Just.

So to my surprise, more than a handful of you realized that I have killed my plurk and twitter accounts and were a wee tad worried when the blog was deathly quiet. (Edit: I killed the old dog. This entry was the last one of the whole lot imported here. I am unlocking them slowly when I get the time)

Thanks for your concern. I must admit I am always (strangely and then pleasantly) surprised when people care.

Well to cut the drama, I was considering to shut  down this blog or to make it private. Feeling too claustrophobic and too vulnerable. People reading this blog that I do not have too high an opinion of. People stalking out this blog for possible ammunition (there she goes shopping again). People sticking their noses into places where they should not be. I have had so many noses sniffing at my virtual ass that I am starting to feel like I have a colonoscopy foisted on me.

It also does not help that my chronic neck and shoulder problem is flaring up worse than ever. It renders me unable to even type sometimes and for someone who depends on bringing in dough word by word, it is tragic.

Have you ever had the experience of having people whom you dislike or have a low regard for read your blog? Care to share your experience?

As for me, I do miss the days where I can talk freely about the snippets of my life to the audience that  comprises primarily of friends and friendly strangers. I am still pondering on my next step of action; that is to make this blog private or to start another blog. Do drop me a note/ comment if you would like to continue reading.

You know Jason Hahn who writes in 8 days about his house-sharing adventures with Saffy and Amanda? He blogs too. He’s one of the very few writers who has the ability to make me laugh out loud. The other few are Colin Goh, Mr Brown before he lost all that weight and Dooce.

Though I’ve always wondered about the authenticity of Saffy the Bust, Amanda the Gucci-ed lawyer, Barney Chen the gay, Karl the sad friend and Martha the dreadful harpy.

You mean to say these people don’t object to being immortalized for posterity in black and white? Either Jason Hahn has a wonderful hell of an imagination or his friends are extreme good sports.

Either way, it is cool.

Seth Godin says,

‘If it acts like a duck (all the time), it’s a duck. Doesn’t matter if the duck thinks it’s a dog, it’s still a duck as far as the rest of us are concerned.

Authenticity, for me, is doing what you promise, not “being who you are”.’

Pure coincidence but Seth Godin just blogged about what has been on my mind for the past few weeks.

Individuals who sprout lyrical about transparency, honesty, god-like social media rules, integrity and so forth on their blogs, tell a different story in plurk, msn and twitter.

Respectability requires consistency.

You don’t talk about respect and best practices in social media but call people names in conversations.
You don’t talk about discretion but divulge confidential information discussed in private conversations.
You don’t talk about integrity but ask for confidential information to be shared to all and sundry, tabloid style.

Transparency is not an excuse to merrily list out others’ ‘mistakes’ in an attempt to look superior.
Honesty is not an excuse for breach of trust.
Integrity is not an excuse for being a thoroughly self righteous and pompous person.

Respectability requires consistency.

For you may think you are a duck, behave like a duck (sometimes), quack like a duck and think you are a duck, but we all know better.

Singapore – A 35 year old single man tries to perform hypnosis in MSN.. with hilarious results. (Via TK)

His conversation with Olivia, a mom of 2 (who supposedly provided some false information to him)
Click for the MSN conversation (more…)

A pregnant STOMPer says this woman not only did not offer her the Priority Seat in the train, she even cursed her and her unborn child.

Says the STOMPer in an email to STOMP yesterday (Jan 29):

“Today, I (I boarded the train from City Hall) met this inconsiderate and rude woman who did not offer me (who is 26 weeks pregnant) the Priority Seat she was sitting on.

“She did not offer me the seat even after finishing her sms and after one stop.

“However, she realised that I was taking a picture of her and asked me very rudely and with a hostile expression on her face if I wanted the seat.

“I answered yes and she stood up and started hurling vulgarities at me and calling me a ‘b***h’.

“I scolded her back as I thought she should be embarassed of herself!

“She walked away after about 20 seconds of cursing.

“Before she alighted at Novena station, she stopped by my seat and started cursing me and my unborn baby!

“I’m speechless as I’m wondering if she is even ashamed of herself!

“I cannot tolerate actions like this and from someone who is obviously educated.”

In a telephone conversation with STOMP, the STOMPer stood by her story.

She said that she was wearing maternity clothing and was visibly pregnant when she boarded the train and was disappointed that the woman had behaved in such a manner.

What were your thoughts after reading this? Indignation? Anger? Incredulity? This is natural if you had felt the above. After all it is minimal human decency to side with a pregnant woman who not only had been denied a seat, but also had to endure curses to herself and her unborn child. [Though as a disclaimer, I should state that I never expected anyone to offer me a seat during both my pregnancies. That is a story for another day though.]

You might even blog about it and express your displeasure/ disgust/ anger/ shock. That, too is perfectly normal. But what if you were presented with the other side of the story?

A pregnant woman earlier alleged that this woman not only failed to offer her a Priority Seat in the train, she even cursed her and her unborn child.

The woman pictured in the story has since informed STOMP of her side of the story in an email dated Feb 1.

Here’s what she had to say:

“The truth of this incident is I boarded the train before the pregnant lady did. I was tired and trying to sleep as you can see in the photo.

“I had no idea when she boarded or that she was maliciously taking a photo of me sleeping. She never once asked for the seat, nor did anybody around alert me of her presence.

“Nonetheless, I looked up after a while, and when I noticed her, I immediately asked, ‘Do you want to sit?’

“To my shock and horror, she said ‘Yes’ really rudely, glaring at me, and rushed to the seat without a word of thanks!

“I then asked her, ‘Hey I offered you the seat, why are you being so hostile?’

“She said, ‘Of course! Couldn’t you see the sign?’

“Certainly I knew I was sitting on the Priority Seat. But am I expected to be constantly on the lookout for pregnant women? I was asleep for Christ’s sake, and the minute I noticed her, I offered it to her!

