For the past few days, the blogging world has been field with articles regarding the birthday celebrations that students in ACJC and SAJC have done. Two sides have surfaced, some defending the actions, some denouncing it as plain wrong and downright humiliating. The problem is, there are valid points for both sides of the argument, and neither parties are wrong. The point is, we have to find a common consensus of which kind of celebration is allowed and what kind is not.

When we read of the celebration methods, some of us who are old enough will remember our own JC and University days, in particular the orientation week. We recall “funny” things done to peers and seniors, all in the name of fun, and it was fun. Some of us may have subconsiously felt that the celebration method is ok, since we’ve been through it. But I beg to differ.

I remember carrying a senior, putting coke and squashed banana into his pants and doing the thing that SAJC did, going to a coconut tree and you know what. I sincerely do not believe that the usage of the word “slammed” in some blogs is the right word to use. Slam signifies a hard force, and I think if I slam someone onto a metal pole, that person would be in hospital now with no more father’s day. Rubbing, would be more appropriate, with no damage to certain sensitive parts.

Is the above alright? Personally, I think in the name of fun, that is acceptable. After all, no harm was being done. But you argue, in both cases, no harm is being done too, then why might it be bordering on wrong?

Take a moment to think about this really carefully. Certain actions may sound alright, but carried out in a different manner, may end up to sound really wrong. I say sound because I cannot pass judgement on whether it’s all in the name of fun for the 2 cases. There are indeed certain things to consider.

1. Intention
If that person is your friend, and you’re doing this because you’re probably doing the same thing to everyone, then it’s normal and perhaps it’ll be acceptable. However, I remember the days when people ostracise others, and take actions to bully them. Bully behaviour then, is not acceptable.

2. Method of carrying it out
I find that the method is a little disturbing. Tying a person up onto the poles with no way to defend herself, and no way to untie herself, borders on cruelty to me. Even though the person may end up having “fun”, and it’s all in the name of “fun”, it is still pretty much unacceptable. It’s like taking advantage of a person when he or she is at his or her weakest moments. I’m sure you’ll agree that tying someone like that makes that person extremely vulnerable. Not to mention actually uploading it on youtube.

There are perhaps many other things to consider, but I shall not dwell on it.

One disturbing thing that I noted is that the teacher scolded the students for dirtying the school, instead of adopting this method of celebrations. I note that it is not orientation time where you normally do such activities, sans the tying people up, but actually in the middle of the school term. Personally, the most extreme thing normal people do for celebrations is to push the guy’s head into the cake. Hence I’m wondering what kind of message is sent here.

Another thing I’m fretting over is that elitist comments are being shown all over again. But, whether this is acceptable or not does not depend on the type of school one belongs to. Being in a “good” school does not mean you are better, and have a “different” method of celebrating birthdays. Allow me to digress for a moment, for those elitist students, I’m sure those schools mentioned above arn’t that elite after all isn’t it? Not top 3, so don’t give me the bullshit about being elite. I don’t think a student in a top school should even have that notion.

Back to the topic. But after all this talk, I feel that some events are really mild, they are just merely hyped up by “blogs”, especially in the selection of certain words that make it sound really serious.

In the end, I believe it’s a matter of the person in question. It will become unacceptable as long as the person feels any iota of discomfort. But I don’t think any normal human being will feel totally comfortable with a group of people doing something beneath your skirt, tying you up and pouring milk and rubbing cake all over you.

The people doing it may have fun, but the victim? Birthday celebration? I think it’s more fun for the group than the victim.

NUS Enteprise and the Action Community for Entrepreneurship (ACE) have now teamed together to host the Global Entrepreneurship Week this year from 17th to 23rd November, right here in Singapore. Basically there would be many activities lined up throughout the week, as can be seen from their website and they are divided into youth, business and technology.

I’ve been looking at the website for the past half and hour, and I’ve shortlisted a few events which seems interesting enough.

The first one is the event titled, “MoneyTree Entrepreneurship Workshop - Are You Too Young to Start Your Own Business?” It’s on Tuesday, 18th November from 1700 - 2100. When you click on the title, it gives you more information. This interesting workshop is about starting your own business, or for those who are currently thinking about it, yet lack the experience. In my opinion, it is always interesting to listen to other more experienced people speak about building a business. Hence for beginners, you may want to attend this. There’s only 30 seats, so register quickly.

If you are not able to attend the above, then there is another one on the same day that is interesting enough. It’s titled “Can Entrepreneurship be taught? – The Future Directions of Entrepreneurship”. It’s from 1900 - 2100, which will clash with the above, so do see which one you are more interested to go to. A note of caution though, both places are in different places. Light dinner will be provided! Wow.

