Bronson

“Do you remember the floods? In Oxford? Do you remember the boy who got his foot stuck in the grate and the water kept rising… and kept rising… and kept rising… and they tried to get him out but eventually he drowned?

Well, that wouldn’t have happened to me. Y’know why? Because I woulda said CUT IT OFF… NOW.What I’m trying to say is, is sometimes you’ve gotta cut a little piece of yourself off. No matter how much it hurts. In order to grow. In order to move on. D’you know what I mean?”

- Charles Bronson, the most “violent prisoner in Britain”.

He is one of the most high profile criminals in Britain, and is currently serving life imprisonment, while writing books… and poetry.

Mad man? Or GENIUS? He is able to sum up something that most of us can’t even comprehend. But sometimes you have to let go of whatever’s holding you back in order to grow and move on, no matter how painful it is.

Watch original interview by the actor who played Bronson here:

Note: The audio’s very soft. And the actor (Tom Hardy) swears a couple of times HAHA. But my favourite is when he’s all “F*cking hell Thomas, it’s easier to get hold of f*cking Santa Claus than you” when Tom doesn’t pick up the phone. And the end “This guy is dope!”.

Generation Gap: Growing larger with every technological advancement

My 2-year-old daughter surprised me recently with two words: “Daddy’s book.” She was holding my Kindle electronic reader. Here is a child only beginning to talk, revealing that the seeds of the next generation gap have already been planted. She has identified the Kindle as a substitute for words printed on physical pages. I own the device and am still not completely sold on the idea.

- The Children of Cyberspace: Old Fogies by Their 20s by Brad Stone

Ever since technology was introduced, it’s been advancing at an exponential rate, so fast that even Generation Y (supposedly the more tech-savvy generation, compared to Generation X, at least) have trouble keeping up with the latest advancements. Children begin their Facebook and MySpace accounts at younger ages. I got my Facebook page when I was 19, and I hear kids of 14 now already discussing Facebook games. The next generation are exposed to technology at younger and younger ages.

Kids as young as 3 years old are already exposed to iPhones. Not only are they just exposed to these technological products, they have mastered the basics of how to use them. Their games are not the Monopoly board games or card games we played when we were young, their games are loaded on iPhones and Nintendo DS Lites.

Generation X has already been separated by Generation Y by the computer and the Internet, with the second camp being technology-savvy and the first having no idea how to use a computer. With technology moving along in an increasingly faster pace, each generation becomes even more separated. The secondary school students and the JC.poly students and the university students, all of them with no idea how much more the other groups are immersed in technology.

This is a zhu zhu hamster, an artificially-intelligent toy that can move around based on mechanisms, and make audio sounds just like real hamsters. In China, they are extremely popular and one particular man brought one home for his child to play with. The child, upon playing with the toy, declares that it is “not a toy. It is a PET.”

Technology has affected the next generation in ways we may never understand. While we understand a pet to be a real animal, one that needs constant attention and nurturing, one that needs food and toys and a litter box, the next generation may define pets as these zhu zhu hamsters: able to move, and ‘talk’ using artificial intelligence. Technology is changing the mindsets of the next generation, well is it for the better?

Technology is also creating standard de factos among people, giving them higher expectations for the technology they are immersed in.

While we were impressed with touchscreen when it first came out, the next generation are not just used to it, they expect and demand for it. Your phone isn’t touchscreen? Yawn, boring. In the same way that a child who was born after the Internet came about will never understand how people existed without the Internet, a child who was born after the touchscreen was created will never understand how people can exist without touchscreen phones and mp4 players. And all this while, the rest of us scratch our heads at their demands. Why? Because Generation Y was never born with the expectation that phones are touchscreen, while Generation Z was born with the expectation that touchscreen are a standard de facto in a mobile phone. It is the same for Generation X, who ponder why Generation Y needs to surf the Internet practically everyday, while Generation X does not feel the same need. Because they have experienced and lived through a time when it was not the standard norm to surf the Internet, ever.

