I refer to the two articles on a reporter pretending to be a 13 years old girl and entering chat rooms to lure and expose the private and sexual tendencies of Singaporean men. The two articles are "Indecent Proposals : You're 13? What's your bust size?" dated May 6 and "Basketball coach sacked after Sunday Times report" dated May 13th.
There are many perspectives to this issue, however for the purpose of this reflection I shall be touching on very pertinent and shocking issue. The whole idea of freedom of choice and the media's responsibility.
While many are still grim at the shocking revealation of the sexual tendecies of men in Singapore and glad that the school has sacked him to prevent their students from further hurt. However, I am here to offer another view point, the one from an outsider and the man himself.
While I acknowledge the fact that all the reporter wanted to do was to expose the sexual tendencies of men in Singapore, what the media has done is not very tactful and clever in my opinion. Let's look at what the media has done. It has first intruded into the privacy of others, then caused a person to be sacked over things that he does in his free time. Though the press has good intentions to show the public something "interesting" and controversial, it has perhaps stepped out of the boundaries by impersonating a character just to expose misdeeds. On one hand they wish to show how "immoral" some Singaporeans can be, yet on the other hand, it has just sent the message out to the public that they have put themselves in the limelight for the wrong reason. They have just stoop as low as these ugly Singaporeans by impersonating a person. The press justifies it by saying it needs to show young girls that there are such sexual predators over the internet and they should be careful. However, I feel that if you do really want to prove such a point and educate these girls, you can use a toolbox of measures, just not stooping so low. The toolbox of measures can be anything from sexuality education to teacher-to-student counselling, just not something like this that put the educators themselves in a bad light.
I feel that though the media has very benelovant and righteous reasons to justify the way it acted, it does not have the right to intrude into people's privacy and cause them their jobs. On one hand, I acknowledge that the media wants to publicise such "immoral" acts. However, when we really come to think of it, is the paedophilic nature of Singaporeans wrong? No doubt the law says statutory rape is forbidden, however, what these Singaporeans do over the internet is entirely their own business. Nothing is wrong to invite a girl of whatever age out no matter what the intention is. This is substantiated by criminal lawyer Sunil Sudheesan. Therefore, if a man wants to date a girl out, it is up to the discretion of the girl to decide. Therefore, the root of the problem is to make sure girls are not being tricked so easily, but the means to this end is wrong in the case of the media.
To conclude, I feel that however good intentions the press might have, there is no reason whatsoever to intrude into people's privacy and cause them their livelihood when they have not shown any tendency whatsoever to be paedophilic during working hours. Doing all these just to attract the public and hide under the facade of " exposing Singaporean man for who they are " is not the right thing to do.
There are many perspectives to this issue, however for the purpose of this reflection I shall be touching on very pertinent and shocking issue. The whole idea of freedom of choice and the media's responsibility.
While many are still grim at the shocking revealation of the sexual tendecies of men in Singapore and glad that the school has sacked him to prevent their students from further hurt. However, I am here to offer another view point, the one from an outsider and the man himself.
While I acknowledge the fact that all the reporter wanted to do was to expose the sexual tendencies of men in Singapore, what the media has done is not very tactful and clever in my opinion. Let's look at what the media has done. It has first intruded into the privacy of others, then caused a person to be sacked over things that he does in his free time. Though the press has good intentions to show the public something "interesting" and controversial, it has perhaps stepped out of the boundaries by impersonating a character just to expose misdeeds. On one hand they wish to show how "immoral" some Singaporeans can be, yet on the other hand, it has just sent the message out to the public that they have put themselves in the limelight for the wrong reason. They have just stoop as low as these ugly Singaporeans by impersonating a person. The press justifies it by saying it needs to show young girls that there are such sexual predators over the internet and they should be careful. However, I feel that if you do really want to prove such a point and educate these girls, you can use a toolbox of measures, just not stooping so low. The toolbox of measures can be anything from sexuality education to teacher-to-student counselling, just not something like this that put the educators themselves in a bad light.
I feel that though the media has very benelovant and righteous reasons to justify the way it acted, it does not have the right to intrude into people's privacy and cause them their jobs. On one hand, I acknowledge that the media wants to publicise such "immoral" acts. However, when we really come to think of it, is the paedophilic nature of Singaporeans wrong? No doubt the law says statutory rape is forbidden, however, what these Singaporeans do over the internet is entirely their own business. Nothing is wrong to invite a girl of whatever age out no matter what the intention is. This is substantiated by criminal lawyer Sunil Sudheesan. Therefore, if a man wants to date a girl out, it is up to the discretion of the girl to decide. Therefore, the root of the problem is to make sure girls are not being tricked so easily, but the means to this end is wrong in the case of the media.
To conclude, I feel that however good intentions the press might have, there is no reason whatsoever to intrude into people's privacy and cause them their livelihood when they have not shown any tendency whatsoever to be paedophilic during working hours. Doing all these just to attract the public and hide under the facade of " exposing Singaporean man for who they are " is not the right thing to do.
posted by m.c.h.i.a. at 5:12 AM
<< Home