e pur si muove

Over the years I have spent on campus, I have noticed a precipitous decline in the quality of editorials in the campus newspaper, the DI. Well-reasoned opinions on global and national issues in my undergrad days gave way to trashy epithets of the tabloid variety.

The latest such op/ed that scraped the barrel when it came to journalistic standards was last Wednesday’s whinefest of an editorial, about students not being able to get tickets for Midnight Madness, the basketball season’s kickoff match, and how that would come at the detriment of fostering school spriit, blah, blah, blah.

An interesting (if trivial) story, except that its basic premises were wrong, and they had to publish an erratum tantamount to a complete retraction the very next day.

That’s how bad the current editorials are.

On Friday, they finally came to their senses and admitted that their editorials really sucked, and are therefore not going to publish any more editorials for “a couple of weeks”:

It is the standard of most respectable professional and college newspapers to run editorials regularly and frequently in its opinions pages. But such standards presuppose a definite utility for fulfilling the newspapers’ mission: providing fair, truthful, balanced, important, interesting and necessary information to the community they serve. Our editorials do not meet this goal and to continue publishing the editorials the way they have been would be a disservice to our readers.

This is why we have decided to close shop. This is not an easy decision for us, and we do not take it lightly.

But simply put, The Daily Illini Editorial Board must change the way it chooses editorial board topics, the way the editorials are written and the way they are edited and fact checked.

Tragic.

I hope they really mean it though, and I’m looking forward to the possibility of reading something intelligent in the not-too-distant future.

sei-ji rakugaki, 20060924

Some time ago, I learnt an awesome word from the 2006 Annual Scripps National Spelling Bee, an event that has gained so much popularity in recent years that it was shown live on national TV. The wordweltschmerz, apparently an English word, featured rather prominently in the bee as it knocked out second-place contestant Finola Hackett with a minor, albeit fatal, error.

But that’s not even half as interesting as the definition which makes this word so memorable: mental depression or apathy caused by comparison of the actual state of the world with an ideal state.

Which was exactly clicked when I read about PM Lee’s latest exhortation to Singaporean youth to “play their part in country’s future”:

We have to persuade young people eventually to conclude that: In Singapore, I can do something, I don’t like this, let me get in and change this.

If you say ‘I don’t like this’, and say ‘I am fed up, let’s go’, that’s a great pity. We would have lost somebody in whom we put a lot of hopes and I think Singapore is worse off.

What is it you are unhappy with, let’s get that changed, that’s how we got here today. If we were happy with what Singapore was 50 years ago, we would not have created Singapore today.

And, if you are just happy with what Singapore is today, we are not going to change either. You must have the optimum degree of unhappiness, just right and the conviction to make it change.

Molly Meek has spoken her piece on how the Prime Minister did not address the issue of “how deeply Singapore is alienating its own people.”

All I can say is, I’ve been there, done that, now what?

Is this the curse of having an open mind, this newfound appreciation for the startling confines of home?

To mix clichés, home is where the heart is, but one cannot stay in the womb forever.

P.S. See also the Straits Time coverage of the same event, reprinted here.

Today’s Youtube video features an amazing literally-titled Japanese game show, whereby teams compete to see how long each of their team members can survive soaking in a tank of hot water. The time is measured by (get this) counters attached to a girl’s hooters, and she jiggling her boobies as long as the manly man stays in the tank.

Read the rest of this entry »

So the IMF/WB conference has finally come to an end, and with it the associated panoply of hard work surrounding the need to get things running like clockwork. The million dollar question is: despite the PR fiasco, did the delegates at least enjoy themselves here? Since the press has apparently been tasked to bleat WB/IMF at every opportunity, the plethora of local coverage makes it relatively easy to piece together real feedback despite the neutral feel-good quotes.

The Four Million Smiles campaign, for all its much-maligned worth, has seemed to have accomplished its goal. The delegates found little to complain about with regard to customer service. Patricia Davis, heading the IMF/WB joint secretariat, had this to say:

The four million smiles were very evident. The people of Singapore were very well-informed about the event. I was surprised that the shop assistant and taxi drivers knew about the meetings and were supportive.

Everyone was willing to go the extra mile to offer good service. Everyone was smiling and helpful, right down to carrying your lunch in the cafeteria and pulling out your chair

A runaway success in customer service, or a comment on ingratiating, unadulterated bootlicking? You decide.

Other delegates appeared nonplussed at the extra-tight security measures. Zimbabwean delegate Mr Nyamurova Conrad gave a quote that very neatly summarized the whole atmosphere at Suntec:

The security was exaggerated. It was too much. But what I understand is Singapore doesn’t take chances on the probability of any eventuality. They stood their ground … (and) who should determine the rules, the visitor or the host?

Even in an op/ed piece, TODAY journalist Loh Chee Kong mentioned the ‘Fort Suntec’ atmosphere before delivering his platitudes of the social engineering stripe:

A handful of delegates also thought that everything they experienced in the past few days was too good to be true. And given the watertight security surrounding the event, the delegates could be forgiven for feeling as though they were living in a bubble.