Social behaviours like this don’t come without a hefty price. Being exposed to a faster-paced world causes the younger generation to move at a much more rapid pace, and expecting the people around them to do the same. They expect instant responses to their questions. And they are big on multitasking. Generation Y has already set the pace for multitasking, whether it’s performing tasks at the same time or switching over to different tasks over and over again. This type of behaviour spills over to the next generation as well. But what sort of implications does that have on society?

We become less patient with dealing with people who are ‘slower’. We expect responses to be instantaneous, questions to be replied with answers almost immediately.

We multitask, but we all know that multitasking doesn’t always give positive effects. If I’m sitting here studying Communication Research, and at the same time switching over to emails in the next tab, listening to “I Got a Feeling” and waiting for an SMS from a friend, how much work do you think I’d get done? How much do you think I’d really be absorbing? Multitasking may market itself to be a saviour of time, but it also causes us to become more distracted, and less focused on the issues at hand.

The next issue that comes along is something our generation is grappling with: privacy. More and more location-based applications like MOSOSO (finding people in a particular vicinity) and FourSquare (application that posts your location on Twitter) are coming out, and the next generation will be growing up with it. As they have not experienced a time when they were not exposed to location-based apps, they will come to believe that they must exist in order for us to exist. And that leads them to have more relaxation when it comes to privacy, and an expectation to have such apps and know everyone’s geographic coordinates at any point of time.

Our expectations of technology continue to evolve, and will continue to evolve as technology develops in more advanced ways. Then what kind of deeper media experiences will the future generations experience? What are the types of technology that will help them create expectations of what technology should be like?

Read the sequel to this post:

The iPad’s REAL Target Market.

Tweet Tweet Twit (Library of Congress)

Very recently, the Library of Congress announced that it has plans to archive the entire Twitter archive dating back from it’s beginning in 2006. Original article here. And I worry very much about it, because I wonder, what exactly are they planning to do with it, for now and in the future? Who exactly is holding the copyrights and intellectual property rights for the entire database?

Because Library of Congress is seen as merely an archival database, people believe that their conscience is clear. Library of Congress announced that they planned to archive tweets so that they could sift through the information for anthropological reasons: to study the human behaviour in the 21st century. Years later, the people of the future will be able to view and understand how life was like in the 21st century, in a much much better way than we can understand how life was like in the 20th century, the 19th century, and so on.

I’m not saying that the Library of Congress is evil, or out to get us in any way. Perhaps that wasn’t their intentions, perhaps their intentions are good. They want to be able to have access to invaluable data that would contribute to society, in terms of knowledge, in terms of understanding and in terms of betterment of society. But the idea that somewhere out there, a huge database of tweets remains, perfectly archived, means that they may fall into the hands of people with lesser-than-good intentions.

Like, people of corporate companies, perhaps?

Corporate websites like Google and Twitter are info or data-based, they thrive on data. Without information, Google would not exist as a search engine to help people filter through the content that others have put up on the Internet. If there were no people to contribute to content, Twitter would not exist as a microblogging service devoted to allowing people all over the world to read messages known as Tweets.

What happens if these corporate websites are looking for money? The true role of all companies are to generate money and cashflow, they’re all interested in the bottom line. How do they generate cashflow? By seeking advertisers. How do they get more advertisers? By offering the advertisers an idea of what they think people will buy. How will they know what people want? By getting more data.

In 2003, Google acquired Blogger.com, popular blog-hosting service, and later Picasa later in 2004. Why? Why are they interested in acquiring Blogger and Picasa in the first place? Because they recognize it as a means to make money through advertisements?

Partly yes, but more so because they want to gain the rights of content from millions of people all over the world. The more content they have, the more information they have to sell to advertisers. Do you earn? No. Do they earn? Why yes, they do.

Wait, why? you may ask.

Well, who owns the copyrights? They do, remember?

