly, if this is true, it is a big deal. I really do not think it can by any stretch of the imagination be called a “moment of folly”, that you can be let off with a slap on the wrist. That’s a two-month long moment!

Given what I have read about her, I am not surprised she has refused to give up her “crown” out of simple decency given that she’s clearly not the role model that she ought to be to inspire other young girls. The behaviour displayed is clearly more selfish than selfless. So what kind of role model are we talking about here? Perhaps this is the kind of cheap consumerist behaviour (buying $8000 worth of stuff on debt – someone else’s debt!) that is to be encouraged to make the consumer-driven economy prosper…!

I am more surprised by the reported behaviour of ERM World Marketing, organizers of the pageant, which seems to be reacting very slowly to this revelation (which it really should have caught before the competition), and which apparently responded to the ST’s queries with the line “Singaporeans did not pay for her”.

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

Weren’t they the ones that were touting this is a “national” pageant, something that Singaporeans should accept and support? I guess the minimum required in such a case is to have a product that can be accepted and supported. A pageant winner who’s a convicted cheat is not really something acceptable or supportable.

If they can’t recognized that, and take rapid action to salvage their position, I guess the sponsors, who did “pay for her” will have something to say about next year’s “national pageant”.

I wonder who is going to organize that – and really – if this is the state of affairs, why bother having one anyway?

I was chatting with a friend today and while discussing about getting more people to make their contributions to the community, I learnt that people with past convictions may not get a chance to join certain grassroots committees. I don’t have the full details, but from the little I understand, there are filters to ensure only those who have no prior records get to hold official appointments – even if these positions are voluntary, and for serving the community. I’m sure there is a good reason why there are such screenings or filters in place, but surely a person who had run foul of the law before – and had already paid the price – can still make contributions to the community in an official capacity, and be recognised even with just an official appointment? Or is grassroots community service reserved only for the picture-perfect citizen?

As can be guessed, I just watched the film. Somehow the publicity material lead me to believe that the film would be something campy, funny, witty and violent – but in the quintessential Tarantino way – and I am a big fan – so I was looking forward to a lot of wry smiles and chuckles.

I must have lost my sense of humour.

I didn’t find the film funny. Not in the least. Except for a few seconds here and there where I managed a smile, it was dead serious, heart stoppingly tense and unbelievably disturbing. And I don’t mean just the very realistic graphic violence – I think it is good for audience to see real stomach churning graphic violence and learn that it is very different from the stylized video game kitsch that youth have grown de-sensitised to – but the more disturbing larger issues it brought up.

Is the kind of mutilating violence that Lt. Aldo Raine demands his Jewish brigade inflict upon the Wermacht justified, or even justifiable – even considering the execrable horrors visited upon the Jews by the SS? The “take no prisoners” situation is understandable in a fierce engagement – perhaps the emotion at losing your own men is so overwhelming that one loses control and murders the surviving enemy in a fit of passion. But as a calculated strategy from the outset it is very hard to justify. It is a film, of course, and set in an alternate reality – but I think the questions are real. Violence for the sake of violence…? Not exactly a kosher message in todays world, and it’s not very tasteful to pass it off as justifiable because the victims were Germans. Several officers and soldiers in the Wermacht were normal men – even good men who happened to be in the armed forces of a country taken over by a madman. Soldiers like Karl Donitz, and Hanz Guderian, and Erwin Rommel – decorated warriors and decent, even noble, men who Allied commanders spoke up for (Donitz was saved from the Soviet insistence he be hanged as a war criminal by Allied commanders who refused to see such a miscarriage of justice) . Soldiers like Capt. Wilm Hosenfeld (shown in the Pianist) and Claus Von Stuffenberg (shown in Valkyrie) – both actual figures who clearly did not go along with the Nazi dogma – and both who suffered and died in the real world for their pains. The caricature that every German soldier deserved to be scalped is worryingly simplistic. Reality is so much more complicated than that and pre-meditated mindless violence that Aldo Raine intends reminds me in fact, more than anything, of the Taliban with their credo that every infidel is their enemy.