Maybe we are victims of our own success. The summit — save for the controversy over Singapore’s stance on outdoor protests and the denial of entry to some civil society activists — was a resounding success in terms of organisation: The traffic disruptions went almost unnoticed, the convention facilities were top-notch and the delegates’ every need was looked after immaculately by minders, their every step greeted by smiling ushers.

Is it too demanding to expect Singaporeans to be this polite and nice everyday? Perhaps. But it would be sad if it was all just for show.

We should use the IMF-World Bank meetings as a springboard for more gracious behaviour. If we can do it for the eight days the foreign delegates are in town, we can do it for each day of our lives.

Apparently the homily was too much for some to take, prompting already one nonplussed response:

It will take another century before we learn to be gracious — we progressed from driving bullock carts to driving fast cars within too short a span of time. Our newfound material wealth has shaped the way we view the world — as if we own it.[...]

It is encouraging to note that our service levels have improved — the challenge now is to maintain this high level of service and show that it is not only “artificial”, to quote a delegate.

To accord special service to VIPs and deny ordinary folks the same is not the message we should send.

And despite the positive spin on things, taking quotes very slightly out of context can cast even the most dedicated writing into sharp relief. Witness:

Praise like this came abundantly from the 40 delegates who were polled by Today as the IMF-World Bank meetings wrapped up. Everyone gave Singaporeans at least four out of five stars for friendliness, and most gave five — some found the welcome so warm they wondered if it was always like this.

“I travel quite a bit, and I’ve never been to a friendlier place. It seems to be artificial … but even if it is, you guys are doing a great job of it,” said a British delegate.

Surely you didn’t have to be physically present to sense the sarcasm and savviness of this particular quoted source (italics mine). Here’s (oestensibly) another Brit voicing his opinion on this this artificial quality on the customer service:

Briton Matthew Perret of the IMF felt “as if the whole country was mobilised”. He said: “It would be a shame if it’s not genuine but I can’t know what it’s like if I came in a different situation.

So did the NGO ban hurt the IMF/WB summit at all? “Not at all”, said one minister at the end of the meetings. But then why did the Ministry of Home Affairs feel it was necessary to issue this press statement?

After Singapore expressed concerns over 27 activists out of the 526 whom the IMF and World Bank had accredited, the IMF and World Bank raised the matter with Singapore.

In order to be as helpful as possible, Singapore reviewed the names whom the IMF and World Bank were prepared to vouch for, and lifted the bans on 22 of them.

We did this before the public statement by Mr Wolfowitz.

The tone is clear: the Singapore authorities had made a very special exemption for the World Bank/IMF to allow those 22 activists after considering the importance of this meeting, and not for want to promoting freedom of expression.

Some Singaporeans certainly wanted those noisy, exasperating ang mohs
out of their little bubble in the world, such as retired teacher Ho Kong Loon:

Banners aloft, costumes caricaturing grievances, fists in the air, faces masked or painted to ensure anonymity et cetera: Such a carnival atmosphere can quickly transform into a terrifying one when manipulators, instigators, the intoxicated, the uninhibited, the over-enthusiastic or the lunatic fringe decide to test the patience of the police, who are always considerably outnumbered.

A procession of thousands of boisterous demonstrators are an authorities’ nightmare. There is no foolproof means to ensure everything turns out swell. All that is required is a cinder to ignite the raging inferno of a demonstration gone horribly wrong.

Which brings me to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank meetings in Singapore. Why does the foreign press castigate us, when we have undertaken the massive and onerous task of ensuring the safety and comfort of our guests?

These armchair critics do not have to bear the consequences of any fall-out resulting from a demonstration gone awry. We, not our critics, have to mop up after the mess, and live with the consequences should the situation turn ugly.

Indulging in theatrics such as wearing labelled surgical masks shows an affinity with the reel world. A protest of this genre is disingenuous. It makes for good entertainment and comic relief. In the meantime, serious discussions and deliberations go on in the main conference hall. The major participants are making decisions, which will affect millions or even billions.

This incredible letter deserves a complete rebuttal, but I will leave that as an execise to the reader. What a big brush this retired teacher has used to tar all protesters as fanatical anarchists. Must be a response leftover of days spent shredding unsatisfactory homework to pieces with acerbic comments written in red ink. I will merely point out that the objection that NGOs will just come to Singapore to protest and then go home, leaving Singaporeans to clean up after them, holds equally well to the IMF/WB delegates. So these activists’ dollars are not as welcome as the high-heeled IMF/WB delegates, or even pink dollars? Please.

Perhaps even more incredible is that this letter went to press, replete with spelling errors. (’the reel world’: embarrassing typo or subtle, ingenious criticism of modern-day Hollywood? You decide) And if one thinks that the press is inexasperable, think about what it must be like to be one that’s reported on. Even Tan Kin Lian, NTUC Income’s CEO, had reason to complain that the Straits Times had behaved inconsiderately toward him:

They are willing to advance their own agenda, without regard to the harmful impact on other people.