This gives new meaning to

All Your Base Are Belong To Us

Because all your content are belong-ing to them.

So in the same way that Google quietly takes control, I fear the future of what might happen to the billions of tweets stocked in the archived databases of the Library of Congress. Apparently, there are “50 million tweets per day and the total number of tweets already number well into the billions.” That’s a lot of info.

I think if one extremely wealthy corporate person were to buy over Facebook and Twitter, he’d be unstoppable. Imagine the amount of content he’d have intellectual property rights over! Imagine the amount of data he can generate for marketing and advertising purposes. Imagine the amount of data he controls. Unstoppable!

Perhaps Rupert Murdoch might like to acquire your tweets. Then he’ll have a better idea of what the people of this century are talking about, and what they like. What they eat and drink, where they go, what they like to do, and the celebrities they like to worship. And he will go back to News Corporation and pitch advertisement spots to companies accordingly, to buy advertisement space. After all, then he’ll know exactly what you eat and drink, where you go, what you like and which celebrities you worship. And he’ll be able to pitch to companies accordingly, to get them to buy advertisement space from him to reach the people he has read about. And in this way, he’ll get rich. Very rich. Thanks to you. All because of something you mentioned in passing, years ago.

Globalised

You wake up in the morning, feeling fresh. You brush your teeth with your newly bought Colgate toothpaste, noticing the tingling sensations it produces, something your old toothpaste didn’t have. You meet up with a friend (let’s call him/her H), and spend a few minutes arguing where to eat. Ramen or Kimchi? You both eventually settle on sushi. After that, you both just wander around aimlessly, looking into shops like Braun Buffel, Zara, and Giordano. H hears some Black Eyed Peas playing on the sound system, and starts singing along. You hurry H along, till you both hear Pitbull, which you very much prefer. H, though, has never heard Pitbull before. “Who the hell doesn’t know who’s Pitbull??” you think to yourself.

Sex and the City 2 is showing in cinemas, so you go watch that. As the characters fly off to Abu Dhabi for a holiday, you both marvel the scenery, the fashion, the culture. And envy the characters perhaps just a little for their fortunes – till drama ensues, and you both start laughing. After the movie, H wants some spaghetti while you crave for some prata. You both end up at Macdonalds instead (how that happens, neither of you are sure). And off to Starbucks for some coffee before you both call it a day.

Seems like a pretty normal day? It is pretty normal… but things are happening around you whether you’re realising it or not. Globalisation is occuring right under your nose in every single activity you’re indulging in.

What the hell is globalisation?

It’s when countries are interconnecting with each other. We are all coming together to share ideas. Through migration, through technology, through communication. Our society is no longer ’just Singapore’, we’re also connected to people all over the world. A friend could be in Australia but you could still talk to her through MSN. A cousin could be in Denmark but you can catch up with him through Facebook. Globalisation is something that occurs all the time, constantly.

And globalisation makes a bigger mark than you may realise. Almost everything in the above two paragraphs has some connection back to globalisation. The Colgate toothpaste? Made in America. Actually, probably made in China, stamped in America then shipped to your neighbourhood mama shop. Ramen, kimchi, sushi, spaghetti and prata wouldn’t be in our shores if the world wasn’t global. We might just be eating Singapore food. What on earth is local food anyway? Certainly not Hainanese Chicken Rice or hor fun. Maybe fish, since Singapore was a fishing kampong.

Braun Buffel, Zara and Giordano are certainly not shops created by Singapore. If globalisation never happened, maybe we’d only have Creative and Jia Jia Lang Teh. And another thing that globalisation produced is: Celebrities. Otherwise, we wouldn’t know who’s Britney Spears, George Clooney, and not understand who Darth Vader is.

(Darth Vader meets Hello Kitty…)

Sex and the City 2 features cultures/lifestyles from both America and Abu Dhabi. And without globalisation, the movie would never have reached our tiny island’s shores. Without globalisation, we wouldn’t have transportation like planes to take us to other countries, anyway.