The last one that I will highlight is “The Entrepreneur networking evening” on Wednesday 19th November from 1900 - 2100 hours. There you’ll be able to meet top SME entrepreneurs, CEOs from SMEs or MNCs, and many other people in the business community. You’ll also get a copy of the Spirit of Enterprise book, Edition 2008. However there is an entrance fee of 50 dollars, but there is finger food and drink provided, plus lucky draw too. However you need to book it before 18th November 2008.

There are so many different interesting events, it’s really a pity that it’s falling in the middle of my examination period. For those that have the time to spare, why not take the chance to go for any event listed on their website? For more information, do visit http://www.entrepreneurshipweeksg.org/index.html!

Hmm.. I wonder if there’ll be webcasts.. Haha

I’m not going to link the entry because everyone should know how to get there, and those who don’t can just use Google to search for it.

It’s funny how when people’s views differ, we start giving names to each other. Remember the Repeal 377A movement that was quite involved during the 377A debate? Names came out. Bigots and what not. Homosexual sympathisers. People with lose morals. This time, (and most of the time), it’s ignorant. “Oh you’re just an ignorant fool”. “Your ignorance disgust me”, and what have you not.

When people just cannot agree on a single thing, and can’t risk losing, they resort to name calling, as if name calling is such a right thing to do. Bear in mind I’m not referring to her post yet, so don’t come and talk to me about her name calling.

The reason why I’m going to talk about her post is because she had exactly (maybe not exact, but some of the main points are) the same thinking as I did. I know I’ll probably get flamed again. The last time I wrote an entry saying how I felt the same way in one of her posts, I get flamed and attacked for no reason. People come telling me about things I should have considered, when I’m talking about a different thing in the first place. It’s like talking history in a mathematics class. Or to be more specific, teaching calculus in primary school algebra. It looks the same but it’s NOT.

Anyway, its about the glorifying of Obama. For me, I do not understand the hype of it all. I guess for Americans, they should feel the hype because they are the ones involved in the decision making, and they voted for their choice of President. If their candidate won, then they can celebrate. I don’t think celebration is wrong, but I don’t see how glorifying Obama till the point that he is portrayed as a God will help. I mean, he is a human, and he has been elected. Let the man do his job. After he has done his job, and has done a good job, then let us praise him and say “This is a good president”. As opposed to saying “This is a good president” before he does any job. Bearing in mind they probably said the same thing of President Bush 8 years ago and look where the people are standing now.

I’m sure Obama is not a God. I do not think he can solve America’s problems in 4 years, and he himself knows it. He has acknowledged that he can start the recovery process, but he may not be able to have results in 4 years.

The next thing is, I do not see the hype with emphasising on him being a Black president. Or the first Black president. In my opinion, it just serves to show me that America was very racist and might still be, just that we felt that they have improved a slight bit and deserves a round of applause. This is because, any comparison in any case would mean we are not race blind, and still consider race to be a consideration! If we are truly race blind, then we would vote for him, have him win, and say we voted for a great president, instead of we’ve voted for the first Black president. Because, the fact that he is black shouldn’t matter at all.

Now you may be calling me ignorant right now, so be it. However I must say I too am impressed with Obama. He’s a good speaker, has charisma, and is now hard at work. He’ll probably bring a good drive and zest to the White House and may potentially be a good president. We shall see, shouldn’t we?

And also, I don’t see why some people should come and say that people are racist if they vote for the opposition, that is, Mc Cain. Personally I feel that it’s how the candidates represent your views, instead of their race. So if it is me, and I’m voting for the white guy, its not that I’m racist, but that I feel he represents me.

Anyway, the main point is, I’ll only pass judgement after seeing his achievements. I’ve seen too much smoke in NS to believe that smoke is beneficial. His policy on Asia hasn’t been defined yet, and we’ll all have to see what steps he’ll take. After all, he may be a great American president, but to a person in Asia, he may be the worlds worst guy. There’s just two sides of a coin, and it depends on how he treats us.

So stop glorifying him and let him do his job.

Sometimes I can’t help but feel that racism and sexism exists everywhere, and it can be seen again in the context of Singapore. Today I read a letter to the ST Forum, which talks about having a prime minister of a difference race (non-chinese). It says that perhaps we should not compare Obama’s recent victory to Singapore, and I feel the same way too.

However, I was reading the comments to the forum, and I had this thought in my mind. Why are we still harping on issues like “When will we have our first non-chinese Prime Minister?”, or “When will we have our first female Prime Minister?”.

