thinking aloud - the tudung thing

Are the charges of facism brought up by Berita Harian Malaysia tenable? It's hardly facism... but it got me thinking about the whole headdress thing... Shouldn't people have freedom of dress over themselves?

note: I agree that to expect OTHERS to dress according to your standards is wrong... like the demand for ALL female students at a Malaysian University not to wear sleeveless etc etc...

uniformed services are a different matter... its part of the job... but anyway, even in the ARMY Sikhs are allowed not to wear their beret (which is a standard part of the uniform) and Sikh motorcyclists don't wear helmets that are required by law... and yet female Muslims will be refused state-sponsored education because they are not allowed to wear their religious head-dress... is this a double standard I'm seeing?? Or a lack of political clout on the part of the Malay-Muslim community? Equality ought to be a matter of principle... not just who manages to muscle in...

don't be thrown off by the red-herring that the Muslim girls in question during the case had not reached puberty yet... this no-headdress policy is in force in all government schools including secondary level as well where puberty begins... it appears that there are cases where they are actually allowed to wear headdress but its typically done on the quiet... official stance is no headdress allowed as far as I know. It's too overt and not part of the school uniform.

I understand that the headdress requirement is not compulsory in all interpertations of Islam but then again its not really the state's business to go about standardising any particular religion right? Apparently the wearing of headscarf is at least preferred... so don't people with such convictions have their right too?

isn't freedom of religious expression guaranteed? (and wearing a headdress could hardly be construed to be a threat to public order to any reasonable person - a matter in which then the state according to its role would need to prevent)

How are we going to achieve mutual understanding and harmony if we alienate our fellow citizens in such a manner?

Truth according to pz: Truth is something you refuse to see and hear

Take us Father by Thy hand
and lead us to that fair land
Where joy shall not pass away

From danger keep us free
and our Comforter be
Lest we stray from the narrow way

Sojourning on and on
You're all we lean upon
For God He never shall fail

Take us Father by Thy hand
and lead us to that fair land
That place just beyond the vale.

That hope in Christ... so precious for us helpless souls... Keep Him in your thoughts always

freedom of expression?

What is freedom of expression?

Let's just engage in a theoretical discussion about what that would mean. 'Free' is a term to be used in a manner that you have to be 'free' of 'something'. It is not an attribute or state in and of itself like one says an apple is 'red'.

An apple could be 'red' but expression needs to be 'free' of 'something'

Some of you may see what this is leading to - even if we can be 'free' in our expression from government, as we have so far discussed - we are still not 'free' of many other factors - like money (money being more or less equated with power in modern society - airtime and services of media professionals aint cheap) and agendas (as Alexis pointed out). Newspaper reporters and news selection criteria themselves suffer from biases - as we already know.

Sidetrack - As journalists we ourselves have to grapple with these all the time as we select and present information. To be fair we ought to have disclaimers (eg for ST: You guys know who our shareholders are, so take what we say with a pinch of salt) but more often than not, sometimes mainstream press tends to pretend, and the rest of the population just believes, that they're presenting the objective viewpoint from nowhere and in a totally neutral manner.

So its hard to see how expression could be free of everything.

Even if - for argument's sake - all these market distortions were removed and all information and possible viewpoints were presented to the public equally, apart from suffering a bad dose of information overload, could the public freely judge for itself and sift through all this information? (Let's not talk about the standards against which people make these judgements for now - that's a matter of personal worldviews, values and personal ethics)

First of all, the members of the public would not be able to judge freely because they would still not be free of ignorance.

For instance, is it worthwhile for a layman to be exposed to the different medical positions on how HIV is transmitted? It would at best cause confusion, or worse, result in the adoption of activities that may increase the possibility of infection as empirical scientific medical research may have statistically proven. This is why journalists seek expert opinions on matters requiring in-depth knowledge and understanding and present the most reliable information.

Secondly, the public would still not be free of their own personal biases and social conditioning.
People will always have prejudices and stereotypes about anything deemed alien or unknown to them. Someone who hasn't studied much of Middle Eastern history, politics and sociology probably isn't going to be able to make a good decision on whether to send soldiers there and if so on which side.

And as history has shown, many people, even journalists ourselves, are guilty of being presumptious, jumping to conclusions, following the herd mentality and just not being critical enough about the things we see and yet pretending we already know all that there is to know.

So, people too can't freely discern for themselves what's true or not...

I'm sorry if this sounds very long-winded and sidetracked... but my point is that unless we define 'freedom' to be 'freedom from government' only... we risk deluding ourselves that we can be free from everything and hence espouse that mythical 'view from nowhere'....(objectivity?)

Of course, if you think the more viewpoints espoused means we get closer to the truth then every view from everywhere (omniscience) would be required.

(article till this point reproduced from CS401 media ethics discussion on freedom of expression)
God is the ultimate journalist. That's why He's able to pass judgement!

Haha!