Branding is important for every company. Macdonalds and Starbucks are no exception. These two are big big brands worldwide, in every continent and in almost every country. Globalisation has definitely helped these two companies gain worldwide recognition.

Sounds exhausting? We’ve just scratched the surface. Almost everything around you ties back to globalisation, from who made the car your parents drive, where your furniture came from, the differnt countries your local news is reporting about, to which brand of computer/laptop/iPad you’re using to read this right now. Globalisation’s got good effects, but it’s definitely got lots of backlash too.

So… what’s happened with globalisation?

Better communication

The good: When it comes to technology, everything is made possible (or at least, easier). Email, SMS, MSN, social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, and even BBM (Blackberry Messaging) is making life easier for many many people around the world to stay in touch. Not only do you get to keep in touch with people you love on the other side of the world, you can keep in touch with that friend living not that far away but you both have trouble meeting up. And communication between countries has definitely been beneficial, with sharing of ideas.

The bad: With everything going on, one language emerges from everywhere. English is the adopted medium that everyone uses, be it the Internet, media, conversations. Why? Why is it that if your countrymen aren’t fluent in English, it automatically means you’re not as forward as everyone else? China has many people who don’t speak fluent English but they are expanding at the craziest rate with China people in almost every country. And with such a big country, if they unite…. they can probably take on the rest of the world.

This leads to…

Cultural exchange

The good: Just like how the Sex and the City 2 characters learnt about life in Abu Dhabi, everyone is more exposed to the different cultures. This leads to cultural tolerance. You’re more okay with people of different races than you, different backgrounds, you’re alright with people decked out in tattoos because you know they’re sweet people and not murdering gangsters.

The bad: Cultural imperialism. The threat of people adopting another culture instead of their own. As people look to the West for ideas and inspiration, people begin dressing like them, eating the food they eat, and even talking like them (or at least trying to. And failing!). This is a huge huge issue, because this phenomenon called Westernisation is slowly taking over in every country. We’re throwing away our own cultures (that we deem old-fashioned) and adopt the American culture becuase we think it’s “better” or “cooler”. Media is perpetuating these ideas, that people should look like those ang mohs in Sex and the City, and act like them too. And the world begins to subscribe to one culture: Materialism.

More products.

The good: Definite win, otherwise we wouldn’t have electronics, medicine, education, and coke.

The bad: We’re looking at a more materialistic culture, where money is everything. And while you get more things, you still want more things. Globalisation isn’t just selling you stuff, it’s selling you a certain kind of lifestyle that you believe you must have, whether you can afford it or not. Are we creating social problems, issues that previously did not use to exist?

Developing countries

The good: Third world countries like Africa are getting worldwide help, in terms of financial aid, shelter, health, education, and technology. They’re slowing able to catch up and other countries are helping them fulfill their basic needs like food, water and shelter.

The bad: While Africa is slowing catching up, so is the rest of the world (catching up to the U.S.). Worse still, the US is also progressing much faster than anyone else, such as 3D TV and other advancements. How is Africa going to catch up?!

Worse still, is the problem of exploitation. Poorer countries have resources, and people. And some countries are accused of things like creating sweatshops where poor people work under bad conditions and paid low wages to produce products (like shoes) to ship to richer countries for richer people to buy.

Outsourcing

The good: With more countries to look at, we can start outsourcing to other countries. Admin jobs doesn’t have to be done by a local, the necessary files can be emailed to someone far off and the person will just do the work and email it back. This could be cheaper, which is music to any company’s ears.

The bad: This might mean loss in jobs for some people, as talent is sourced somewhere else. And are we stopping the search for local talent, instead preferring to look elsewhere? Are we overlooking what we already have in the first place?