One scene that sears my mind is the one where Sgt. Werner Rachtman (played with haunting brilliance by Richard Sammel), unarmed and surrounded by the basterds, is threatened and taunted by Raine. Knowing that he faces a brutal death he still looks Raine right in the eye and betraying not a shred of fear refuses to give away the position of his compatriots. Raine asks him what he got his medal for – and with utter calm he replies, “For Bravery”. The fact that the soldier before him is clearly is a man of dignity and courage seems to make not one iota of difference to Raine. The shot where Rachtman, completely composed, looks up at the loutish Sgt Donny Donnovitz as he lines the baseball bat up with his head made me cringe. And what followed was a horrifyingly graphic murder of an unarmed kneeling man by victor wielding a baseball bat, who ends it chanting baseball cheer over his victims body and is, revoltingly, applauded by his comrades.

And many in the audience laughed.

Is that the message that we’re sending out in such films then? That its not just ok, but entertaining, to bash in the head of a kneeling prisoner? That a brave and dignified man deserves to be butchered just because he was wearing the wrong uniform? I sure hope Tarantino did not intend that message. I hope he was asking the question not answering it. As far as I am concerned, Sgt. Rachtman was the hero of that encounter and the basterds looked no better than cowardly back alley gangsters.

The film is, undoubtedly, brilliantly written (for the most part). The tension was electric almost throughout, explosively broken in places by the furious mayhem of sudden, bewilderingly realistic armed violence – most vividly in the basement bar scene. Christolph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa was a virtuoso performance and I can understand Tarantino worrying about the role – the part was indeed almost unplayable and it is almost unbelievable how real Woltz makes Landa. The story of the luckless yet earnest Frederick Zoller and tragic Soshanna within the larger plot was both heartwarming and heartwrenching, and the way the film moved inexorably to its climax had me on tenterhooks.

The end, though was a bit of a let down in its simplicity and brought back the disturbing question of mindless violence as a solution. What had heightened the tension for me of course was the fact that in reality Hitler did not die in Paris, and I thought the more interesting challenge would have been to how to meld the fiction back into the fact – how to have the plot fail realistically. Creating a fantasy ending where all the bad guys get blown up even though the plan has gone completely haywire (well at least the basterds’ plan) seemed a little weak to me. And then there’s the same question that lynching of Sgt. Rachtman raised earlier – in an already de-sensitised world are we saying the ideal solution to our problems is to simply pack in all the bad guys into a room and blow it up? It is a film, no doubt, but subliminal messages are still potent, and it disturbs me to see that such simplistic, and in some places distasteful messages are masquerading as “fun” entertainment.

I just hope the film brought the same discomfort and questions to more people, and those who have seen it did not just find it “good clean fun”.

I didn’t think it was funny at all.

One of my heroes – if only he actually existed – would be Captain Jack Sparrow formerly of the Black Pearl. (That might say something about my inclination to kowtow “stoogily” to authority).

I think his take on rules was very perceptive (ignoring the little detail that he’s fictitious and the line was written by a screenwriter).

“There are only two rules – what a man can do and what a man can’t do.”

In the context of a blog I believe it would translate thus – what a man can write and what a man can’t write.

Now, of course one can write anything. Gibberish, profanity, libel, vituperative diatribe, irrelevant rants – they all come within the compass of what one can write. For something constructive to come of any exercise in debating difference of opinion, however, it just makes common sense to engage the questions raised, debate the issues and not descend into personal attacks, name-calling and irrelevant flaming. Such a discussion gets nowhere and benefits no one but those who get a twisted catharsis from cyber-violence to exorcise their own frustrations and inner demons – and who should be seeing a psychologist instead of harbouring pretentions to intelligent debate.

For those who wish not to pretend but actually engage in a meaningful, if robust, debate on values, issues, and policy, it follows therefore, that a code of conduct be somewhat followed.

This is not prescriptive, mind you, but just a few thoughts that seem pertinent – and that we as the p65 bloggers feel it would be well worth all readers here to know, so that our engagement, our words and our actions are not misconstrued.

As far as possible, we wish the site to be free and let everyone post whatever comments they wish in response to our posts. If, however, there are comments that are judged by us to be possibly defamatory, seditious or otherwise contrary to the law, we reserve the right to remove them forthwith – not only because they destroy decent debate but also because we do not want to run the risk of being associated with something of that nature, given Singapore’s very strong laws regarding such matters. Abusive language, threats and profanity will also be treated such, as will any sort of spamming – repeated posts of great length and no relevance or pure gibberish being posted and reposted to the site. I think there should not be much of an issue with this.

As for personal attacks and name-calling – generally such attacks reflect on the attacker far more than the subject, but if it gets to the level where it is offensive to a reasonable reader and hijacks the discussion from the question at hand to one of malicious personal attack and defence, then such posts too will be deleted. This is a forum for debate, not a market for a shouting match.

