http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/294215/1/.html

The Singaporean Soul. To me, it has always been alive in us. Albeit sub conscious, everytime we use a casual singlish phrase, gulf down that plate of char kway teow, or even beat someone else to a queue, the Singaporean Soul is ever so present in us. This unique Singapore identity is alive and kicking, felt by the 4 million heartbeats of this little red dot, perhaps even more abroad.

Like all other spirits, like the Rafflesian Spirit, this spirit has been ever changing in its facade, yet the core values that we treasure deep down will never change. From 1964, when Singapore was first separated from Malaysia, the Singaporean Soul has already been present, from fighting communism as a nation, to the 1st general election, these are visible effects of the Singaporean Soul present in its citizen. All that has changed now is that the way in which we express the Singaporean Soul is different. With the Internet now, we show our kiasu spirit by refreshing many times so we get more entries into an online lucky draw or staying by our computer till it is 12am and the registration for NDP tickets are open.

The Singaporean Soul has always been under criticisms by many Singaporeans. Many claim that they are not contented with our identity. Yet more often than not, we are merely eating our own words. How often is it that we go overseas and we complain about how their facilities pale in comparison to ours, how their airport is never as clean as ours, how their cities are strewn with litters and there is a stench when they go the back alleys. This soul manifests itself in the form when we are able to walk smugly abroad, feeling proud that our garden city is so much better than the ground we are walking on.

However, certain aspects may be detrimental to us, or so they seem. The want to be always at the top. Some call it greed, others national interest. Whatever the case, what this has essentially done to Singapore is to make her so work-orientated that certain traditional values are slowly degenerating. Youngsters nowadays are so busy to even have time left for their family anymore. Even with the five day work week, many still have to return on Saturday to finish up leftover work that they are unable to complete throughout the week. Yet what have we seen in return. A global name of "garden city", a first class airport, a "fine" city. All these in exchange for the erosion of our Asian civilisation values. Good or bad, you make the choice.

At the end of the day, after weighing out the Singaporean Soul, I believe that it is this identity is the basis for our achievement. Without a rallying point for Singaporeans, we will then not be able to work together to create such a vibrant city with top acolytes. So the next time you wait eagerly in front of your desktop for midnight to strike before you can apply for NDP tickets online, chew on this

I refer to the article about a man who created a game indirectly immitating the South Korean killer Seng-Hui Cho following the Virginia Tech massacre.



The article can be found at :

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,130691,00.html



Reflection

In the humanities, we learn how to be humane. We learn how to at least empathize or give the minimal concern and respect we could to others. Should Mr Lambourn had learn any humanities at all, I say it has failed. Should he not, he doesn't even deserve to be human. His actions, backed with half baked justifications, failed to earn my respect at all.

The victims of the massacre have had a traumatic experience and deserve their break. Yet what has Mr Lambourn done? Not long after, while these victims are still trying to come to terms with what had happened, to hopefully recover from this psychological trauma, he comes out with a animated replica of what happen, all in the name of fun. Firstly, he does not respect others and secondly, he does not the respect the dead. Aside from the harm he has done to the living, he is now mocking the dead. Outrageous behaivour I say! Under the UN declaration of human rights, an individual can only exercise his freedoms and rights insofar as they do not cause harm to others of violates others rights. In this case, barring the second clause of violating others right, he has cause harm to the people in which he is affected by. Even if we apply utilitarian theory, he still has no right to post such a game online. His actions has caused numerous people world wide to suffer.

However, there a few points that he brought out that I feel is pertinent to society. Firstly, he said that our society only knows how to complain yet do not know how to to act. This is, in my opinion, true of our society. No doubt we do not love and do not accept many things that do no conform to social norms. Yet how many of us dare to stand up and speak out. Though he is right in proving this, I believe his method of doing so is flawed. Secondly, he talks about the whole idea of empathizing with Cho. Frankly speaking, when I first heard about the massacre and Cho's story, I was sympathetic to his cause. I had the experience of being bullied and could therefore understand his reason for action. Yet, though empathetic, I feel that Lambourn should again not have resorted to such inhumane act that can gain him a death sentence in the hearts and minds of others. Again, the toolbox of measures comes in handy. Lambourn could have used any other plausible and practical methods such as writing in forums, anything but this.

To conclude, I feel that Lambourn actions has highlighted certain key and pertinent issues in our society. What we need now is to chanage these issues and at the same time, keep people like Lambourn at bay and not let them take matters into their own hands.

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.

