an example of the Agenda-setting theory in S'pore

Note: The Agenda-setting theory is the theory that "the mass-news media have a large influence on audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space to give them."

Now, I am fully aware that even though the invisible man, namely one Mas Selamat Kastari, has not been caught yet, he is probably old news by now. However, in Singapore, there is still reason and motivation to talk about him.

Knowing that a dangerous man has escaped would definitely be a cause for concern for most who treasure being safe. Other than that, I am not very concerned about Mas Selamat the man, but Mas Selamat the concept.

First, as a citizen and a communications student, the efficient and truthful delivery of information matters to me. The only means by which my want for information can be satisfied is an efficient and truthful answering of questions by the Home Affairs Ministry and the government.

Back when reports of his escape circulated the nation, as an ordinary citizen, I believe I had the right to know all the accounts of ISD personnel on that fateful day, I had the right to see the security footage which serves as proof and substantiation of these accounts, I had the right to know the physical condition of Mas Selamat, a fellow Singaporean, prior to his escape, and I had the right to ask further questions and be entertained.

The withholding of information should not be justified by internal investigation. If a dangerous man has escaped confinement, the following questions should be promptly addressed:

1) When did he escape?
2) How did he escape?
3) What did he wear when he escaped?

And all of the above should be supported with video and photographic evidence. Without that, Singaporeans would speculate because we are not media illiterate dopes. There would be speculation, which would be more than unnecessary:

1) As to whether he is already dead and the whole incident is made up for whatever purpose.
2) News of his escape is aimed towards baiting other supporters and terrorists.
3) This is just a nationwide “firedrill”.

Fyi, I gave up reading the newspapers as early as the third day of his escape because I realised that most of the interviews and opinions gathered are either from central public figures or ordinary Singaporeans.

Conceptually, Mas Selamat still does not exist. His escape did not take place. What we know of him is a constitution of imaginations, which were fed by messages delivered by the media. Do you want press releases and opinions for information, or would you rather have accounts for information?

The state and media constructions of the episode were essential to our understanding of Mas Selamat and his escape. His profile had been created in the wake of an allegedly true incident. He is a short ethnic minority, who limps and is very dangerous – a dark-skinned man who can survive in the woods given his training in Afghanistan.

By “creating” an air of uncertainty, you united the herd of sheep under one central leadership and authority. A unity, whether at the level of the conscious, unconscious, or both, was good enough to deflect attention away from other issues.

The media was also cautious in reporting the incident. It remained that way because it probably did not have the guts for media panics, unless these panics were aimed at those who pose a threat to the norms and values of the establishment.

I wouldn't be surprised if members of the task forces assigned and mobilised to conduct the investigation and search for the wanted man, were instructed to say "no comment" when approached by journalists and leave the answering of questions to trained media experts. And of course, a gag order would have probably been imposed on personnel associated with the incident, investigation and search. Ultimately, another question would be raised: Which is more important, the image and legitimacy of the state authority or the safety of the citizens?

“Mas Selamat” is not real and would continue to be unreal until Singaporeans see the video footages of his escape and hear the truthful and unedited accounts of personnel overseeing his confinement and wellbeing.

apparently everyone needs tuition

Singapore is a "tuition nation" as there are expectations and the need to excel and achieve. There is also the fear and shame of being in a worse class, stream or school. There is the belief that education is the only ticket to success and happiness in life, and maybe rightly so, because society is structured in a way where the quality and property of education are primed and prioritised.

Because having good grades is of a certain priority, parents indulge in the belief that having tuition will be a means to helping them and their children to attaining success. It also does not help that we are a society that is obsessively result-oriented due to the way the economy is structured.

We have become obsessed with the prestige that accompanies having good grades - good school, better friends and social environment, good scholarship and good professional opportunities. Who doesn't want that?

My question is this. Why do we want it? Is our self-worth measured by how others see us? Why is our esteem intertwined with socio-economic structure?

I believe the sole purpose of having tuition is so that one would eventually not require it. Many will point the finger at unreasonable parents who indulge in such beliefs and practices, who make the final decision as to whether their child would require tuition or not. I say society is the problem, not parents.

If our education system was not competitive, would there be a need to "up the ante"? Would there be a greater fear of failure?

Students themselves are not wanting to have accountability and responsibility for what they learn. I have heard of students complaining about how bad or poor a certain teacher is, or how useless a tutor is. They blame bad grades on these mentors. "I failed my science because my teacher isn't good enough!"

Having tuition lessons is not conformity, but having good grades is. It is the society and usually those in power, that decide what are the "subjects" for our "examination". In the Singaporean syllabus, the most important subject is education, not to mention monetary and material success. Sports and the arts are just extra-curricular activities that hold no weightage.