If a post is not deleted it may still be ignored by the blogger if he/she thinks that it is not relevant, the commentator is repeating himself even after the issue has been addressed as far as the blogger thinks it reasonable, the debate has become tiresome or at cross-purposes with no resolution attainable or any similar reason. Bloggers will try to respond as far as possible but in some cases it just doesn’t make sense to continue a pointless debate. Such silence should not be immediately construed high-handedness. Not everything has to be responded to.

In the almost one month we have been active, we have endeavoured to stay as hands off as possible, but in some cases this has encouraged behaviour that is less than reputable and there comes a time when we have to take a stand and prevent this site from sliding down the slope from genuine debate to farcical fracas or interminable ding-donging.

Going forward, we will look to keeping the site within “the code” while still being as hands off as possible.

As Capt Barbossa noted – the code is not a set of rules but more in the nature of guidelines.

We hope that netizens will exercise enough netiquette that we will not need to enforce the code too strictly

“My daughter and the team discovered that the national team from New Zealand which took part in the same championships was sponsored – by Singapore Airlines.”

I won’t lie or hide the fact that I felt disappointed and my instinctive reaction was to say that it was unfair for SIA to support another team.

On second thoughts, Singapore Airlines shouldn’t be blamed for not being approached to be a sponsor. Afterall, they have a larger picture of local initiatives other than just sports they would like to support and that they do support- nevertheless, I’d prefer that if SIA supported anyone, it would be a local team. I can’t imagine the feeling if I represented my country in a foreign country to find my own carrier (despite the fact that it was a foreign office that supported the team) decided to support a foreign team.

My point is really to consider the situation of the rowers in the dragon boat team. I cannot believe how the system has not been sufficiently pro-active at helping their star representatives in getting sponsorships or funding. It is a shame that we let our rowers go through these ways of raising funds to carry out their interests when we should be part of the encouragement.  In the long term, this could inevitably inhibit good talent from pursuing their passions and systematically discourage sportsmen in general.

With all this said and done, running an organisation such as the Sports Council is not an easy feat, and  it could possible to say that it is as complex as running a Multi-national company with objectives and limitations. However, what matters is how our support system for sportsmen, especially those who need aid have let people slip through the cracks and how we may have left sportsmen to fend for themselves. A situation such as Mr Tan’s daughter is absolutely unnecessary.

It is understandable that we may lack the funds to help everyone, but why can’t we help those in dire need for funding and put in place a support system that could help source out sponsors or funding for them?  It is only correct to assume that for youth who were able to comfortably afford their own expenses should contribute to their own bills, but help should be provided for good talent that do not have the means to support their sport interests/careers. The price of going the extra mile to seek support for these individuals is nothing compared to the opportunity cost of such talent missing a competition.

Despite SDBA’s ability to boaster other sponsors such as Singapore Pools and the Singapore Tourism Board, this case proves that our attempts at developing our own sporting talents are limited. Perhaps the support mechanism for developing our sportsmen can do more.

—My admiration goes out to Mr Tan’s daughter for her tenacity in pursing her passion in Dragon Boat despite the odds.

I read journalist Terrence Voon’s blog article on straitstimes.com about how the SIA sponsored the New Zealand team at the recent World Dragon Boat Championship instead of the Singapore team, which subsequently caused a furore.

The article and the comments that it attracted made me realise once again that sometimes, it’s hard to separate the objectivity of business from the subjectivity of people’s perception and emotions.

State-owned or state-related businesses, like SIA, carry the national flag, and evoke a sense of nationalism. It is thus understandable why Singaporeans get upset seeing the SIA logo on a foreign team’s blazer, and not on our own.

I’m sure SIA has their valid reasons. But where national identity, pride and emotions are concerned, reasons (especially commercial ones) alone may not be sufficient.

Though I still like to think that sports sponsorship is a commercial decision, I believe that companies whose branding is synonymous with the state’s branding, must consider more than just Returns Of Investment.

Or face the awkwardness of managing a public relations crisis.

Hi all,

Sorry to have been silent for a while – have been travelling. I wrote this for the Straits Times and The Malaysian Insider has lifted the article. This was in response to former Malaysian Minister for Information, Zainuddin Maidin’s article in Utusan Malaysia.

Here it is:

Proud to be a Malay Singaporean by Khartini Khalid

History is no teacher by Zainuddin Maidin

2 weeks ago marked the start of the holy month of Ramadan, in which Muslims all over the world start their fast. This is the month in which the first verses of the Qur’an were revealed.

