President’s Star Charity Show- is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?

Every year, the President's Star Charity Show is broadcasted, celebrities come up and perform, and encourage viewers to call in to donate some money. Some people might question: are these shows merely using celebrities to milk compassion, and is the risk worth it?

Firstly, there is no reason to think that the President's Star Charity is a fraud. Several years ago, the NKF scandal occured, where donors' money was extravagantly wasted on most famously, gold toilet bowl seats. Despite being a 'localised' incident, since only NKF was involved, it did have a fairly significant 'splash' effect, and rather severly impacted the reputation of Singapore charities. However, this is only one charity, out of the many in Singapore. It does not mean that just because one person in a group is wrong, the whole group is at fault, and it is unfair to suspect other charities of fraud just because of NKF.

Some people may feel that celebrities may be unecessary for such a cause like fund raising for the sick and the needy, and are a waste of funds. However, there is most definitely a point to bringing celebrities into the picture. Normally, for most of us, we never have time, or we are simply too distracted to think about the needy. By having such a large scale event, that is also broadcasted on televison, this brings the needs of such people to our attention. Celebrities serve to maintain our interest, and try to grab our attention to donate to the charities, to help the needy. They are rendering their time and service to help others, not just for the money, or the fame. Admittedly, for some, money may be the sole motivation, however, I feel, it is wrong to apply this stereotype to the other celebrities, and it is very unfair. Although the celebrities may be milking public sympathy, the money is certainly going to a good cause. If the Singapore public is too self-centred to help others in need, then it will have to be coaxed, albeit in a non-forceful manner, into voluntarily doing so. If they still refuse to help, then so be it. Charities are not like Robin Hood--steal from the rich to feed the poor--instead, they are there to persuade people to help the needy.

One question that arises, as actors, or daredevils, do dangerous stunts to promote charitable causes, is whether the risk is really worth it. I feel that this can be kind of a grey area, especially when the life of an stuntsman is at stake. Consider the following scenario: A stuntsman is climbing a blade ladder. Ultimately, if he survives unscathed, or is injured or even killed, the money gained from people donating because of his act is sufficient to help many people who are desperately in need (in fact, if he is injured, it is possible that this may stir up even more symphathy, and garner more donations as before). The question now is: Is the life or wellbeing of a single person greater than the benefit of a multitude of people in need? This question has cropped up before rather famously. At the time, President Truman, of the United States, was presented with an atom bomb, and a dilemma: Should he destroy millions of lives, just to save countless more? At the time, he was advised that not dropping the bomb to accelerate the defeat of Japan, would cost countless lives before the war would end. Although whether Japan could actually have put up such a fight is in question, that was what he thought was true at the time. Eventually, Truman chose the bomb, and in this vastly scaled down version of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so have the organisers. However, there is one vital difference between the two scenarios, and is critical in deciding whether the risk is worth it: In the case of the stuntman, he has a say as well if he is willing to risk his life. President Truman had decided not to warn the Japanese, one reason of which was that his military advisors wanted the bomb to achieve maximum suprise value, by having it be used as a normal weapon of war. Personally, I feel, that as long as the stuntsman gives his consent, any risk is worthwhile and justified as long as it is within the bounds of the agreement.

All in all, although Charity shows may be milking compassion for larger donations, as long as the money is truly going to a worthy cause, who, really, is to complain?

Regulations on Political Commentary in Singapore

Though far from being an autocratic state, Singapore is still not a fully democratic state, and with that, comes restrictions on the usage of media, especially when they involve political issues, and breaking the rules can lead to very serious consequences.

On one hand, this restriction of opinions practiced by the government can be considered too harsh. One rather explicit restriction that comes to mind is that during election times, politcal podcasts are not tolerated. Should not the government welcome openness? Yes, although there may be times when such media may be used to spread misinformation, whether intentionally or not, there is little reason as to why such media should be banned completely. Free speech is a right of humans, and the people should be able to speak their own minds.

However, this is definitely not saying that any form of censorship is not justifiable. Without some form of control, anarchism is the likely outcome. Personally, I feel that there have to be definite limits placed. As time goes along, these boundaries can be pushed, adjusted, mitigated, until the people and the government are in agreement. However, absolute boundaries exist, which should never be compromised, such as those which protect people from slander and outright personal attack. The perfect balance between freedom and control is fine, and is far from easy to attain.

Furthermore, it would not be completely fair to say that the government is not trying to loosen up. Near the end of last year, as Catherine Lim put it, on her blog, "[The government is] not only unambiguously stating that the political process is ripe for change and evolution, but is actually backing up the statement with a flurry of measures". One of the changes includes the lightening of restrictions on political discussion on the Internet. Given the rising importance of the the Internet, it is nigh but impossible for the governement to continue on as it is, and rely on its control of traditional media sources, such as newspapers, to run the country, which it has been doing for ages now. Politicians elsewhere have been extensively using the Internet in promoting their ideas, such as in the previous US presidential elections. Now, it must turn to these newer media inorder to remain in power, and one of the ways this can be accomplished is by allowing a freer online political scene.

Of course, distinctions have to be made clear on what is harmful, and what is not. Take the example of the website TalkingCock.com, a popular Singapore satire website, which has spawned a Singlish twist on the Oxford Dictionary, and several movies as well. Despite commenting on political issues in Singapore, these are usually done in a fairly harmless manner, and are purely for fun. They represent the typical complaints of the average Singaporean, and usually do not cause any harm, and the Government must be very careful with such sites. Indeed, due to the fact that these sites may represent mirrors of the population's opinions, they can prove to be very useful to the government, and cannot be ignored, or taken likely; complaints should definitely be addressed, not simply censored out or ignored.

In the end, the Singapore Government is faced with the difficult task of walking the fine line between political freedom and control. In this everchanging landscape, the PAP cannot simply continue to rely on the age-old methods of an efficient, no-nonsense government to run the country, and has to adapt in order to survive, and this includes loosening up the political scene. There is still time; despite complaints, there still remains quite a strong impression that the country is being well run, and the Government can certainly use this time to get more in touch with the ways of a changing world.