We thus see having tuition lessons as a necessity. It has become an accessory that few have come to question its true purpose. Many believe having tuition lessons will translate to good grades. We are a society of flawed logic and methodology - believing in cause-and-effects. For example, more ERP gantries will lead to lesser traffic congestions. Why is this like that? Why have society come to think this way?

In having the belief that tuition lessons are integral to one's development, we have become a mechanism of discipline ourselves. We effect a certain behaviour, a certain mindset, all aimed towards a specific and desired outcome. Our over-dependence on tuition lessons is not a problem on its own, but a manifestation of societal norms and expectations.

I believe we should seek help for any expectation we have. At the same time, we should at least try to regulate our expectations. I have seen children with tuition for all subjects, have 2 extra co-curricular activities in school, piano lessons and some other sporting lessons or courses outside school. It seems that the society and families are trying to engineer an all-rounded child.

As for tuition, I think we should have it so that we would need to have it. The purpose of tuition is to fill gaps, instill confidence and achieve realistic goals within the current ability of the child.

Moreover, most tuition lessons reproduce a top-down mode of communications between mentor and student. I believe they should be geared towards creating an interest in the student in asking questions and developing that passion and responsibility for learning. Tuition lessons should teach one how to fish, not only just give you the fish.

yet another death

I feel sad and angry every time I read about a death in Singapore Armed Forces. Among the deceases are both Full-time and regular National Servicemen. Among those that have been reported, there lies many other deaths, accidents and mishaps that remained unreported and unexplained.

We have all been sucked and suckered into believing in the honour of our men dying for a larger cause - the courage and nobility and all, the whole macho sacrifice for a symbol that is a flag and for a people consisting many persons whom one may have never met before.

Additionally, we are steeped into believing that life consisted of rigid phases, every one of which marking a rites of passage to the next phase. For men, we see national service as a transition to their manhood, a very much coveted masculine position. If a boy complains, it would not be considered manly. The overall message delivered to and internalised by all Singaporean sons is "Be a man!", and this message effectively legitimises every decision, position, action and atrocity of the establishment.

The message is not a motivation for men to serve the nation, but a fear most of them harbour. Their mind and consciousness have filled and threatened them with the fear of ridicule, social disapproval and stigmatism. This disciplines their behaviour that is oriented towards the need of acting on behalf of the nation.

In this time of age, SAF and the Ministry of Defence are faced with many challenges they can do without. Thanks to our improved educational standards and the prevalence of media technologies, people are smarter. The hunger to know is greater now than before. Moreover, people know they have some rights they could exercise when aggrieved. Training-related deaths or deaths in camps and training grounds can now no longer be covered up.

At most, the authorities could impose legal sanctions and gag orders, implement more clauses, to do what it does probably most of the time: Covering one's behind.

There is no incentive in this society to do good, or "better than enough". There are only punishments and negative sanctions for doing less than enough. This is a punishment-punishment system, and not a reward-punishment system, where one is punished for doing something "wrong", but not rewarded for doing something "right".

The reason why Singaporeans are inclined to feel this way rather than feel a strong sense of belonging is because they have little say in how things are to be run in this tiny island-state. The growing apathy is both a welcome and at the same time a concern for our leaders. On the one hand, ordinary Singaporeans will not give two hoots and stand in their way. On the other hand, the same ordinary Singaporeans have to be bribed and threatened into conformity and action.

And for men who really love this country and serve as its soldiers, what has the government done to them? There is no war, yet they have died. Can peace be obtained if training-related deaths and suicides have reached a significant level?

I believe that it is time Singapore invested more in love than in instilling fear.

listening with your eyes

"Take time to listen to what is said without words."

-- Lao Tzu, The Hua Hu Ching

Indeed, for in today's world, nonverbal communication is probably the single most powerful form of communication. More than voice or even words, nonverbal communication cues us in to what is on another person’s mind. The best communicators have to be sensitive to the power of the emotions and thoughts communicated nonverbally.

During this week's COM101 lectures, we have learnt that nonverbal communication ranges from facial expression to body language. Gestures, signs, and use of space are also important in nonverbal communication as multicultural differences in body language, facial expression, use of space, and especially, gestures, are enormous and enormously open to misinterpretation.

For instance, have you ever seen how a male international student from India attempts at striking a conversation with perhaps one of your female lecturers at school? Once, I witnessed a nonverbal exchange occurring in a classroom back during the time when I was a student at Temasek Polytechnic, School of Engineering. I vaguely recall a foreign Indian pupil trying his best to communicate his problem to a female tutor. However, as he unconsciously narrowed the distance between himself and the female teacher while gesticulating constantly to punctuate his communication (where the work of kinesics - the study of body movement comes into play), she kept backing away to maintain her level of spacial comfort.