“There was NO ‘20 seconds of cursing’, ’she stood up and started hurling vulgarities at me’, nor did I curse her and her unborn baby.

“‘A pregnant STOMPer says this woman not only did not offer her the Priority Seat in the train, she even cursed her and her unborn child’ – this vicious statement is totally untrue.

“If there were SMRT cameras, I would most certainly like the public to see how ungrateful this pregnant lady really was, and worse, trying to malign me on STOMP!

“I do not deny that I called her a b***h. She certainly is the epitome of the word ‘b***h’.

“The truth is, she called me one too! After I graciously offered her the seat, she called me a b***h because I said there was no need for hostility simply because I had not noticed her earlier.

“As for ‘cursing her and her unborn baby’? All i said before I alighted was that it would be terribly sad if she brought up another person just like herself.

“I am not ashamed to say this because this is the true story, and I am sure everyone would agree with me that it is a great shame that a lady of her age cannot even conduct herself graciously, and is thinking of bringing up a child.”

Ah.. feeling differently now? My point is, regardless of who you might think is telling the truth, get both sides of the story.

And so I am taking my leave from the protem committee of ABS. I have gleaned many life lessons from this episode, which  I will pen here in the near future to share with all.

Indeed it had been an eye opener that cannot be bought.

What is my reason for stepping down? Is it the backlash from some bloggers? Is it due to misunderstandings? Is it the heat that got to me?

I can say with confidence that it is not. I had already said so earlier on – I will step down after I had done what I should do as this is a protem committee after all. And so I am doing so to spend more time with my family and new work projects.

It has been a good journey – besides the valuable knowledge and experience, looking at things from different perspectives, conversations with different people, it’s also a litmus test of genuine friendship and respect.

Having said that, I hope readers can understand that I will not answer any official questions on behalf of ABS and to respect that it is an issue of honor and integrity not to reveal internal communications.

I would also like to take this chance to thank everyone for being so patient and for the great conversations we had in the earlier post.

Image credit: http://mysite.verizon.net

Mrs Lim says

Luckily, I was given an idea by the Association of Bloggers (Singapore). Oxs are not known for their creativity anyway.

I hereby declare that I am forming the Association of Bloggers (Spinsters).

Spinster bloggers are like loose skin, they sag with time and are not united. They are also easily manipulated or banned at young forums for being too naggy and dispensing wise words of advise (eg. I eat more salt than you have eaten rice-> that’s why I need to go nkf).

The Association of Bloggers (Spinters) is a non-profit association (we need to save our money for the tummy tucks, face lifts and botoxs against fucking gravity. Bloody newton and his laws of gravity.) It is dedicated to promoting, protecting and educating its members about the best ways to nab men; and supporting the development of blogging as the new matchmaking platform. I hope eventually, the members of ABS will find suitable husbands.

What I am planning for my members :

1) Workshops conducted to educate spinsters on net etiquette and “how to flirt with that single cutie blogger”
2) Invite overseas eligible male (or meal. Depends on how you look at it) bloggers for a “hang-out” session with us.
3) Movie outing to “He’s Just Not That Into You”
4) Weekly bonding sessions on loser men, failed relationships and annoying relatives. I will cater a big room for the emotional baggages you lagged around, so do not worry about the lack of space.

Singaporean spinsters are invited to join this association. I am also thinking of engaging the government to think of policies to help us spinsters (eg. arranged marriages by law). Singapore is our country, and we spinsters have a duty to see that all our sisters are married.

We want to revive the ‘kampung spirit’ like the good old days, whereby our grandparents are married at young ages and have lots of children.

PS: Single male bloggers, please do not hesitate to email me

ROFL! Naughty puns and sly little self digs make this a good read for laughs.:)

My only gripe is – I feel so discriminated. Why only spinsters? I also need to meet overseas (or local also can!) eligible males leh…

PS: Single male bloggers, please do not hesitate to email me hor..

**

I am bookmarking her site. It’s chockful of hilarious bits good for a pick me up (a little bit like the female version of sibehsian)

Mrs Lim: hmm, do you think I can wear black to a wedding?

Colleague: Can lah. People will understand

Mrs Lim: why will people understand?

Colleague: Cause black makes people look thinner mah.

**

Image

When it comes to defending my rights of self expression and freedom of blogging, I would be the first to tell anyone who wants to regulate my blogging to take a hike (and I am sounding nice here).

Having said that, I can hear you screaming, “Then what are you doing on the committee of an association that

1. regulate how bloggers blog;
2. has the chutzpah to represent all bloggers in Singapore;
3. teaches bloggers how to or what to blog?!”

The answers are ridiculously simple.

1. We do not presume to regulate or help people to regulate.
2. We do not want to, have never claimed to nor can we represent anyone. The Singapore tag is an indication of location and not territory.
3. We may organize workshops and seminars facilitated by qualified professionals but the choice is always up to the individual to attend.

There have been a few assumptions and questions over the last few days. The team has answered here and the below are my personal thoughts.

Protection

It is ludicrous to assume that any association can protect you if you commit an offense. Try asking a lawyer if the Law Society can protect him if he embezzles or slanders. Very clearly, the answer is no.

Validation

People are also asking why they should join the association to validify their status or existence as bloggers. My answer again is painfully simple. You don’t. You don’t join the Chinese Association to prove you are a Chinese. You don’t join AWARE to prove you are a woman. You join any association purely and simply because of either interest or passion. And if it’s not your cup of tea, don’t.

In fact, I was very surprised this question even came up.

Why set up an Association?

Then you may ask, so what is this Association for?

Plainly, and without the stuffy language of Constitution talk, here goes.

There is unity and strength in numbers. Simply, it is easier to organize any activity or workshop if the numbers are there. It is easier to get projects, opportunities and what nots if the numbers are there. Sure the ‘top bloggers’ get their projects, opportunities, their free wine and dine events, their freebie gadgets – but are they sharing it with you? You might argue that not everyone is interested in perks and opportunities but even celebrities are not exempt. To each their own, I say.