Report: 6-party talk may resume in February(AP)Updated: 2006-01-21 15:09
Six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear ambitions could resume as early as February, Japan's Kyodo News agency reported Saturday, citing a U.S. State Department official in Washington. However, both the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the Chinese Foreign Ministry said they could not confirm the report. China proposed the February date after Washington's top envoy to the talks met with his North Korean counterpart in Beijing last week, Kyodo quoted the U.S. official as saying on condition of anonymity. "I think that there was a suggestion. The Chinese had talked about early February," the official said, according to Kyodo's Washington bureau. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, speaking on customary condition of anonymity, said she had no information about the report. An official reached by phone at the Chinese Foreign Ministry said he had to check with other departments before commenting on the report. Pressure has been mounting on North Korea to return to the talks, which have been stalled since November. Pyongyang has refused to return to the negotiations unless Washington ends financial sanctions imposed over the North's alleged illegal activities. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill met North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan in Beijing on Wednesday, in an apparent effort to relaunch the talks. The meeting also came one day after the North's leader, Kim Jong Il, wrapped up a weeklong trip to China. In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters he was not aware of an agreement between parties to resume in February, but said the U.S. was ready to restart as soon as possible. "Well, if the date is in early February, we'll be ready and we'll be there," he said at a regular media briefing. "We would encourage, in particular, North Korea to resume the discussions without precondition," he said. The participants in the talks are the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia.

A leader who have just celebrated his birthday yesterday, a governmenet who rely on nothing but propaganda to push through its aims, a stubborn foreign minister who is incompetent at the 6 nation talk, a foregin regime trying to stop it from unleashing its "nuclear weapons" and a country full of starving people who would rather find their 3 meals rather than be filled with music proclaiming the country's goodness and a nation run by communism.

That's North Korea.

Is it the fault of Kim Jong II or the world at large? We have an incompetent, disiullusioned leader who wish to unify North and South Korea on one hand, and an equally inept foregin regime who after years of negotiation still not able to resolve a single issue with regards to North Korea. At the end of the day, who suffers? The deprived and starving citizens of North Korea.

Let's talk about Kim Jong II. His ideology of unifying the two Koreas into one failing terribly yet he is unwavering in his belief. Withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in January 2003 caused another big hoo haa in the world with the US accusing it of creating nuclear bombs. His people are starving and dying, all he does is to inject more songs at train station into the deprived minds of his citizens. Being a leader, does it mean we continue in what we believe in even though our people tells us otherwise? I believe that a leader, however hard it may be, must back down, eat the humble pie when the people he is serving are constantly giving him hints that he is wrong. On a seperate matter, what is he thinking when he set up the Uranium programme when the country is poor and pleading. He would rather spend millions to create nuclear bombs for "self defence" rather than getting his people their 3 meals a day.

Talk about being a great leader and comrade.

What about the world at large then? After years of negotiation, from one-to-one talks to 6 party talks, nothing have been solved at all. The question at large therefore is : Are the world leaders incompetent or diplomacy cannot solve problems? Indeed, years of compromise with North Korea has yielded little results and stained the names of the different countries involved for not being able to resolve a thorn on the world map. Again, I would like to talk about the leaders again. George W.Bush, since his assumption of the office, have stricten restrictions on North Korea and even put in place sanctions. What is have done to North Koreans is essentially make them detest America more, no yielding of stance was seen. However, this does not stop Mr Bush from carrying on with his iron first approach. Again, drawing parallels to Kim Jong II, this is another leader who does not yield even though his method has been met with resistance and rejection, both from the world and from the victim. Is it really that hard, for a great leader, to sometimes eat the humble pie, admit his mistake and move on with life? By pushing North Korea to its end, what will happen will be that one day, North Korea will retaliate. Is that the world that we want? One filled be catastrophe and chaos everyday.

Talk about the righteous vs the bad.

The recent issue on organ sale brought about by Nuerologist Dr. Lee Wai Ling most certainly sparked off a fruitful discussion and was indeed an eye opener for many. For one, we know of another prove of Singaporeans being kia su ( scared to lose ) and kia si ( scared to die ). From the Sunday Times article dated 4th February by Ms Melissa Low and Mr Vincent Leow in which they conducted a survey on whether Singaporeans would like to buy/sell organs if it was legalised. From the response, it was clear that Singaporeans would only want to buy and not sell organs. Indeed, we are telling the world what a fine country we are.

However, for my own personal view, there are more reasons for Singapore not allowing the sale of organs to be legalised apart from things like health reasons and ethical issues as brought up by the Ministry of Health. I feel that another reasons based on my own view is that because of the many countries who have not legalised it, noting countries like United States and China. Singapore, on record, has not objected or choose to differ from the United States in every UN convention that the two countries took part in. It is therefore understandable that Singapore does not want to legalise the sale due to the fear of antagonism of other countries.

Furtheremore, this further brings out the maturity of our society at large. Singapore is still a traditional and conservative country trying its very best to adjust to the culture of western countries. As such, it is also understandable why we would not permit the sale of human organs. In the status quo, many luxuries can already be bought using money. My opinion is that if we do legalise the sale of human organs, we will be putting a price tag on our organs. How can we then say that our body is sacred and that everyone's equal when there are different prices for each of our organs?

At the end of the day, however, I strongly feel for the government. Seeing it from their point of view, it is really hard to balance the need of safety precautions and saving more lives versus antangonism and level of acceptance of the society. In this aspect, my sympathy goes out to the government and I still feel that they made the right the decision by putting safety and ethics at the forefront of their priorities.