Pornography in the 21st century refers to online articles which conveys and embodies sexuality which may potentially influence one’s state of mind negatively. However, several had contested that pornography do not deserve the censorship and the nature of pornography may not be dismissive all the time. There is unquestionably more pornography available today than fifteen years ago. However, is it legitimate to assume that more is worse and thus pornography is detrimental to the society?
Many people ruled out pornography as a taboo to be left untouched, believing that pornography is detrimental to one’s life, family and society as a whole. Canvassing the impacts pornography has on the society, many failed to critically analyse pornography beyond a mere individual’s indulgence in sexuality thirst, only a few had identified it as a double-edged sword. The society today is conditioned to reject anything sexual as an immoral threat or a taboo. Religions, too, played a pivotal part in shaping the view towards sexuality in the society at large. While people actually believe that pornography encourages deviant sexual practices which may impede the society’s social stability, statistics have actually shown that with countries that are more liberal with pornography actually have a lower percentage of rape cases or crimes pertaining to acts of improper sexual conducts. This statistics point to one fact – it is paramount that pornography should be critically analysed. It may be necessary to censor it, but we should not ignore the its identity in the society that deviates one’s dangerous yet natural lust for sexuality. In fact, it could be drawn parallel to the role of prostitutes, which also played an indirect role to reduce sexual crimes in society at large.
Despite its unseen contribution to the social stability of our society, undeniably there exists a far more sinister and detrimental nature of pornography. It no longer acts as a substitute or alternative to sexual satisfaction. In today’s society, technology had engendered social problem, in which pornography is in the crux of this conflict. Many immoral businessmen had marketed pornography for economic benefits, ranging from a monthly subscription pornographic magazines to online pornographic website which charged by the rates of hours. As a source of materialistic wealth, the advertising technique adopted will inevitably lobbed unwanted attention from unsuitable audience. So often do we see newspaper reports on under aged children being exposed to inappropriate sexual material. All these are evident effects of pornography on the society. Although the problem of youths getting exposed to pornography do not have a influential impact on the society yet, there are speculations that it may engender to more social stumbling blocks which may impede our society progress towards a world-class city.
Monday, April 20, 2009
President’s Star Charity Show- is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?
For the past decades, we have seen numerous charity shows pleading the public to donate generously, helping organizations such as the NKF and Ren Ci Hospital. They showcase the different stunts performed by the artistes and video clips of those in need. It is undeniable that most of these charity shows achieved success and managed to rake in more than a million for those in needs. But is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous contributions?
Some people call and donate to show their loyalty for their idol when they are performing stunts. One example was when Ahjie Zoe Tay risked her hand and had to decide which cone had a knife underneath. This particular stunt raked in thirty thousand calls in that short period of fifteen minutes. We cannot deny that such performances helped these charity to attract and increase the viewership, hence the donations. They cause the audience to hold on to their seats, as the artistes perform stunt that seems dangerous and life-threatening. Through this, the audience would feel inspired and play a part by making the calls.
However, others question the need for these stunts. I personally feel that these charity shows do not require the artistes to perform stunts to increase their donations. They are also several reasons why I do not support the stunts. Firstly, it endangers the safety of the artiste, each artiste have a wonderful career ahead of them, by endangering themselves through performing unnecessary stunts, it is absolutely worthless. I believe other less risky performances such as singing and dancing would achieve the same result and hence, prevent injury of the artiste. Secondly, donation from the public comes from within the heart and not as a form of support for the artiste. Even if there was no show whatsoever, an advertisement would achieve the same effect on the public. Also any kind Samaritan or someone with the correct mindset would also donate without any reminder.
Lastly, to help those in need, artistes should start the ball rolling by donating a sum of money to the charity. This would in turn touch the hearts of the public and hence donations would start pouring in. Artistes could also be more proactive in generating funds and promoting the need of the needy to inspire others. I believe their fame would help spread the message further.
In conclusion, the aims of a charity show should be to touch the audience emotionally and appeal to them for donations, and I do not see how artiste performing stunts would help to achieve that.
Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore- Refer to TalkingCock.com/ Mr Brown
Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore- Refer to TalkingCock.com/ Mr Brown
Many people criticized the Singaporean government for constantly monitoring political commentary websites, which some view as limiting the right to freedom of speech. Political commentaries like talkingcock.com and mrbrown.com use articles to parody political issues and recent events. They do this in such a way that it is blindingly obvious to anybody who hasn’t been living in a hole what they are talking about, but at the same time cannot be implicated for slander or anything like that. For example, talkingcock.com’s column Annals of the Dragon King is a parody, focusing on the point of view of PM Lee Hsien Loong, whose name translated means dragon prince, or something to that effect, about certain political issues. In each article under this column, certain substitute names are used to refer to certain political figures. One of them would be Men In White, which I think probably refers to the PAP, with reference to their uniform white shirt and white pants combination that they are seen in every time they are seen in public. Another would be Peasantland, which is use to refer to Singapore. While these two substitute names are quite far from their original, we all know what they are referring to. These political commentaries like to comment on and satirize any incidents regarding politics. For example, there was mrbrown’s famous “mee pok ta mai te gua” podcast when an opposition MP forgot to submit a form and was caught on camera not doing so. This shows that many of these political commentaries are light hearted, and aimed at entertaining.
However, in the past, political bloggers have been brought to task for going overboard in criticizing the government, such as mrbrown. In 2006, he released a scathing, sarcasm-laden article, criticizing the government for attempting to sway voters in its favour by doing things such as introducing progress packages before the election, and leaving bad news only until after the elections, so as not to stress Singaporeans out about rising costs, “thereby affecting our ability to choose wisely” during the elections. He also criticised the government for unnecessarily raising the cost of living in Singapore. This article drew flak from the media and authorities, which furiously labelled him as a disturber of the peace, and promptly refuted his arguments. However, this sparked a debate as to whether the Singapore government was unfairly restricting free speech, or whether they really were justified, as mrbrown had gone too far, which raises the question of whether political commentaries on the internet should be allowed.
The government restricts citizens from expressing any grievances they may have towards the current political situation in other media, so the only avenue left is the online one. While blogs and other such online media are allowed to discuss politics, the authorities also keep a close eye on what is posted here, and the writers would be persecuted if any of their material is seen as being anti-government. I feel that the government should not have to regulate political commentaries as of now. Firstly, while political commentaries can introduce the idea that the government is not all that perfect, many Singaporeans read these websites for entertainment, and not really to read about politics. Besides, even if the population was disgruntled with the current form of government, the pros would far outweigh the cons, and there is also no credible opposition to challenge for the governance of Singapore. Thus, the current government’s position is relatively safe. Singaporeans, being Chinese, tend to be more rational and base their opinions on facts, and not so much on feelings. Hence, they would choose the government that they think would be best for them, and so as long as the PAP presents a strong case for itself, they are likely to win.
In a way, political commentaries can also be useful, as they allow the government to see some of the gripes and grievances the citizens may have, and thus take action based on these. These political blogs can be seen as a representative of the views of the people, and so the government can treat these as feedback, and find ways to improve. However, the writers of these blogs also have to take care not to be biased, and should try to take both sides of an argument when writing, to avoid being accused of being selfish. Also, it might help to have a disclaimer on the website. For example talkingcock.com, the first thing that one sees when logging on to that website, beside the striking picture of a cock’s head, is a disclaimer essentially saying that the website aims to entertain, and everything there is made up and nonsensical. This would lead the reader to read it purely for entertainment purposes, and not misconstrue it as a political website. It also helps that it states in capitalised bold words that it is not a political website.
In conclusion, I believe that political commentary in Singapore need not be regulated so much, as these political commentaries are mainly to satirise for humour purposes, and not to slander the PAP and encourage readers to vote for a nonexistent opposition party. Furthermore, the readers ultimately make their own decisions based on facts that they have, and are not likely to be swayed by one or two articles criticizing the government. Therefore, the government should just live and let live, and let Singaporeans in Singapore express themselves.