The lecturer's body language including the tiniest facial expressions and movement gave her true thoughts and feelings away. As such, one could easily come to the conclusion that she was obviously uncomfortable being in close proximity to the student despite the gesture being unintentional. There was a need for her to create boundaries sort of like a portable territory. Simply put, she felt her personal space was being invaded.

Another thing I would like to point out is that one of the possible reasons why the Indian student moved in to close the space between the female lecturer and himself could be due to the fact that India is so overcrowded with people that the citizens there are very used to living and interacting in such close vicinity to each other. My guess is that they probably couldn't help themselves as it is their nature of interaction.

Let us now look into another simple illustration of non-verbal interaction, shall we?

My my, that was peculiarly intense, wasn't it? The heated exchange of restful gazes, the ferocity of emotions, the heightening and unnerving passion, all of which were simply signals encoded into wordless messages - messages that was understood as clearly as words - travelling through an invisible channel between both communicators and receivers nonverbally. What we have just observed in the short clip shown above is an example of both oculesics and possibly even affect displays in action, which refers to the use of the eyes and impetus for observable expression of emotion in a communication setting respectively. Isn't it amazing how neither Tom Cruise nor Thandie Newton had the need to say anything at all?

So we see here how potently effective and impactful nonverbal communication really is. This is because their messages are likely to be more genuine. Nonverbal behaviors cannot be controlled as easily as spoken words. It is very much like a silent infiltrator, having broad influence over our social environment. We are able to infer emotion without the use of words and influence other's perception of our competence, power and vulnerability. It also plays a role in the perception of the actual message we are trying to convey.

To sum it all up, nonverbal communication affects all of our lives in a myriad of ways from childhood throughout adulthood, as long as we intend to communicate with others.

it is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue

In communications, we ought to not only to hear, but to listen. We ought to listen in the capacity of a person who is an empty vessel (in a good way), unopinionated, and open to the ideas and views given by others. Most of us listen, but we continue to hold onto the rigid and comfortable predispositions we were socialised into. These are the very barriers to listening, and we end up not listening at all, despite believing that we are listening. We need some level of humility, and a large stomach to contain that pride, momentarily.

Some time last year there were many issues and articles written in regards to Homosexuality in Singapore, so much so that it has gotten me to empathise with sexual minorities in our country. This is certainly not because I have gay or lesbian friends (I do and I assure you most of them make great pals), but how I see myself in my social environment.

Ask yourselves this. During circumstances when you happen to see two men/women engaging themselves in intimacy, say one of those lip-locks or bodies molded together, what's the first thought that comes to your mind? "Ew," isn't it? I'm rather sure you would find the idea of two people of the same sex doing it inherently disquieting.

I believe that minorities deserve to be understood better. The only way for minorities to be understood is for those in privileged positions to momentarily leave their positions and attempt to comprehend the realities that minorities confront. Here's another example, our society has done a lot through the Yellow Ribbon project to integrate ex-convicts back into society, but there is still a lingering stereotypification and stigmatism of ex-convicts. Society has structures, no doubt, but structures are not rigid in the long run. Things change, structures remain the same because of people in power having maintained or expanded their power, because of people in privileged positions having maintained or elevated their positions.

To further elaborate on this, do any of you recall one of the Yellow Ribbon commercials which was aired all over Singapore many years ago? Unfortunately, I have attempted searching for the video but alas to no avail.

But if you do remember its content, then you would probably remember well that in it, you would see that the commercial starts off with a young woman cautiously watching a suspicious-looking tattooed man making his way towards an innocent little girl from the inside of her car. As he proceeds to take the child by the hand and walk on down the street with her by his side, the woman begins to express evident anxiousness and worry for the girl's safety. But as she continues looking on with a wary eye, both the man and the little girl eventually greet a waiting lady with warm smiles and hugs, who happens to be her mother. It was then that the young woman in the vehicle had realized she made an error in her judgement for she had mistaken the tattooed man to be someone 'dangerous' when in truth, he was the father.

So we see here how our perceptions are easily influenced by physical elements - what information our eyes or ears can actually take in, how our brains process it. According to Brian J. Reyolds, he reckons that one of the most telling indicators that we act according to perception, which is malleable, rather than on facts and incontrovertible evidence is how often we make mistakes. A problem lies in our perceptions of people, in this case ex-convicts and homosexuals, most of which are fed by misinformation, dated information and irrational fears harboured by things that surround us.

We are all minorities in some way or another and it is not our choosing most of the time. Who wants to be a minority anyway? To be criticised, ostracised, stigmatised, technicised, discriminated, and so on? But on the other hand, since one is a minority, should one equally deserve the right and space to be proud of one’s identity?