In my opinion, are those questions that should be asked? To ask them shows that we are seperating ourselves into different groups, based on race and gender. I also feel strongly against asking those questions, and I feel that the question to ask is, “Is Singaporeans able to accept a PM of a different race and gender?”

What is the difference, you may ask. Perhaps this question also segregates us based on race and gender, but the significant difference is that we are not clamouring for a PM of a different race or gender. To me, as long we Singaporeans are able to accept anyone without care of his or her race or gender, or religion (not that it has been a factor in any case), it means that we do not need to care when those events will happen.

Surely you’ll agree with me that having a PM of a different race or gender simply for the sake of satisfying those questions asked by the public is a dangerous move. We should ensure that we have no bias towards those groups of people, and if they prove capable, we will also push them up. This ensures that we are able to cope with being fair, and we would be able to promote people based on their qualities. If we move a female PM up, but she is not the best candidate out of the others, then we would have made a wrong decision. (This is just an example, not being sexist here)

So let us stop asking when will we have this or that, but ask ourselves if we are able to accept them. If we are able to accept them, then let the government know that its citizens are ready, and they will move people up as they deem fit.

Racial harmony more vital
I WELCOME the opinion voiced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in Sunday’s report, ‘Non-Chinese PM? Possible, but not soon”, on the possibility of having an ethnic minority prime minister in the not-too-distant future, as well as the limitations he outlined in realising such a possibility.

Since the election of Mr Barack Obama in the United States presidential race last Tuesday, the prospect of Singaporeans choosing a Malay or Indian as a future prime minister has re-surfaced.

In the 1988 National Day Rally speech, then PM and current Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew discounted such a possibility, doubting the readiness of Singaporeans to accept a non-Chinese.

Twenty years on, has our political outlook changed?

Anyone who compares the election of Mr Obama with that of a non-Chinese prime minister in Singapore must realise it is unrealistic to compare a large and far older democracy like the US with Singapore, which has had a little more than 40 years of practising democracy.

Even a liberal democracy like India, the world’s largest, is not fully ready to accept a fully Indianised but Italian-born woman like Mrs Sonia Gandhi, widow of the late prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, and leader of the ruling Congress Party, to the prime ministership.

Singapore has made a good start, thanks to multiracialism and meritocracy.

We have had presidents, deputy prime ministers and a senior minister from minority races and we should be proud of this.

Mr Obama’s elevation to America’s highest office sends a clear message that meritocracy and hard work pay off.

I have never regarded our three prime ministers as leaders who emerged from Singapore’s majority community.

This is testimony to the way they have carried themselves.

Our immediate priority now should be to ensure our policy of multiracialism and meritocracy continues.

We must make sure there is genuine racial harmony and no ethnic group feels discriminated against, anywhere or at any time.

Kandasamy Sabesan

Sure, we claim to have the first Black American president. So what? So what if people in America have voted and gave the majority of the votes to Obama? Does that mean that they have overcome their issue on race? No. In fact, the very statement irks me when they say “We’ve got our first Black President”. If a country is truly race blind, then there is no need to emphasise on the word Black. In fact, we would treat him as a normal person who won the election.

When we say racial politics, what comes to our mind? The first thing would probably be people attacking Obama and labelling him as black. This is because we have always thought that racial politics was used against a candidate, but have you wondered if it can be used for a candidate? What’s up with all the hype about being the first black president? Or being a black candidate? The very statement on black means two camps will emerge, one against, one for. Kind of like the blind man singing a sad song on the underpass. You pity him and give him 2 dollars.

I think this whole issue is very interesting. In Singapore’s sense, we say we are a society that practices racial harmony. We have four major groups and we practice racial tolerance. But why do we use the word tolerate? Perhaps we as a society should really move towards racial acceptance. One very simple example would suffice:

If Singapore truly has racial acceptance (as opposed to racial harmony), then why do we have the need on a race quota for members in a GRC? Why do we have a need to represent the minorities in the GRC? Surely in a country where we are race blind and do not care about race, we should also trust our MPs to work for us, regardless of the race they belong too. I should trust and believe in my MP, no matter whether they are Chinese, Malay, Indian or Caucasian. Hence, in a way, we know that deep down we are still racists. There must be some people who have problems relating to a MP who is of a different race, that is why we still have to have such a quota for the GRC.

Perhaps when we all have evolved to become a race blind country, then we can finally abolish the need for such quotas in the GRC, and also abolish the GRC system in its entirety.