When we talk about educating bloggers, it is not about telling them how or what to blog. For example, I was a tech idiot and never knew how to use HTML, much less do blog templates or what nots. I wished that there were some kind of workshops where I can glean such hands-on knowledge, but there were none when I started out. It appears that I am not alone. Sure, you might be so smart that you never need any help, but there are others who do. Why be selfish and decline them the opportunity? Why stop us from building up a community of newbie or fledging bloggers? Why must we fill it with A list bloggers? Question, questions.

Government Lap Dog

Then there is the hooha about the government endorsement and about AIMS and Lam Pin in Today. I find the angle of the article regrettable, though the intentions of the reporter might be good. In that alignment and ‘endorsement’ by the establishment, bloggers viewed us as being establishment and government lap dogs.

What a joke. Many of us were openly critical of the government and policies from time to time in our blogs.

As for the conspiracy theory about us wearing white tops (and therefore PAP), I am not even going to justify that. American classics anyone?

Unity and individualism

The  beauty about every blogger is their individualistic entity. Everyone has their own method of expression and their own way of thinking. In seeking unity, we are not looking to make clones of everyone, but to help like- minded people forge a homogeneous identity. From the reactions of some, you’d have thought we are killing little babies.

Website

Some made an issue out of the wordpress free website even though we had already clearly explained that that it is a temporary site. I admit the timing was too tight, what with the Today article being published and the Association being registered just three days earlier.

In fact, this timing also affected many of our other logistics and marketing plans. Without going into too many details, I can just say that some things were beyond our control. We are now working on a proper website.

Nobody and A list bloggers

Ah.. this is my favourite -

‘Who are you to set up an Association? You bunch of nobody bloggers with dunno what credentials.’

I will be the first to admit I am a low profile blogger. You don’t and will never see me posting sex links or jumping on the ’scandals’ bandwagon to whore out for traffic. I also don’t buy into the elitist nonsense of A list, big time, top, celebrity or rock star bloggers and that the rest of us are ‘nobodies‘ or ‘lesser mortals‘.

Endoh asks which one do you prefer:-

Inviting only A-list/top bloggers because they are famous.

OR

Inviting even the commoners among the blogosphere to let them know they need not be A-list/top bloggers to also actively participate.

I love blogs. I love the idea of social media though I may not like some of the pretentious grandeur lent to it by some. I love it for what it is – the insight into people.

In a plurk where a friend asked which superhero power we would like to have, many mentioned the power of mind reading. These few days have made me realize one thing.

Blogs lend that power of mind reading.

You can gauge the character of a person by the way he blogs. You can gauge the character of a person when he lies on his blog. You can gauge the character of a person by the contents of his blog.

Noise is good. Noise tells you what you need to know about a person, be it good or bad.

I have filtered quite an amount of noise over the last few days. There are well wishes, genuine feedback, misunderstandings due to information, abusive vulgarities, personal attacks and polite no-thanks. There is even a very funny msn conversation which I would have enjoyed more, if I had not disliked one of the participants immensely.

This noise is priceless – you pay a PR agency or a survey company and you might not get it.

Amidst the noise, two voices have stood out and they are excellent examples for the kind of reasonable, logical, not insane, not senseless and balanced kind of blogging that I (personally) would like to see more of in this blogosphere. While there are some issues in Brian’s post that will be addressed in our official website when it is up, he has grasped the essence of what I also believe in – the freedom of choice and the beauty of that freedom in social media.

If you don’t like to eat apples, by all means, don’t. Don’t stop others from eating it or say it tastes bad just because you don’t like eating apples.

The freedom of choice is also extended to accepting a difference in views or thinking amongst my friends. Will friends force each other to follow blindly or to monkey see monkey do? Are friends for you to manipulate or influence their thinking to suit your wishes or agenda? No. That, pretty much is obvious. To me, at least.

I respect integrity and honesty, even when it is showcased in a dissenting opinion. Incidentally, I am repelled by implied insults or contempt by sly riding on others’ coat tails or passive aggressive attacks.

How do I respond to haters and flamers? I don’t. Tina Fey has her own method of handling noise and addresses her haters in a hilarious ‘suck it’ speech, which I find rather amusing (love her!)

“If you ever start to feel too good about yourself, they have this thing called the Internet. And you can find a lot of people there who don’t like you.”

LOL.

What do you feel about or deal with noise?

**

I will end by musing out loud about some questions.

Do Peranakans join the Peranakan Association to prove that they are nonyas or babas, or because of their culture, interest and passion?

Do women join AWARE to prove that they are women, or to pick up skills relevant to themselves?

Can the Chinese Association disqualify you from being a Chinese simply because you are not a member?

**

Disclaimer: this is a personal musing post.

The beauty of the blogosphere flows in its fluidity. Indeed, there are all kinds of bloggers – the nonsensical, the bare its soul, the foodie, the shopping fanatic, the know it all, the beauty enthusiast, the kiss and tell, the guru etc. Like it or not,, they all have their own  audience.

Just like you don’t barge into a man’s home and tell him how to live his life, you don’t saunter onto another’s blog and tell him how to blog.

At least, that is what I believe.

I celebrate the beauty of the blogosphere and its freedom and sensibilities. I celebrate the difference in opinions and the diversity of personalities. I believe that people should have their freedom in blogging, just like readers should have the freedom of choosing.

Naturally, the liberal in me detests any form of OB markers imposed upon my blogging though common sense does steer me away from certain topics. I also find herd mentality confounding; when a person with an alternative opinion either gets herd attacked by a ‘like-minded’ group or is dismissed as an attention whore. Though, I must admit, it is true in some cases.

But such is the beauty of social media – everyone has their own opinion. There will always be attention whores who take an alternative stand or criticize just because. They will be isolated with the onward trending of new media and its community. Petty bitching and flaming defeats the purpose of social media and more importantly, diminishes the importance of social media in corporate consideration.