I managed to catch a speech by President Obama in which he addressed the Muslim world and wished them a blessed holy month of Ramadan. I was most impressed with this gesture of reconciliation as it was his second gesture after his maiden speech in Cairo to the Muslim world.

I remember during the Bush administration, they tried to no avail in winning the war on terror. Furthermore their campaign to win the hearts and minds of the citizens both in Iraq and Afghanistan gleaned limited success.

This has been a huge contrast in approaches for bridging the divide, and it set me thinking about the divide in Singapore. Specifically the age divide.

During my free time, i have been catching Korean drama serials to de-stress, and one of the things that struck me was the culture of honour and respect exemplified in the way they related to their superiors or seniors. This portrayal through body language, actions such as bowing and even formal and informal language in the Korean language really impressed me.

I am saddened when i have my meals at hawker centers and i see the elderly clearing up the plates or peddling packets of tissue. Although some do it by choice rather than need, the thought of their children being too busy to care for or about them breaks my heart.

Perhaps this is the reason why couples dont want to have children, perhaps they are afraid the same plight may befall them whence they get old. Why is there such a stark chasm in between the respect and honour given to a younger person (simply because they are more productive at work?) compared to the old?

Instead of investing so much in having baby bonuses or active aging, why not we channel some of these funds into inculcating this culture of honour and respect back into the roots of our society?

I found out that after spending time with my grandmother this holidays, not only did she feel appreciated and loved, she was able to pass on her wealth of experience and knowledge, successes and failures on to me as well. Such acts through honouring and respecting the old gives them a sense of purpose and belonging as well.

I feel that such a integrative approach where the generations join hands deals with many issues our country is facing. It is a worthy investment, rather than alleviate the symptoms or so we say treat the sneeze when it happens (healthcare, aged homes, living off the streets, lack of babies, public assistance) why not treat the root and prevent any deterioration?

Yes its true there might other differentials when looking at this and perhaps this is just one of the many possible roots, but i strongly feel that this culture of giving respect and honour where it is due and sometimes not due will transcend both family and even workplace.

The fruits of this planted seed will be something we will enjoy when we grow old and our children will benefit from in society. And like every seed sown, constant watering and taking care of the plant is essential.

Mahatma Ghandi said, “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” I propose that this value of honour and respect is the key to bridging the gap in our society. The key to a more effective and productive workforce, the key to families wanting to have more children, the key to our old being taken care off and many other tangible benefits.

What say you?

I was recently sent an article that discussed the issue of bright Singaporeans who study overseas and decide not to return to Singapore: http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=267510&sid=c4f5835108db7b282831f44c4067ac06

The article focused on Singaporeans in places such as the US and the UK and the much larger variety of jobs that they had the opportunity to access once there, including many that offered substantially higher starting salaries than what is available in Singapore. 

Reading the interviews of the students brought back memories of my own university days at Cambridge, and the comments in the article certainly echoed the sentiments of many of my friends in university.

 A.  The Greener Pastures

University is a wonderful time in life.  For many of us, it was the first time we were living on our own, old enough to make our own decisions and live life in the way we like, yet young enough to believe that the world was our oyster.  We could be full of hopes and dreams and still believe that we could make those dreams come true. 

For a small country like Singapore, we had a disproportionately large representation at Cambridge.  I believe there were some 200 of us when I was there.  A good number were on scholarships from PSC and other bodies.  The Singaporeans were generally a hard working group, and this work ethic generally helped them do well in the university exams. 

Naturally, academic success opens many doors not just in Singapore but anywhere else in the world.  The good Singapore students in Cambridge, and other universities in the UK, found themselves on the receiving end of lucrative job offers in London, Europe and New York.  Often, these may be in industries or areas that have not reached the same level of development in Singapore and so there would be no equivalent opportunity back home. 

 I have many friends (including some very close ones) who have chosen to pursue their dreams abroad instead of coming back to Singapore.  A number of them are doing very well in their chosen fields.  I am extremely proud that people I had grown up with are able to do well in so many other parts of the world, including Europe, America, Australia and the Middle East.  I guess the immigrant spirit of their forefathers is still in their blood, helping them meet all the challenges in their new country.

 It has now been some years since I have graduated and interestingly, I am seeing a somewhat different pattern emerge too.  I keep running into many of the friends I had known who had initially started working abroad along Raffles Place and Orchard.  Some were just back for visits, but many had in fact chosen to relocate to Singapore.