Many people criticized the Singaporean government for constantly monitoring political commentary websites, which some view as limiting the right to freedom of speech. Political commentaries like talkingcock.com and mrbrown.com use articles to parody political issues and recent events. They do this in such a way that it is blindingly obvious to anybody who hasn’t been living in a hole what they are talking about, but at the same time cannot be implicated for slander or anything like that. For example, talkingcock.com’s column Annals of the Dragon King is a parody, focusing on the point of view of PM Lee Hsien Loong, whose name translated means dragon prince, or something to that effect, about certain political issues. In each article under this column, certain substitute names are used to refer to certain political figures. One of them would be Men In White, which I think probably refers to the PAP, with reference to their uniform white shirt and white pants combination that they are seen in every time they are seen in public. Another would be Peasantland, which is use to refer to Singapore. While these two substitute names are quite far from their original, we all know what they are referring to. These political commentaries like to comment on and satirize any incidents regarding politics. For example, there was mrbrown’s famous “mee pok ta mai te gua” podcast when an opposition MP forgot to submit a form and was caught on camera not doing so. This shows that many of these political commentaries are light hearted, and aimed at entertaining.
However, in the past, political bloggers have been brought to task for going overboard in criticizing the government, such as mrbrown. In 2006, he released a scathing, sarcasm-laden article, criticizing the government for attempting to sway voters in its favour by doing things such as introducing progress packages before the election, and leaving bad news only until after the elections, so as not to stress Singaporeans out about rising costs, “thereby affecting our ability to choose wisely” during the elections. He also criticised the government for unnecessarily raising the cost of living in Singapore. This article drew flak from the media and authorities, which furiously labelled him as a disturber of the peace, and promptly refuted his arguments. However, this sparked a debate as to whether the Singapore government was unfairly restricting free speech, or whether they really were justified, as mrbrown had gone too far, which raises the question of whether political commentaries on the internet should be allowed.
The government restricts citizens from expressing any grievances they may have towards the current political situation in other media, so the only avenue left is the online one. While blogs and other such online media are allowed to discuss politics, the authorities also keep a close eye on what is posted here, and the writers would be persecuted if any of their material is seen as being anti-government. I feel that the government should not have to regulate political commentaries as of now. Firstly, while political commentaries can introduce the idea that the government is not all that perfect, many Singaporeans read these websites for entertainment, and not really to read about politics. Besides, even if the population was disgruntled with the current form of government, the pros would far outweigh the cons, and there is also no credible opposition to challenge for the governance of Singapore. Thus, the current government’s position is relatively safe. Singaporeans, being Chinese, tend to be more rational and base their opinions on facts, and not so much on feelings. Hence, they would choose the government that they think would be best for them, and so as long as the PAP presents a strong case for itself, they are likely to win.
In a way, political commentaries can also be useful, as they allow the government to see some of the gripes and grievances the citizens may have, and thus take action based on these. These political blogs can be seen as a representative of the views of the people, and so the government can treat these as feedback, and find ways to improve. However, the writers of these blogs also have to take care not to be biased, and should try to take both sides of an argument when writing, to avoid being accused of being selfish. Also, it might help to have a disclaimer on the website. For example talkingcock.com, the first thing that one sees when logging on to that website, beside the striking picture of a cock’s head, is a disclaimer essentially saying that the website aims to entertain, and everything there is made up and nonsensical. This would lead the reader to read it purely for entertainment purposes, and not misconstrue it as a political website. It also helps that it states in capitalised bold words that it is not a political website.
In conclusion, I believe that political commentary in Singapore need not be regulated so much, as these political commentaries are mainly to satirise for humour purposes, and not to slander the PAP and encourage readers to vote for a nonexistent opposition party. Furthermore, the readers ultimately make their own decisions based on facts that they have, and are not likely to be swayed by one or two articles criticizing the government. Therefore, the government should just live and let live, and let Singaporeans in Singapore express themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)