Having said that, when Eastcoastlife approached me to join the committee for the Association of Bloggers (Singapore), I was very inspired by the founding principles, and was happy to be part of the team.

I really like the idea of supporting the development of blogging as new media and to promote professionalism or responsibility in blogging. I know how many bloggers baulk at the thought of certain XX being the front of Singaporean bloggers (though I find her quite amusing) so this might be a good platform moving forward.

Things are moving rapidly. We are featured on Today, several community projects require bloggers’ participation, corporate opportunities are opening up – we have even lined up an eventful year of educational programs, ranging from writing workshops to heritage/nature trails and talks on media law.

The best thing is – there are no cliques or in groups – ALL are welcome! We warmly welcome all bloggers to join us in all our activities, events, outings etc.

How to pay your bills without (much) effort

How to irritate the shit out of people who hate your guts

Classic.

Image credit

Rachel.sg has won the World’s Greatest Business Mind!

Madonna has vowed to name her child after me. I was frontpage news on Business weekly and Sunday News. Babara Walters is interviewing me. Morgan Freeman thinks I am ‘warm, beautiful and intelligent’. Catch my movie to be released next year.

I am to be knighted by the Queen of England.

After an exhaustive search spanning thousands of nominees from five continents, the International Collective Council of Excellence has announced this year’s World’s Greatest Business Mind to universal acclaim and fanfare.

The decision was unanimous despite the fact the world-class shortlist comprised such well-known names as Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, Bruce Wayne, George Soros, and that kid who invented facebook.

Credits to Cobalt Paladin for the good laugh! Have a good weekend ahead, folks.

Mike Arrington of Techcrunch says they will break every embargo they agree to.

“The reason this is becoming a larger problem is because there is no downside to breaking embargoes. The PR firm gets upset but they don’t stop working with the offending publication or writer. You get a slap on the wrist, and you break another embargo later that day. Our new policy is to break every embargo. We’ll happily agree to whatever you ask of us, and then we’ll just do whatever we feel like right after that. We may break an embargo by one minute or three days. We’ll choose at random. There will be exceptions. We will honor embargoes from trusted companies and PR firms who give us the news exclusively.”

I am curious about the trend of PR here in Singapore. Are bloggers, journalists and publications penalized if they break embargoes?

Personally I understand the frustration and anger if one plays by the rules but is unfairly ‘penalized’ when unscrupulous players flout the rules of the game. However I still stand by the weight of one’s words especially when a promise is given.

I agree with Seth Godin when he says that

“Trust is really valuable and equally fragile.

You can fool us once, but probably not twice.”

“Go to a party and take embarrassing pictures of your friends to post on Facebook. That’s fun, certainly, but it’s possible that you won’t be quite as trusted next time.”

A word about protecting yourself

I don’t know about you but I guard my privacy rather fiercely. While I don’t mind saucy pictures being circulated in a closed group of friends, I don’t like to be tagged in Facebook. I don’t like my partying pictures to be posted on anyone’s blogs and certainly not Facebook. And I certainly will not appreciate any embarrassing pictures or videos to be posted ‘for a laugh’.

In other words, I think it is unwise to post incriminating  pictures where you cannot control or even know who is looking at them. Can you imagine your boss or clients looking at you looking drunk, dishevelled or behaving badly?

Have fun, yes, but be clever about it.

Beau Lotus wrote an excellent piece on why she keeps a blog and these paragraphs echoed resonantly -

But the need to share is probably greater than the fear, which in any case shouldn’t be allowed to dictate our lives. And as long as one takes responsibility for one’s musings and doesn’t care about the judgement of those who do not matter…

So I blog because bloggers form a community of some sort. There is inspiration, support, information, ideas, beauty e.g. lovely photography. There is voyeurism, voyages, videos, memes, lucky draws and even cookies exchange.

And it is so true. Why blog if it is not your true voice, your true thoughts or your true feelings? After all, our blogs are our online voices and for some of us, an indication of what and who we are in real life.

That is why I get very nonplussed and even irritated with guru like posts telling you how to blog, what not to blog about, how not to blog and even what kind of blogs to keep. This is ridiculous because the uniqueness of the blogging platform is then torn away – leaving in its wake another regimented and dwarfed form of communication. The beauty of blogging is the freedom to express our thoughts, interests, feelings, idiosyncrasies and what nots. The size of your readership is quite another matter.

In a person’s blog, we see what kind of person he or she is, be it narcissistic, attention seeking, sharing, friendly, arrogant, pompous, overbearing, opinionated, deliciously snarky (that would be Dooce), irritatingly snarky and so forth. To me, to try and dictate another’s blogging style is not only pompously delusional, it is arrogant and unsolicited, even unwanted. Stop being an online Hitler.

On the other hand, if you are not making enough money from blogging to have financial freedom, I don’t think a post on how to make money from blogging would be very credible. Similarly, if you let your pompous arrogance blind the fact that you are nothing but a whiner high on leadership pot giving bourgeois tips on how to live life and how to be a winner in guru-like posts, sorry I am afraid I have to burst your bubble by clicking on that little x in the corner.

Yes, going by my advocacy in blogging freedom, I won’t (and can’t) stop people from writing things that don’t sit down well with me, but I do have the right and freedom to click that little x and that’s what readers will do once they sense you are a phony.

And even though I blog, I am not actively involved in the blogging community offline. Perhaps I did too much of the socializing and PR party thing in my previous jobs and am taking a long term hiatus now. I am most comfortable being alone or with a very small select group of friends. If the truth be known, I don’t really like the petty arguments, ridiculous gossiping, time wasting politics that go on in large groups or communities. Also, in any large community, there is bound to be someone or a few people who have their heads stuck far up where the sun don’t shine. So, you also won’t see me attending any PR or blogging event for the socializing – though I might if the product or topic interests me. Besides, I have enough on my plate, what with my writing, business and family taking up a lot of of my time. Whatever time I have left – I spent it wisely reading friends’ blogs to ‘catch up’ and blogs that are of value to me/ interest me.