Giving a voice to everyone

The good: The Internet is really powerful. On the virtual web, everyone can be connected with anyone. And if you’ve got something to share, one click of a mouse and you could share what you have with hundreds and thousands of people. If you’re not happy with the BP oil spill or Katy Perry’s fashion sense, all you have to do is upload a video of your comments and it’ll be up on Youtube in no time. And there is no limit to the number of voices that can be put up. We’d have different opinions on how is global warming affecting you, we’d learn much more about what we think love is, we know about how school is affecting different people. On the web, everyone has a voice.

The bad: Yes, we’re giving everyone a chance to speak up. But who is REALLY ruling the world? There are people in the sidelines, but don’t be fooled: they are the true masterminds.

There are many media corporations around the world, but only a few are the dominant companies. News Corp. Disney. Time Warner (Warner Bros). AOL. Vivendi-Universal. Bertelsmann (the one that brought us American Idol). Viacom. Big, big companies. And in the whole wide world, there are only 6 biggest players? What are the problems here? What if they’re just interested in making money, and start pushing things to us and forcing us to accept them? Not everything in the media is true and trusted. But how will you know what’s real and what’s not, if all 6 companies keep pushing one particular thing? Who’s REALLY ruling the world?

These are just the basics. There’s many more. Without globalisation, many things would not be the way that they are right now. We wouldn’t be living longer. We wouldn’t be eating the food we eat. We wouldn’t be getting the same kind of education we get. And we might not be living in this lifestyle we are accustomed to. But it’s important to be critical, and not lose sight of what’s really important. Some people think that globalisation is making everything worse. Others are much more hopeful about the future. What will really happen, is up to you.

Society’s Expectations of Mobile Phones

I am by and large no fan of Society and it’s expectations on people. While yes, we do (to a certain extent) influence society’s practices, I believe that society plays a much larger part in shaping just who we are and our behaviour towards certain situations. Looking at mobile phones, I gravitate towards how society expects us to behave in certain mobile phone situations. Society has pretty much formed norms and expectations regarding the usage of a mobile phone.

Cross-calling (call between me and Angela, with Kelvin hovering by my side)

This shows society’s norms when it comes to answering a phone call when in the company of another person. It is inconsiderate to be speaking to someone else while in the presence of another person. One spurning example is this:

“Girl 1 answers the phone despite being in my presence… and doesn’t say she’s busy and hang up. The fact that she chooses to go on with the conversation instead of ending it because she’s with me gets on my nerves. Just hang up already!”

However, everyone’s behaviour changes when all three of the people are those who know each other.

“Since Kelvin, Angela and I are all good friends, I don’t bother lowering my voice like I normally would when answering the phone in front of someone else. I even act as the middle man, relaying a joke from A to K, much to the bemusement of the sales lady in a shop, who stared at us as though we were slightly demented.”

Technology limits us in the sense that we are unable to speak properly in a three-way mode unless a three-way call is made. However, this situation did not stop us behaving as though the three people were all together in person. To have two people in person and a third on the phone, we could behave the same way if we were all together, even to the point of allowing a stranger (in this case the sales lady) to intrude in the conversation. It is interesting to note the difference in behaviour in both situations. Maybe you could argue the variables like how my personality is louder with K and A as opposed to Girl 1. And maybe you could argue how solipsist I am to expect Girl 1 to hang up just because of me. But either way, these are just manipulative factors. The important thing is, how phone etiquette completely changes when it is 3 people who know each other, compared to when the third party does not know the 1st. It can be deduced from the above quote that ‘I would normally lower my voice when answering a call in front of someone else’.

Example: you were in a cafe with A and B calls, you’ll pick it up and quietly talk to B on the phone if A does not know B. BUT, if you were in a cafe with A, and B calls, and all three of you know each other, the atmosphere completely changes, just like how K, A and I were talking.

Time taken to reply

“Yes, I admit, I reply to people based on their importance to me. I could reply a close friend immediately, but I could wait a few hours before replying an acquaintance. So since N didn’t reply me till a day later, does that make me someone less important in the eyes of N, or was it just that he wasn’t available the whole day?”