Many a time I have wondered, how far does mass media go in influencing our perceptions of society today and how concerned should we be at the discrimination and misrepresentation of minority groups within the media?

voices of the public

Where have the voices gone?

Increasingly I find myself wondering this question. Where are the voices?

Is the world really so blind?

In response to the taxi fare hike in the 1980s, there had been a boycott of taxis. Many people refused to take taxi, and soon the taxi companies gave in, reducing the taxi fare. There was still a voice then. The public still assumed accountability; they knew that the voice of the people will triumph.

Fast forward to the present, and I cannot help but wonder, “Just where had the voices gone to?”

Are we too blind to see? Too oblivious to the things this government had done?

From the absurd pay-check, to Mas Selamat escape, to the police force arresting people who were simply exercising their human rights by a peaceful protest, to the unjustified GST hike, to the lack of accountability to the public.

Are we really so blind to see? Are we really too nonchalant to speak?

As I sit here now wondering, I can’t help but wonder one thing:

Will my opinions change a single thing?

I do not think the PAP should be overthrown or anything. To me, I think they are capable of running the country (in fact, the most capable out of all the political parties so far), but they must be accountable to the people. Oppression of the individual rights need to stop. Self-serving policies must stop.

But will what I say change anything?

I am sure that is what many people out there, who had not spoken, think. Yes as an individual your voice may not change things. But remember, freedom and democracy are not simply paper-talk; they are ideas and perspectives, and they are given power by words.

One may not be good enough, but speak out and let your voice be heard. The like-hearted will come.

And the voices will return slowly.

The people should not be afraid of their government- the government should be afraid of its people.

"In a world that told them how to think, she showed them how to live."

You are in for a good time if you have not seen "Mona Lisa Smile," particularly if you enjoy films about cold, catty women who lie constantly. In other words, the movie's a feminist lesson for post-feminist moviegoers who never understood the big whoop about keeping one's name after marriage.

The setting is Wellesley College, Eisenhower era, when the goal of any normal girl was none other than marriage. Period. For Betty (Kirsten Dunst), the traditionalist alpha girl, marriage to a suitable society catch is all she and her mother dream of.

Julia Roberts comes in as Katherine Watson, a freethinking art history professor. In her prime, she's a cookie-cutter original, one of those colorful teachers disliked by the rest of the faculty because she's different. She arrives, bringing little more than a box of slides that include modern art.

Now in my opinion, I find that the film illustrates quite a good deal on how the four "idols" or distortions get in the way of clear thinking. As such, we shall now take a closer look at how the idols are illuminated in the film to give you, dear reader, an idea of their definitions.

Idols of the Tribe refers to fallacies in thinking due to human nature. As it was depicted during the movie, the female students of Wellesley College were both born and bred up to be women who have been taught to believe that marriage and housewifery was the only meaningful option for women of their class and that it was guaranteed to provide fulfillment.

When Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles) decided to apply for law school at Harvard after her graduation, her best friend, Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst) was anything but uncritical towards the notion of not keeping a strict adherence to tradition. She accused Joan of not pursuing her initial 'dreams' of having a family and criticizes their teacher, Katherine, for even possessing the nerve to encourage her friend in submitting her law application.

Idols of the Cave are the individual prejudices we bring with us because of our own backgrounds and personalities. For instance, Katherine Watson (Julia Roberts), an art history graduate, came to the prestigious and conservative school not only to teach the brightest girls in the country, but to challenge the conservative administration. She had hope to inspire her students to look the image of what is and consider the possibilities of what could be. Naturally this puts her in direct opposition to the school authorities, as well as parents of some of her students. Therefore, because the college isn't accustomed to her 'different' methods of teaching, they turned against her hoping to uphold the old-fashioned and narrow-minded way of the school's legacy.

Idols of the Marketplace are social in nature and centres on imprecise use of language. If you have seen the film, you would probably remember that Betty Warren was not just a mere student at Wellesley College. She was also the editor of the school's newspaper, and during her time when Miss Watson was still an art history teacher, she wrote two articles. One was about a teacher who distributed condoms to one of her students to promote 'safe sex' and the other was on Katherine's poor disregard for their traditions just because she was subversive, which in turn led to retrenchment and a heed of warning from the school's authorities respectively. Betty's impact of words variously used without attention to their true meaning only in turn condition the understanding and breed fallacies that the two instructors were both disruptive to the system.

Idols of the Theatre are fallacies that occur when we accept fashionable ideas uncritically. Betty is a perfect example of this. As the daughter of the alumni association president, she stridently fights to maintain Wellesley's traditionalistic policies for she has been groomed from an early age to follow into her mother's footsteps - a thorough education, a perfect marriage to a prominent family, and for all appearances, a happy life. She did not question, but simply follow like the obedient child she was. So we see here that false superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.

And that's my take on the four idols. What's yours?