So why do I blog?

I blog because I enjoy writing and articulating my thoughts on a common platform to share with friends and like minded individuals. I also miss the literature dissertations, analysis and essays in school so this is somewhat of an outlet for that. What you see here about my family, my children, my life – is what I am comfortable sharing. I don’t refrain from ‘bitching’ here because the idea of self censorship somewhat compromises the voice of my blog – this is who I am and with such an acerbic sharp tongue, I am certainly no Ms Prim and Proper. LOL.

So it is with my humble and heartfelt thanks to my readers who accept me for who I am and who keep coming back for more ‘abuse’ What started out as a reader base of friends here in the region has extended out to all over the world and if Google Analytics is to be believed – really unexpected places like Iceland, South Korea, Japan etc.

Thanks folks.

You have heard some about my views on press in Singapore. Admittedly, I have found some local journalists, particularly in ST, to display rather questionable and fudgy journalistic principles. With the candid (almost brutal) honesty of this piece, some readers have told me that I might be ‘blacklisted’. That would be rather lamentable and petty if it was true. In any case, I weigh my options and I still consider telling the truth as it is as my utmost priority. That is also one of my beliefs in life – to be true to myself. I simply cannot pander to any authority for some benefits or because of some hidden political or career agenda.

I look at some of the quotes picked out from bloggers in the Sunday Times and cannot help but share another brutally honest thought – I wish that they will feature insightful and thought provoking quotes from bloggers instead of the usual inane lack lustre words which might as well not be featured at all. I suspect that there was a certain condescension or even discredit in featuring them. Stomp is another media platform that displays the local blogosphere in a bad light – it allows for petty connivance and mudslinging. With such a positioning, do they not realize that it reflects badly on themselves too?

The relationship between the press and bloggers will continue to be a delicate one. While we have the benefit of speed on our part, they have the resources. This might evolve with time and planning, as can be seen with Malaysiakini. Once upon a time, their local press and even Mahathir then scoffed at them for being a blogging platform. Now Mahathir is practically begging to be interviewed by Malaysiakini. As opposed to viewing each other with hostile wariness, I feel that we could do well to complement each other if we could overcome the trust issue. Cultivating a press-blogger dichotomy serves no purpose at all.

In any case, to say that all the ST journalists are unprofessional or that all local press is not trustworthy, would be to unfairly tar them all with the same brush – what would that make of us? To be fair, writing from reporters like Melissa Lim, Kor Kian Beng, Lee Siew Hua and Andy Ho have so far been balanced and integral. Lydia Lim had also penned an excellent article on capitalism last Saturday, which I append below.

Capitalism needs a new culture

Nov 8, 2008

Individualism must be replaced by personal and social responsibility

By Lydia Lim

DARE we hope that Singapore’s economy, and that of the world, will emerge stronger and better from the ashes of the current financial crisis?

In a week when citizens of the United States elected as their first African-American president a man whose campaign was founded on hope, a fitting answer seems to be: Yes we can, we must.

The Wall Street culture that preached ‘greed is good’ and celebrated individual profit at others’ expense has been on the ascendant for over two decades.

It spread to Singapore, which like many other countries, was led to believe that capitalism as practised in America was the fastest, surest way to economic growth.

It was a culture that encouraged those who mastered the markets to believe they operated in an amoral realm, where old-fashioned notions of right and wrong simply did not apply.

The princes of this universe were those who knew how to gamble with borrowed funds and pass off financial risk to others more ignorant than themselves.

Such values permeated society. As people watched investment bankers grow obscenely rich, they too wanted in. Who could afford to pass up the tantalising opportunities to make a pile overnight?

In recent years, the more perceptive among us began to detect signs of trouble.

I recall one local employer complaining that each time there was a bull run on the stock market, his employees got lazy.

They lost their desire to do real work, preferring instead to sit around the office exchanging notes on market movements and placing bets on stocks and shares.

Many older Singaporeans bemoaned the younger generations’ lack of thrift but were dismissed as fuddy-duddies.

Rising asset prices lent credence to the belief that the more one spent, the more one stood to gain.

There seemed no reason to hold back – even if one lacked funds, one could always borrow to finance one’s purchases.

Not any more.

The credit crisis that began when some US home-owners failed to meet payments on their sub-prime mortgages, is now set to cause millions around the world to lose their homes, their savings and their jobs.

Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz has diagnosed the problem as a lack of alignment between private rewards and social returns.

Financial markets, he said in his testimony before US lawmakers on the future of regulation, exist to enable the real economy to be more productive, by mobilising savings, allocating capital and managing risk, transferring it from those less able to bear it to those more able.

Instead, financial markets in the US and elsewhere encouraged spendthrift patterns which led to near-zero savings; they misallocated capital and instead of managing risk, they created it, leaving huge risks with ordinary Americans who are now bearing huge costs because of these failures, he said.

Despite failing the society they were meant to serve, executives in the financial sector continued to reap huge rewards for themselves.

They were also allowed to exploit the ignorance of others through means such as securitisation – the process of taking an illiquid asset and turning it in a security, that is, a contract that can be assigned a value and traded.

‘In the old days, those originating mortgages held on to them; banks knew the people to whom they had lent money,’ Professor Stiglitz said.

‘When there was a problem in repayment, they could understand its nature and work with a family on a payment plan. It was in everyone’s interest for the family not to be thrown out into the street.

‘Securitisation was based on the premise that ‘a fool was born every minute’. Globalisation meant that there was a global landscape on which they could search for those fools – and they found them everywhere.

‘Mortgage originators didn’t have to ask, is this a good loan, but only, is this a mortgage I might somehow pass on to others,’ he added.

With the meltdown, the theory that markets know best and must be left unfettered to work their magic has been well and truly discredited.

Governments need to step in to regulate and ensure financial markets work the way they are meant to.