This begs the issue of society’s norms. Society dictates a certain amount of time that is considered ‘normal’ or ‘polite’ to reply another person’s message or missed call. However, being individuals, are we obligated to fulfill society’s expectations, despite the fact that our habits differ from one person to another? To one individual, an hour may be a satisfactory amount of time for a reply, but to another individual, half a day may be a satisfactory amount of time for a reply. Due to societal expectations, some may feel the pressure to deviate from their habits in order to conform to society’s norms of answering a message or missed call. This is a case of society shaping a person’s habits, instead of the other way round. Because society dictates that you should reply a person within an hour, you do so even though you normally would prefer to reply a person half a day later.

Immersion

“I’ve been so immersed in my phone that I barely paid any attention to the other girls. Perhaps if my phone was not in my presence, I might have been a bit more proactive in talking to the girls and getting to know them.”

In the same way that humans influence technology (such as to make better phones, more megabites), technology can also influence a person’s behaviour. A person may be physically in one place but mentally immersed in technology or their phone. Just like how I can be at Bedok Jetty but mentally I’m just stuck on Facebook and Twitter that I don’t notice what’s going on around me. This is how the usage of a phone may have an impact on communicating with other people. While a person may be able to speak to anyone else without geographical limitations, technology may have stifled us when it comes to speaking to someone just next to us. Shame, though. We seem to be more engrossed in talking to each other virtually, telling each other “Hey! Let’s meet up soon!” and when we finally do, we end up facebooking on our mobile phones telling another bunch of friends: “Hey! Let’s meet up soon!”. The irony. Technology has been said to increase ties with people, but instead, people have become even more stunted in conversation because a mobile phone comes in between.

“I barely put down my phone for fear of someone trying to call me but is not able to reach me. Seems like part of the belief of having a mobile phone means that you should be contactable at all times and for every single day.”

This is a classic case of a user being shaped by technology. It is the expectation that the user has to be contactable at all times, as though the phone is ‘surgically-attached’ to the user. That is not necessarily true, as the signal and network of the phone plays an important part, as well as the location of the user. For cases such as if the user is underground, where connection cannot be established, it is therefore not possible for the user to be contactable at that point in time. However, technology has shaped users by creating a certain dependency on the phones, which in turn controls the users’ social behaviours. I recall times when friends try to reach me, and when they can’t, they get pissed. And when they finally see me, they go: “You got mobile phone for what ah? Call you also you never pick up.” Society has created expectations that you MUST be able to pick up your phone at any given time, simply because you SHOULD be having your phone with you at all times. Even when you’re at home. Even when you’re asleep. Even when you’re shitting. You should be able to Pick. Up. That. Damn. Phone.

That is just one case. But this goes deeper. Now, with more sophisticated mobile technology, we not only can pick up calls but surf the net on our phone. And societal expectations says that our phone must be with us at all times? This means that we should be able to surf the net at all times too. Which gives us less reason or excuse when it comes to work-related emails, because the Boss expects you to receive and read his email even when it’s 4am in the morning. No, that shouldn’t be how life is like? Sadly, it is. That’s our society right now, the belief that we HAVE to be with our phones at all time, and that leads to us being able to access our applications and emails and whatever at ALL times.

This leads me to this quote:

Heaven is the anytime office. Hell is the everywhere, everytime office”.

- Paul Saffo, Director for the Institute of the Future

And right now, we’re carrying the Hell office…. but we believe we’re in the Heaven office.

omg dai.

WXYzzz

P.S. WOAH. I hope it’s not too heavy to absorb. But it’s super interesting to examine human behaviour. Next stop, my favourite: Technological Bubble. And also How to Beat Societal Expectations and Divorce from Your Mobile Phone.

CNN’s “25 most influential people in Asia”??

Who compiled a list of the good, the bad, and the ugly in Asia? CNN did!

