'I have questions.'
MR CHEE JOO HIAN: 'I am saddened by Wednesday's report, 'Poly student dies in nightclub brawl in China'. I have questions for Singapore Polytechnic. Did the school do its homework before dispatching the students there? Why was Heilongjiang province picked as an internship venue, rather than the more established eastern cities of Shanghai, Suzhou and Hangzhou? Were the students briefed on the dos and don'ts in a foreign land? They may have interned as a group but they are young - all under 21 years of age. Did the school staff study the area first-hand before deciding on it as an internship venue? Finally, what precautions are being taken by the school for future student assignments abroad?'
(Straits Time Forum, Saturday, 3 October 2009)
I'm sending this to ST but it's way above the 400-word limit set and I don't feel like skimming, so I doubt it'll ever see the light of day. Except here. :)
Mr Chee's overt concern and eagerness to ask questions of Singapore Polytechnic, suggesting that the institution had not done its part to ensure the safety of its interns abroad, is symptomatic of a wider character flaw in Singaporeans - the desperate need to assign blame. Are we really that scared of uncertainty that whenever a tragedy happens, we have to immediately and blindly point our fingers at someone, if only to regain some semblance of control over this unpredictable thing we call life? Are we mature enough as a people to accept that sometimes, the finger of blame really needs to be pointed inwards, or we simply have to keep our hands fisted because really there is no one to blame?
To recount a personal incident, a theft of valuable electronic items occurred at my workplace recently. The items had been locked in a glass cabinet in a room that was only accessible to trusted staff, but on that particular day, had been left unlocked by another member of staff for the convenience of external auditors. Upon discovery of the incident, my supervisor, in his eagerness to blame someone for the affair, was very quick to point out that keeping such items in a glass cabinet would make them particularly tempting to would-be crooks. Needless to say, I found it a rather ludicrous and simple assertion for a man of his stature. Afterall, no would-be crooks would ever have access to the room in the first place. He had simplified a series of unfortunate events that led to an act of crime to a sheet of glass. If only life were that simple.
With reference to the unfortunate death of the SP student, any fool would know that an educational institution is governed by very strict guidelines, particularly where students' safety is concerned, and that educational institutions do in fact put in place rigorous measures to ensure students' safety. Mr Chee's questions seem to suggest that the polytechnic had not done even the very elementary safety checks before dispatching students to what he may as well as describe as the middle of obscurity. 'Were the students briefed on the dos and don'ts in a foreign land'? My God, why didn't anyone think of that? This man is a true visionary. 'Did the school staff study the area first-hand...'? No, I'm sure someone at SP simply taped a map of the world to the wall, threw a dart blindfolded and sent its students to wherever the dart landed, in this case, Heilongjiang. I'm sure there was some googling involved as well at some point. The fact is, no matter how much preparation SP did (and I am most certain they did more than Mr Chee could ever hope to imagine let alone question), they could not have prepared a student for every possible scenario. In this case, the student's presence at the nightclub was entirely of his own accord, perhaps even against the best advice of the polytechnic. As tragic an incident as it was, unless the visit to the nightclub had been organised by the polytechnic, I really don't see how the integrity of their organisation of the programme could be questioned.
This desperate need to assign blame is particularly evident in the many letters published in the forums of our local print media blaming teachers for the many social problems facing our country. Singaporeans can't speak English? Blame teachers. Not the many years of exposure to poor English, the lack of good role-modelling at home and in the media, or the prevalence of new media that encourages poor language use. No, it's far less complex if we just blamed teachers, so let's all do that. Young Singaporeans behaving badly because of lack of values? Again, blame teachers. Not the constant struggle that teachers face to undo poor behaviour picked up and reinforced at home, the callous lack of respect that some parents show others that their children emulate, or the lack of good role models in society in general. No, it's a lot simpler and requires a lot less thought if we just blamed teachers, so let's all do that. Housing prices beyond most Singaporeans' reach? Blame teachers! I for one am of the view that parents are utimately responsible for their children's values, behaviour and general growth as human beings. Sadly, it seems there are many parents in our society who disagree. And often, they are quickest to blame the teaching service for their own failings.