But beyond that, the world needs a new culture to replace that of Wall Street.

Businessman and Singapore Management University chairman Ho Kwon Ping believes East Asia should forge its own form of neo-Confucian capitalism that is communitarian in ethos, as opposed to the excessive individualism propagated by Wall Street.

The world has suffered a terrible setback to growth and development, but it has also been presented with a chance to seed a new culture of personal and social responsibility.

We need to build a new consensus that true prosperity is shared prosperity, because only then is it sustainable.

We need a new understanding of what it means to really master financial markets.

It cannot mean the kind of innovation that allows a few to sell junk bonds to others for personal profit. It must mean the kind of creativity that paves the way for people and businesses to be secure and flourish.

Surely that is a far worthier goal for young bankers to work towards than their next posh car.

In his testimony before the US Congressional Committee, Prof Stiglitz argued that the regulations he recommended would not stifle but encourage real innovation.

Too much of the American financial sector’s creativity had been directed towards circumventing regulations, he said.

‘Elsewhere there has been real innovation – the Danish mortgage market is an excellent example, with low transaction costs and much greater security,’ he added.

The credit crisis has led to a renewed recognition of the need for markets to promote human values – integrity, fairness, protection for the vulnerable.

That is cause for optimism.

These values may be just what capitalism needs to reinvigorate itself.

lydia@sph.com.sg

This article was first published in The Online Citizen.

In order to make a difference in the climate of socio-political awareness, we do have to question ourselves too – are we opposing for the sake of opposing?

Recently, two incidents made me think about how much our average Singaporean cares about his or her country and fellow citizens. Is it the sense of superiority that makes one shy away from his less fortunate fellow men? Is it the comfort zone that we are cocooned in that makes one turn a blind eye to the plight of another? Or is it the relentless pursuit of materialism in our society?

Perceived Superiority

I met a young man in one of the recent events I attended. He had taken the initiative to introduce himself to me. He struck me as confident and well spoken. In the course of our conversation, the topic of the structured investments saga came up.

His take was that “you make your bed, you lie in it.” I agree with him – to an extent. Savvy investors who knew what they were buying into – mid to high risk structured investments – should bear the responsibility of their calculated risks and if I may say so, greed. However, I mentioned that there is a group of investors with whom my sympathies lie – these are the retirees who had invested most, if not all, of their life savings and folks who are lowly or not educated. These people had been reassured that the structured products were ‘just like fixed deposits’ and that they are “principle-guaranteed”. What did he think about that?

He smirked and uttered, “Darwinism“. Basically, he had little or no sympathy for uneducated or poor people. He said that there is a reason why some people will always be poor and that he identified with the wisdom of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s ‘eugenic beliefs’. I also got the feeling that he really doesn’t care about the ‘unglamourous’ things in life and that he was keener to talk about my previous experience in the fashion industry. ‘For the good of Singapore, there should really be only people just like you and I, young educated professionals who are sophisticated and intelligent’ and ‘it’s people like us who will shape the nation and make it competitive.’ He went on to say, “Anyway, the government will take care of people like that,” referring to the less fortunate, “That’s what we pay taxes for.”

I managed a polite smile and excused myself.

Does the problem lie in our education system, or in our urban culture that encourages the pursuit of materialism and creature comforts?

The Cocoon of the Comfort Zone

The second incident happened when I attended a wine tasting session. There were people from all walks of life – professionals, business people, engineers, housewives etc. Perhaps the wine did a good job of loosening some tongues, so I had people talking to me about everything under the sun – from business to the economy and even blogging and bloggers. As usual, I did not talk much as I preferred to hear what others had to say. I would offer words of agreement and encouragement to keep the conversation going.

I was surprised to learn that the general consensus towards socio-political bloggers was that they are a bunch of government-hating, flag-burning ‘activists’. When queried, a few names tossed up were a few of the “extremist anti-establishment blogs”. One of the ladies even said that the purpose of these blogs seemed to be ‘opposing for the sake of opposing’. Some were prejudiced to the extent that anyone who remotely questions what the government does are automatically branded government-haters.

These people have comfortable lives, are used to their comfortable lives and do not want anything to disrupt their comfortable lives. I can understand that. After all, humans are inherently selfish. But to deny that there is a group of people who has a very real need for government help ,is at best, ignorant. To sneer at others who are trying to reclaim the rights of their citizenship and who are consciously civic-minded is, at best, short-sighted.

However to play the devil’s advocate, they cannot be faulted for being aversive to extremist opposition or anti-establishment individuals or entities. A different point of view, the propaganda in the mainstream media, the behaviour of some activists and the precedent success of the ruling party – all contribute in varying degrees to the current ennui of the people.

In the course of that conversation, it was mentioned that the opposition is ‘good at pointing out where the PAP is lacking, but when I ask them what they can do for us, they have no concrete plans or abilities.”

Is this an indication that people are not necessarily pro-establishment but are left with no choice because of the calibre of the opposition? Are people apathetic because the ruling party is the ‘lesser of the evils’?

Perhaps the ruling party has also succeeded exceedingly well in this area – so much so that in keeping us well-fed and clothed, the need to question other intangibles ceased to be so important.

In order to make a difference in the climate of socio-political awareness, we do have to question ourselves too – are we opposing for the sake of opposing? Are we being moderate, reasonable and temperate in our criticism of government policies, or are we blindly criticizing the government for the sake of taking an anti-establishment stance?

Talk the talk or walk the walk?

Very often, socio-political bloggers are seen as armchair critics – in that we criticize but ‘fail to provide any real solutions’. Incidentally, the prevalent mood is that there is no point being socially or politically aware – that ‘there is nothing we can do anyway’.