They sought out the people in Asia who influenced their respective countries (bonus points if their news crossed borders). Some are truly noteworthy, but others…. are so cringeworthy!

The Good –

Vo Trong Nghia (Vietnam):

An architect who uses bamboo as part of his building materials. Hmm, interesting. He builds modern architecture using bamboo (in case you didn’t get that part), and his eco-friendly green architecture has brought him 2 prizes at an International Architecture Awards. Green has never been such a cool shade (WAHAHAHA I LIKE THAT. I TOTALLY MADE IT UP MYSELF OKAY).

Ratan Tata (India):

Deemed “Role model for the price conscious”, this 71-year-old from Tata Motors brought about the world’s cheapest car at 100,000 rupees (about S$2989, give or take). Not only that, he’s unveiled a Swach (means clean in Hindi) water filter for the poor rural households. It uses “ash from rice milling to filter out bacteria”. I would LOVE to see how that works, mainly cause I don’t quite understand how it could possibly work. Tata’s projects revolve around cost-effective and affordable devices targeting the lower income market. Everyone loves having people like him, economic recession or no. Everyone loves saving money, don’t they?

Efren Penaflorida (Phillipines [sp]):

HEH. CNN SPELLING FAIL. PHILIPPINES ALSO DON’T KNOW HOW TO SPELL!

Proof here -

His name is Florida? Anyway, dubious name aside, this guy travels around the poorest areas with his pushcart, teaching the poor kids English, Math and Science. Sooo sweet! I first thought his pushcart must hold ice cream or something, which is how he lures the children into coming for ‘class’, but the pushcart actually holds stuff like books and pens and notes for his mobile classroom. He was given $100,000 by CNN and the title of 2009 Hero of the Year. By the way, his name is really Efren Penaflorida Jr., his father’s name is Efren Penaflorida Sr. CNN, can you like, at least get his name right?

Douglas Maclagan (Hong Kong):

In Nepal 14 years ago, a Nepalese mother, desperate for help, handed him her dying baby girl. The girl died in his arms. OH MY GOD. He decided from that moment that he was going to commit himself to saving the children in Nepal. Now sheltering these children from beatings, raids, and brothels, he also provides programs for healthcare, education and social opportunities for these kids. Child Welfare advocates, for the win!

The Singaporean -

APEC 2009 organizers (YAY):

Efficiency win! Singapore reinforces her image once again of being one of the most clean and efficient countries, and plays host to the hundreds of foreigners who experienced what it’s like to be in Singapore.

Mas Selamat (WAHAHA):

The one guy every NS man dreams of kicking. After escaping from prison in 2008, every NS guy was pulled from their warm beds to hunt down the ever-elusive Mas in the cold, wet, dirty, and sparse forests of Singapore. And as it turns out, he was hiding in Malaysia. Guess that brings “Selamat Datang ke Malaysia!” to a whole different level.

The women of AWARE (huh? Why??):

Women who bickered on a daytime television show. Oh, sorreh. It’s IRL (in real life). We didn’t particularly learn anything, except that women can’t seem to get along with each other. Oh, and the catchphrase “Shut up and sit down” isn’t all that catchy.

Ris Low (WTF!!!):

Downfall of a beauty queen spread through the newspapers life wildfire. It’s like a car accident: you refuse to look but you look anyway. But because she coined a word, CNN awards her with the title of Catchphrase Queen. Thank god the Intellectual Property Law would not allow her to trademark it. FYI, IPL doesn’t allow a single word to be trademarked. You can trademark a phrase, like Just Do It, but you can’t trademark a single word.

