Abusing professional integrity

Yeo Toon Joo, an ex senior journalist, wrote a passionate article on the role of journalists and the media during the recent national crisis when two women groups fought for leadership in Aware. Details are in www.littlespeck.com. I can understand his disgust and anger over the state of journalism here. We have perhaps the best crop of talented reporters and journalists schooled in the best universities and returned with first class honours degrees. With such able and capable talents, it is a big waste if they are not assigned to cover more meaty and worthy news than the Aware catfight. OK, I accept that this catfight may be an issue of national proportion to some. But I have my reservation on the importance of this, as Vivian has described it most appropriately, 'petty politics'. Looking across the professions, such abuses of professionalism are quite prevalent and did great harm to the professions as well as the integrity and self worth of the professionals. Many could even compromise their moral principles to deal with things that they should not be doing as an honourable individual. I don't see any pride if the whole system and machinery are harnessed to chase children wearing T shirts screaming, 'Shut up and sit down'. I don't find it funny if senior management were to take buses just to prove that the transport claim put up by his/her subordinate is $1.10 and not $1.20. I don't find it funny if nonsensical reasons were given to justify nonsensical decisions. We have not gone down this road yet. But it will be a very sad day if such things happened. I feel terribly sorry for the professionals if they were to compromise themselves and their professional integrity to do the unsavoury. I am waiting for the day when talented journalists and reporters were assigned to write about gossips of aunties and uncles, about who is sleeping with who, who wears what and eats what, or who did not brush teeth. Would that day come? If it does, it would be the reason why our journalists are unable to excel in what they do, unable to optimise their talents in creative and investigative writings on real substance and issues of great importance. But I may be wrong, as what is important or not is just a subjective personal interpretation.

Just a thought

If a deviant sect that is banned or not accepted by society to form its own organisation officially, would it be nice to sneak into another organisation and make that organisation its front organisation? By quietly getting all its members to join an organisation, in no time, that organisation will, unconsciously become the official organisation of that sect. This is a thought that just came to me after meditating for hours on the unfolding of recent events. It can happen right? This is not much different from money laundering.

I asked 'Who won?'

Obviously the red shirts lost. And it is easy to think that the white shirts won. Let me take a different look. What do you get when you mix red and white together? Pink of course: ) There are good things and bad things coming out of this episode. For one, Singaporeans are not prone to riotings and burning down buildings today. Singaporeans are sensible and responsible people that will abide by the rule of law and settle their big differences over tea. The women have proven that all the fears of granting permits to Singaporeans to hold parties are unfounded, or at least need to be re examine. I still think that all the education and prosperity did not go to waste, that we have progressed as a people, no longer third world mentality and prone to violence. Can we then examine our heads and ask whether we still need all the controls, and to release freedom of expression in drips and draps to be safe? I was there to take a look, with my camera ready, in case violence broke out. I was disappointed. And I hardly see the presence of the police except for the Cisco guards inside the conference hall. The women have vindicated that Singaporeans are civilised.

The Aware Battle - Who won?

From an obscure little association of 300 members, it's membership has swelled to over 3000 in a matter of weeks. The association must be the biggest winner in this battle. The old Exco has been returned to power and the new Exco booted out. The new Exco did not stand a chance the moment the church cuts off its support from the group. Otherwise, what is 3000 members, they could get 30,000 or more if they were together. And the voting was all about the composition of the new Exco, that it does not reflect the racial and religious realities of the country. They were seen as being too Christian and too Chinese for a secular organisation. The homosexual agenda was a non issue. Is it that it was a non issue or it was swept away by the forces to remove the new Exco for the way they invited themselves to a party? Apparently, from the lack of interest in discussing the homosexual issue, one can interpret that homosexuals are now an accepted and welcome reality in our society. Their presence was greatly felt in the EGM in great numbers. The homosexuals should take some comfort that they have been accepted by all as part and parcel of our way of life, not queers. They no longer need to feel paranoid about themselves and hide in the closet. In fact, other than a few small groups that have very strong views of homosexuality, no one bothers about whether one is straight or queer. With this issue settled, will the curriculum of the CSE need to be revised, or should the investigation by MOE continue? The EGM has in a way confirmed that what Aware has been doing is what the Aware members want, or what the supporters of the old Exco want. A new chapter of the Aware movement has begun. Or the old chapter will continue to be written the way it was written.

CSE - No complains means OK?

Minister of State for Education, Iswaran, told the public to get the facts right on sex education in school. 'Get your facts right on what is happening in Singapore schools when it comes to sex education, and do not base comments on "innuendo or information receive on the fly". The schools' sex education programme is based on "the guiding principle that the family is the basic building block of society". 'In a letter, the MOE said the schools "found that the content and messages of the sessions(CSE) were appropriate for their students and adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups'. And there has been no complaints against the programme, so far. So the MOE has done the necessary vetting and the parents are happy as they are not complaining. I presume that MOE must have consulted the various religious bodies or have religious representatives saying that the programme is acceptable. The latest is that some parents have started to complain about the CSE and MOE is starting an investigation. What is interesting is that though the content of the CSE is posted everywhere, no religious body is coming out to comment on its appropriateness. All adopting a politically correct stance. And a bishop has spoken to distance the church from the new Aware Exco. But where does the church stands on homosexuality? To stand at a distance on the ground that the new Exco is mainly a Christian group gatecrashing into a secular organisation is one thing. Taking a stand on homosexuality and sexual conduct is another. One wrong does not make the other wrong. It will be interesting to see the facts of the MOE investigation and the comments of the NCCS. They are going to be very embarrassing for sure.