I beg to differ. Here are some examples which would prove such assumptions wrong:

• Bloggers took to speaking at Speakers’ Corner when the hike on public transport was announced. In their speeches, they addressed different points of concern. A comprehensive paper was also developed and submitted to the Public Transport Council.
• In addressing some very pertinent concerns about the deregulation of internet controls, 13 bloggers submitted a paper to Dr Lee Boon Yang, Minister of Information, Communication and the Arts.
• When the enhanced Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package was announced in the National Day rally by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong this year, it sparked robust feedback from some expectant mothers and fathers because the starting date was slated to kick off in January 2009. Apparently the collective voice was heeded as the government then decided to backdate the starting date to 17 August this year.
• Tan Kin Lian took the lead to address concerns of affected investors in the Lehman Brothers financial saga, assisted by volunteers like Andrew Loh, Goh Meng Seng, myself and other bloggers and non bloggers.

The reality is, all of us can do something in our own little ways. The question is whether there is enough perceived importance to warrant a reaction. Personally I find it better to be aware than to be ‘blissfully kept in the dark’.

After all, do we want a society where people who are socially or politically aware are branded as “radicals”, and people like Tan Kin Lian who step out to help (without monetary compensation) are sarcastically mocked as “heroes”?

I hope not.

A reader commented in my previous post -

How come you are not posting about your wonderful Mr Big anymore? I see you have gone political on your readers and I can’t say I like it. What are you trying to prove by suddenly changing your blogging style? Fame? Or to prove you are not a bimbo?

I am disappointed at this sudden 360 degree change of direction where you almost never talk about your own life, kids, Big anymore. Or is there something to hide?

Hope to see you reverting back to your old writing style and topics soon. Politics is just talk unless you can make a real difference. Otherwise, I don’t see why you should be dedicating your blog to something that can and is already being done at TOC website.

Hi reader

As my explanation is going to be rather losor, I thought it warrants a whole new entry of its own.

The direction of my blogging has taken on a socially and politically active angle. This is brought on by a few issues including the recent Olympics medal and the whole financial debacle and I acutely felt the need to write.

The family posts will still be here. Bimbotic adventures are covered here – where I write about fashion, lifestyle and beauty etc. I guess that answers your question about me being a bimbo – and I must admit that I am hopelessly one. Heck I look at numbers and my eyes glaze over. I am definitely more in affinity with price tags and nail polish numbers. LOL.

So, the personal posts are here to stay – along with the other social and political articles. Rather than a total change, I would say it’s an added on component. In that, I am somewhat different from the other mainstream socio-political bloggers out there.

What fame? I feel that there is hardly any ‘fame’ to be spoken of in the socio-political blogging circle. To be candidly honest, a more effective method of being ‘famous’ would be to splash pictures of me posing provocatively in cleavage baring outfits all over my blog or taking the opportunity to flash my curves wherever I can. But you are right in an aspect. I wish that people will stop seeing me as a ‘busty’ woman but as one who can think and write articulately.

As for ‘politics is just talk unless we can make a real difference’, I believe I am making a difference in my own small little ways. For example, I disagree with what is being taught in school about the Olympic medals, that our children are being taught to how to think. I always challenge my elder daughter, Germaine to think for herself and that she should not even take what I tell her for granted.

Take the recent financial saga where so many people did not know where to or who to turn to – Tan Kin Lian took the lead and then we went out there and helped those who need help. People who read my blog – like Lilian and ECL – were also there on the ground to help out. I’d like to think that yes, we did make a small little difference in our small little ways.

And to answer your question of Big, he is still the same wonderful man that he has always been, if not better. I have in my drafts, a post about his cooking, the article about Education and Germaine being in the top 15% of the schools, the article about dehumanization, the one about a birthday party Geanyne went to, along with 30 other drafts that indicate that I have so much to blog about but too little time.

While time is one factor, another reason is because I am happy. At this point, ours is the quiet steady kind of happiness that does not need constant reassurance and validation. Moreover, my frank opinion on constant horn-tooting or validations are merely shows of insecurity and lackof. Also, I find it rather vulgar and distasteful.

I guess I am happy, we are happy, I don’t feel the need to impress anyone and most importantly I don’t have anything to prove.

So, I am happy to report that all’s great and well in my life. But I must thank you for your little wake up call – that I should not be complacent about my happiness

Best wishes

Rachel

**

Note :
I approved the comment because I felt that the commentator was asking some genuine questions, as opposed to some others who had commented here with despicable agendas. Of course, these people have been promptly removed from my sphere. Yes I can tell who is being despicable, catty, malicious or plainly destructive, and who is giving genuine feedback even though both may consist of negative feedback or criticisms.

There is talk elsewhere that I am trying to project a ‘perfect image’ – the person(s) must be blind and stupid to have missed the biting acerbity in my writings. These people (or person) who are still hiding behind the screen and making cheap malicious little potshots – it’s your life, and it’s very sad. I have already moved on with my (very busy and fulfilling) life but there you are, still obsessing about my life and how perfect or imperfect I am. I wish you no ill because you are nothing to me but please live your own life already. Life is so short to go obsess about someone else all the time.

Anyway there is nothing ‘perfect’ about me. If you deliberately try to mess with me, I will tear you a new one.

Prior to my accepting the interview with ST about TOC, I had feared that I would be somewhat misquoted or the article will come out somewhat skewed. However, I would be lying if I said that I was not tempted by the outreach that mainstream media like ST would have – TOC is after all about reaching out to the people and being a voice for the people.I decided to take a calculated gamble that regardless of the outcome, people will get to hear about TOC nevertheless.

I hate to be proven right about the misquote and misdirection. Other than the background facts and statistics of TOC, the article has snippets of irelevant trivia like how Selene Cheng, our deputy editor “laments” that nobody follows the stylebook, how Leong Sze Hian joked about his articles being rejected and how I said my parents have “this niggling feeling that I will be ostracized, like it will be harder to get a flat or harder for kids I may have in future to get into good schools” etc. In the extracts of the featured articles, none of the political viewpoints and Sze Hian’s financial analyses were featured.