So… THAT’s the top representatives from Singapore? SO SHAMEFUL! The only things we’re apparently now famous for is the inability to settle conflict in a civilized manner, and the inability to speak proper English. Even our campaigns are screwed up! “Speak GOOD English”. Isn’t it “Speak PROPER English”? English FAIL. Singlish… WIN. But do we REALLY want to be known and famous for our impertinent and blatant disregard when it comes to language? Campaigns and interviews are different from everyday language, you know that there is a higher expectation to uphold a certain amount of class and dignity, than to dissolve into a myriad of Singlish. Okay, granted, CNN’s list also included scandalized people like Andy Lau and Noriko Sakai, but doesn’t Singapore have more noteworthy people than what’s on the list?

(Credits: livingroomscribbles.blogspot)

What about them? Huh? HUH?

I’m just irritated that their accomplishments were so overshadowed. Well, it’s true they accomplished more than ol’ Ris Low and the whole AWARE team put together, but I guess this list is apparently about those who are the most ‘influential’ to the people. And that boils down to what the media reports and doesn’t report. And the media has successfully put down the news and saga of the women at AWARE and Ris Low as the top stories, perhaps second only to Mas Selamat. Agenda setting… FAIL? Fail for Singapore, WIN for Ris Low. Must be shiok for her. Accomplish nothing, but get exactly what she wants. The local media gives half a page to Ris’ court dealings in the Home section. That’s the agenda they prefer to blow up. It’s true, the media really does prefer to report what is the public’s interest, not what’s truly in the interest of the public. There is a difference, mind you.

I question CNN’s highly questionable list. I still can’t get over the whole Philippines misspelling, and gross error of Efren Jr’s name. For such a creditable news network like CNN? Disappointing.

I’m materialistic. So what?

People have constantly reiterated why people and why women are so demanding in this society, their expectations so high. They lament that these people don’t value what they have, don’t appreciate the fact that they’re luckier than others in poorer countries, maybe even don’t appreciate the fact that they’re luckier than the average man. I’ve worked a lot with kids before and I know and understand these people’s laments first hand.

Most kids won’t be satisfied with a 12 colour pencil set. Kids nowadays expect every single colour including peach, and a 48 colour set with all the pencils perfectly sharpened and aligned, when kids in third world countries delight in just one colour to colour an entire picture. Well that’s because they’d never even had a colour pencil before that. Once you’ve had a taste of something better, you’ll want to have more. That is human nature, to long for something that’s always out of your grasp. Maybe it’s asking for too much, maybe it’s considered being too greedy, maybe, maybe, maybe. Some people say it’s an excess. Too grand, they say. Why so much? Why do we live in such a materialistic society, when the world out there beckons for help? Why not be content with what you have, when there are people on the same continent struggling to even make ends meet? But there is a certain kind of expectation when your eyes are opened to the world. You know what it’s like to be below average, you know what it’s like to be average, and you know what it’s like to be above average. IS IT WRONG TO WANT TO BE ABOVE AVERAGE? What’s wrong with being ‘elite’? There’s nothing wrong with wanting the Best, for ourselves for our children, for our families, for our quality of lives. And yet people brand it, people curse it, people consider it shallow. They put a name to it: Elitist, and they make it out to be a bad thing.

It doesn’t mean that it comes to a point where it’s justified if we’re spoilt, or if our kids are spoilt. There’s always such a thing as moderation, and that plays a role in every aspect of our lives. But I know that if there’s something that makes me happy, then I’m willing to work hard to strive for it. Everyone does splurge on something if they can justify it. A camera. A phone. A car. A pair of earphones. If they think there’s nothing wrong with splurging on something of quality, why not me on my quality of life?

I’m obsessed, yes. I admit it. I’m obsessed with cars. Obsessed with property. Obsessed with a certain way of life.

I can already Kelvin singing “Why’re you so obsessed with me?”

I guess when you have lived a certain kind of life, conditioned yourself to a certain way of thinking you will condition yourself to ensure that your way of life can and will remain in such a position of high living. But I wish to maintain that certain quality in the way I live, to climb higher, than to drop down. To aim for more, to go for something better. Is it wrong of me to do so?

Meh. Brand me an elitist. If that’s what you need to put a name to a description.

wXyzzz