My 2cents - hope you enjoyed it.

my IPOD SHUFFLE died

argh this sucks I don't think its been 2 years but my iPod Shuffle's dead already. 1 day ago it kept failing to be recognized by all the computers I tried plugging it into. And today as I was plugging it out of my comp for the upteenth time the usb plug separated from the rest of the iPod. It's dead. 512MB. Dead. ARGHH why can't things be built to last?? STUPID.

acuransx the foolish

FYP discussion between me and a friend leading to re-examination of values:

A: still no topic lah
R: !!
A: keep getting rejected by *****
R: i thought that u pitched some topics to *****?
R: even the media and religion thingy?
A: there were 2 rounds of that already
R: aiyohh
A: if only it were clear - wat were the guidelines for choosing a topic and scope
A: right now it just feels like its up to the fyp sup's interests or understanding of how wide or angled it would be
A: i'm quite disappointed lah
R: the media and religion kena rejected too?
A: keep refining... he keep insisting certain things arent worth it.... doesn't like our scope and approach... why r these ppl so 1-track? just like *****
A: well then have u tried the other journ profs?
A: who is he better to say that something is going to be more appealing to audiences than something else?
A: but anyway i sometimes feel i am in the wrong area of study
A: it is true audiences haf a short attention-span and want only the gist of everything
A: i only regret that i fooled myself into thinking it was something else.
A: cos i hate the restrictions that 'capturing audiences attention' or 'news relevance' imposes on me
A: if it were me, i'd rather write to make everybody read what i want to say. and convincingly too

In short, I want to define what ought to be newsworthy. HaahHAa...

People who say objectivity? there isn't any... The best they could strive for is balance or 'plurality of viewpoints' People who insist they can be objective are claiming to be espousing the viewpoint from nowhere - which doesn't exist. Shyam concedes with me on that :)

(sidetrack: Only God has the viewpoint from everywhere - the ultimate and only objective journalist in that sense)

But anyway the media industry just seems so... trivial... just like news, celebrities... it focuses on things that are here today and gone tomorrow and promote self-seeking, sensastionalism, gossip, controversy and all other kinds of rather unworthy distractions for people to spend their time and money on.

Maybe I'm too pessimistic. Maybe I'm just focusing on the negatives. But somehow I don't find my supposedly stated goal as a media worker any meaningful... apart from the fact that it pays the mortgage. But so many other jobs pay the mortgage too...

I still maintain that I like writing. I always will. Just that journalism isn't the same as writing. On that I was so mistaken. Does it give opportunities to write? Yes. But its stated intent of writing and impact on content is too great for me. I'm not just a writing machine no sir. I will write what I mean to write.

*sigh*

Why don't I just shut-up already and just get a job that pays the bills...

Ha. That's why I can never believe whole-heartedly in any job. Just Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

Come live your life with me
Peter Cincotti

No one can buy tomorrow
No one can sell their sorrow
But when you look into my eyes
Darling, you'll always see

Love, I will give you love
Come live your life with me

We'll have our good times and even in sad times
With love we will find the way

Nothing else matters but loving each other
The way that we do today

Here in our world together
Love will go on forever
Warm in the shelter of my arms
Darling, you'll always be

Love, I will give you love
Come live your life with me

Here in our world together
Love will go on forever
Warm in the shelter of my arms
Darling, you'll always be

Love, I will give you love
Come live your life with me
--------------------------------------

slow n jazzy - to the opening theme of the Godfather...

nice music for a quiet night.....

Straits Times, why do ye speakth in parables? If income disparity has worsened, tell us plainly!

Another reason not to read / work in the local newspaper industry?

Perhaps so, my hapless SCI friends. And the MICA had the cheek to go around accusing mrbrown of 'distorting the truth'...

Truth twisted around and contorted is still arguably truth sometimes, but the June 29th headline treated all Singaporeans like complete idiots.

In the past it was a matter of reading the headline, and then the main text body of the article would tell you something else. But this time their window dressing was plain for all to see. Need I press any further?

After NKF we thought maybe the press after all did operate as something else other than a business (as some people would claim). But thinking about that, it does make perfect business sense that the ST would defend its reputation? So no ideals being upheld here. As Don Corleone would say - its not personal, its strictly business.

But I would suspect that, the effect of that whole NKF episode was that somehow public expectations of the press were changed or increased somewhat, at least maybe to certain sectors of the population. This was probably in tandem with an increasingly sophisticated readership.

Anyway, GE2006 and Gomezgate with its political implications came along and ST descended back into its former self. With increasing access to alternative media as well as large attendance at disappointingly covered opposition rallies I believe a growing number began to be disillusioned and skeptical about the mainstream press.

Now, the dust has settled. And yet ST pulls off yet another excellent stunt. Why such a headline? It would be very VERY hard for ST to argue that it was being responsible to the public and not being partisan in politics (the same accusation MICA threw at mrbrown) when they come up with such headlines that are twisted and contorted for some reason close to the point of self-contradiction.

Or do they have a duty to preserve at all costs public order, for fear that Singaporeans would riot and bang tables when they have learnt that the bottom 30% of people here got poorer?

I'm not advocating civil disobedience and quite honestly a bad report card as such would turn heads but won't start a riot.

The point here is - report the plain truth as it is. Don't go around twisting and turning on words like income and wages. What type of conclusion would people draw?

The public readership is becoming more sophisticated and politically-aware. ST needs to start coming clean and deliver what is being expected of it, lest business suffer.

Also, wouldn't it be a political nightmare for the government if people start getting fed up with the mainstream press and turn to alternative media for news and public debate - the latter being much more out of their control and influence than traditional media?

Wise-up ST. As far as I can see, you're not winning any hearts in the SCI fraternity or amongst the growing intelligentsia.

As an aside - now that we know - that the bottom 30% of household have actually been experiencing falling incomes - wouldn't it shake the foundations of a government that places almost all its legitimacy on being able to 'deliver the goods' and feed the people economically? The release of this information was nicely timed too - after GE.

Comeon, I'm sure things will look better with the casinos when they're finally done...

*blink blink*