A huge part of political discourse that we touched on were totally left out and TOC was portrayed in the light of a website where each of us “want to say something about Singapore”, and “16 out of the 17 shake their heads” when asked if we would consider joining politics. In a subtle yet intangible way, suddenly we all looked bad for not wanting to join politics and yet wanting to say something about Singapore. Perhaps, we were all big mouths who have too much time to burn.

I said I owned an online business and a writing business, but was quoted as running a “website selling clothes”. Our deputy editor was quoted to have “stopped helping his brother to run his restaurant” and “has been living on his savings”. Is it relevant to the TOC website? No.

The thing that got my goat was the misquote that I supposedly said my parents have “this niggling feeling that I will be ostracized, like it will be harder to get a flat or harder for kids I may have in future to get into good schools“. The entire interview was on tape and I cannot comprehend why this came out wrong.

I said,[might not be the exact words, but close]

The post 65-ers generally have a fear of politics because they were from the era of Lee Kuan Yew and David Marshall – fiery politicians who pulled no stops and went all out for what they believed in. There was a very real repercussion back then.

I think they [my parents] might have a niggling fear at the back of their minds, that I might be ostracized for things like HDB, when my kids apply for a good school etc.

Why it came out as if my parents did say that, with the phantom “future” kids I “may have in future”, as opposed to the two very real kids I already have, I am thoroughly stumped. It is no secret I have two kids. It is all over my blog and my facebook.

But, TOC is not about me or any of our editors, or how we were made to look.

So, thanks ST for the interview. My consolation is if the readership for TOC increases as a result of this interview.

**

On a totally separate note, a fellow blogger had extracts of his blog post published in ST. Without permission and it was edited for language (the audacity).

Another blogger had his entire post lifted and published in Today. Without permission, again.

I am not linking the bloggers for privacy reasons and also because they did not appear to take as much objection as I have.

What is the journalist-blogger relationship coming to if the journalist thinks he can lift any or all of the blogger’s content if he so wish and without permission from the blogger?

Dr Huang took the time to answer some pretty heavy questions with well thought and analytical answers. This is a doctor who took the time to answer your questions and what do you do?

Does the journalist accord the blogger the respect he deserves?

What’s the journalist’s opinion of the blogger? Is he threatened by the other’s ability to reach out to the same masses? Is he threatened that a blogger can do the same job as he is doing, if not better?

In the age of the internet, bloggers are putting out news faster than print journalists due to a real time advantage. We have access to research materials. We are our own photographer, in some cases, videographer even, and our own writer.

But having said all that, print journalists will always have an edge over us and that is readership and immediate validation.

Bloggers have to work at our readership and some never really get there.

We also have to build up our credibility over time and it is not easy, given that some bloggers spoil it for the rest of us.

Rather than think we are the competition or find our existence irksome, print journalists might find it to their advantage to partner with us, leverage on our strengths and forge a win win relationship.

But please. Ask first.

Isaiah has written a very well written and reasonable article on this and is of the opinion that while some factors that make for an interesting blog, such as good content and a good dose of opinions, are rather universal, the rest are subjective. That being the case, he says we’ll never be able to actually agree and line up the blogs into two distinct columns labeled ‘interesting’ and ‘irritating’. Such a simple and glaring truth and we need to point it out.

The wonders of blogging is that – one is free to articulate one’s thoughts, voice, opinions and whathaveyous freely though balanced with responsibility. You are free to blog however you want to, just like I am free to blog however I want to.

While I do not like certain blogs, I don’t demand or issue rules. I am much kinder and merely click that little x at the top right corner. After all, it is not very difficult to understand that if you do not enjoy reading a certain blog, feel free to disengage from it.

There really shouldn’t be rules, policing or regulation of how or what a blog should be. And I agree with My Grey World when she said:

1. Blog what you want.
2. Blog responsibly.

Of course as “consumers” and readers, we can wish for better content and degree of engagement. I agree that I would like to be engaged more in how people think and I am interested to know their opinions on different topics. There is certainly room for improvement when it comes to blogs that offer CoPy liKE tHIs (damn, it is hard to type like this!) and blogs that have little content to speak of. It says a lot about our youths who blog like that – and I wonder why. Well, there is always that little x in the corner.

On the other hand, I am glad that there are bloggers who are fighting the good fight to deregulate the internet and to encourage creative growth and responsible freedom of expression.

Power to you guys.

There is a thought provoking article in TOC touching on the table tennis team in the Olympics. It raises some very pertinent points about the definition of being Singaporean and the meaning of sportsmanship.

And there was “Kent” again in comment no 16, a verbatim copy of his comment to me earlier in my article. I wonder if there are employees on the government payroll to do this.

And like what UCF said in comment no 6:

Mr. Anthony Yeo and Xtralicious have both stated their views very clearly – it’s the foreign talent policy and not the fact that the players are foreign-born that is the issue causing Singaporeans to be unhappy.

This represents the broad view of the commenters here as well. We have emphasized this numerous times.

Unfortunately, there has been repeated attempts by government supporters to deliberately misrepresent this view as racism or xenophobia. Such a strawman position is easier to attack because you can label critics as bigots, or racists or luddites and dismiss everything they say.

This letter to the ST forum is a classic example:

“Let’s learn from Canada” – by Cheong Wing Lee

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_270895.html

Not only do they muddle the issue, they also repeat it again and again and again to force the message home, as if all Singaporeans are made of stupid.

Their strategy is that if you repeat it often enough people will eventually give up and believe. That is why there are so many articles in the MSM glorifying the silver medal win to the extent that it is making people puke.

If you keep denying it, then the problem will go away. If you keep saying that it is a minority opinion, then somehow magically it will become one and everybody’s brain will magically turn off. They should be aware that their constant drumming is having a counterproductive effect.

and in comment 17:

Kent – not again.

Maybe if you guys keep twisting this argument one more million times, you can turn black into white.

Perhaps this is their counter directive towards dissent in the online sphere. Repeat it enough and perhaps someone would start believing it.