They offered a wide variety of reasons for the relocation, but one common theme I picked up is that many missed the familiarity of home and the friends and family they had grown up with.  The more open ones mention that while they have no issues doing the work abroad, fitting in culturally was more difficult and they often felt like second class citizens.

 B.  When Disaster Strikes

 I recently met a young man who graduated from a top UK university a few years ago, just when the economic boom from 2004 to 2007 was taking off.  We met at a large social function, and although he had a smile on his face (like most others at the function), it struck me that there was a certain sadness behind this smile. 

We spoke and I found out that he started working in London with a plush job in the financial sector and then transferred to New York with an even better offer.  During the good years, he earned a great salary and enjoyed good bonuses.  However, when the financial crisis hit, he was one of the casualties and he lost his job. 

At this point, he suddenly found New York was a very lonely place.  He had gone there following the most lucrative opportunities, but when disaster struck, he was suddenly alone.  I’m guessing like many Singaporeans, he probably put work first and did not have the opportunity to build a large enough circle of friends in New York who may have been able to help him through this difficult period. 

 He had an education with all the right pedigree and I suspect that this was his first major setback in life.  Like most people who are down, he returned home to his friends and family here.  He also mentioned he rediscovered his faith in God, and compared his own story to the parable of the prodigal son who, after exploring the world, decided to return home.   I thought he may have been being a bit harsh with himself, since he hardly seemed like the reckless, extravagant sort.   

 He mentioned that the biggest challenge he faced in finding a job here was that he worked in such a specialized field of finance that the equivalent did not exist here.  Intellectually, he probably understood that he was a victim of ‘structural unemployment’, meaning that although there are jobs available, none of these jobs require his particular skills, but I am not sure if this made it any easier for him to cope emotionally. 

Personally, I think it is a wonderful thing that Singaporeans are able to hold their own and pursue their dreams in other parts of the world.  However, in doing so, they should be aware of the risks they take on as well as the usual challenges of fitting in with the new country and separation from home that any immigrant faces.   These risks are sometimes overlooked when one is a starry eyed young graduate. 

Happily, many of the Singaporeans I know continue to maintain their bridges to friends and family back in Singapore and I personally enjoy meeting my friends when they come back for visits.  Perhaps, one day they may decide to return to Singapore, with their new found skills and talents, to develop new sectors and opportunities in Singapore based on what they have learned abroad.

In this last week I’ve come across 2 very disturbing stories that really made me feel sick about the kind of cruelty children can inflict upon one another.

The first one was about a 5 year old girl who is battling cancer and was attacked by 2 boys who sprayed aerosol on her face and tried to set her alight….this was the second attack she had suffered.

The second one was about a 7 year old boy who was strung on a tree by a home-made noose by a group of slightly older boys.

Thankfully both these children’s lives were saved by timely intervention from passers-by.

After that feeling of sickness passed through me…I started getting really angry. I thought to myself, what is happening to the next generation that it seems acceptable to be carrying out acts of violence like these.

And yes trying to light a little girl on fire by spraying aerosol on her is not a game – it is an act of violence and if someone tells me that ‘oh they’re just kids who were having fun’ – i’d tell them to imagine if that little girl was your little sister, your daughter, your niece, your neighbour etc. You wouldn’t think that was funny would you.

It got me thinking about parenting styles and the issue of discipline.I’ll be honest, as a child I was smacked for misbehaving and yes the threat of the ‘rotan’ was the magic phrase that would get me and my brothers to stop misbehaving…..and the classic ‘you wait until your dad gets home’.

Modern parenting might view the ‘old school’ style as barbaric and a violation of the child’s rights..and god knows what else…at the end of the day my parents never did it in a cruel way nor was it abusive and last time I checked none of us ever thought hanging other kids using a home-made noose was a fun game and i’d like to think that all 4 of us have turned out to be fairly decent human beings.

I’m not saying beat your child senseless or anything along those lines – but at the end of the day when you take on the responsibility of becoming parents, you take on the responsibility of a child’s upbringing. You need to develop a parenting style that works best for you and your child. Some children just need a good talking to, for some a little rap with the ‘rotan’ might do wonders. Its important for children to understand that if you do something wrong, there will be consequences.

There’s now talk about how ’smacking your children’ might be banned by the authorities and I wonder if the ’state’ has a place in what happens in your home.

Could this ‘ban’ happen in Singapore sometime in the future?

What do you think?

*Note that this entry is based on UK press stories.