At the national level, this overzealous quest to assign blame is even reflected in our view of capital punishment of drug traffickers. We are one of the last developed nations clinging on to the belief that this is an effective measure of reducing drug abuse, even though it is a punishment that to most is hardly proportionate to the crime. We continue to hang drug traffickers, some on the premise of presumption of guilt, some with sub-standard intelligence, simply because they provide big fat lumps of dehumanised flesh that we as a country can quickly point our collective finger at. They are the ones we blame for the social ill of drug addiction. We do not blame the drug users who are perhaps the most guilty party, or even the media for glamourising drug use. No, we blame the traffickers. It's just easier that way.
Now I am not so naive to think that when bad things happen, no one is ever at fault. I am just questioning whether it is as simple as a lot of us make it out to be, pointing the finger at one thing when perhaps we do not have nearly enough fingers to pinpoint the causes. After all, it's a well-known fact that sometimes shit happens. And the sooner we can accept it without the self-gratifying need to blame others, the closer we will come towards our aim of a gracious society.
This is my response to a blog entry by JBarks, bassist of one of my favourite Singaporean bands, the Firefight, about the recent Singfest. You'll find similar points to the ones I mentioned in my previous entry, but hey, this is definitely an issue worth talking about twice! :)
Read his blog post here.
Hey J,
Just to clarify, we were paid for our role in Singfest in 2007. When we were originally approached, we quoted our minimum fee for an event of such as scale. They offered us publicity (“advertisement in all media formats”) but no money (“no budget for local bands”). We have a strict policy against this so we formally turned down the offer to play the gig. This was a good month-and-a-half before the event.
About three weeks before the event, Midas got in touch with us again and offered us two options: the sum we requested but with a stipulation that we had to leave immediately after our performance, or 40% of the sum we requested. Needless to say, we accepted the former.
After the event, we sent our invoice to the company for billing. The whole time we’d been liasing with a Mel Tyler, with Michael Hoskings kept in the loop via email cc. A month after the event, Michael sent a note which said “I thought this was $xxxx?”, a sum which was a good 25% less than the agreed fee. This, even though he was fully aware of all prior discussions of the agreed sum. Thankfully, we had email records of all correspondence and were therefore able to insist on the agreed fee.
Administrative matters aside, the festival experience itself was great. We were very well taken care of, with due attention paid to our musical demands. And we did get to stay on after all - no one asked us to leave.
It became clear to us through all our correspondence with them that Midas appears to have a policy of not forking out any amount of money for a local band, which is something we are fundamentally opposed to.
The local stage at this year’s Singfest really typifies Midas’ attitude towards local bands for me. I view their supposed apparent support for local music (by dedicating a whole stage to local acts) with the greatest scepticism, for the following reasons:
1) The sponsorship leverage for having eighteen local bands on the bill is massive. Any corporation would love to be seen to support an event that supports local music in a big way, even if very little of that money goes towards the bands themselves or the cause.
2) The cost of erecting a stage for local bands, compared to the above, is minimal at best. Midas has everything to gain, the most important of which is getting those patriotic monkeys (who were overtly critical of them for the lack of local bands in the 2007 edition) off their backs once and for all.
3) This year’s event had the support of some major sponsors. Despite all the costs involved in holding an event of such a scale, there definitely was money for local bands. Them not paying local bands was more a matter of policy (choice) than it was of necessity.
4) Despite the promise of publicity, there was actually little mention of local acts in all wider promotions of the events.
I do agree with you about the numbers ratio and about getting the numbers right, and hopefully that’s something that will be put right in next year’s edition. Personally, I just hope that the organisers will see that local bands can hold their own against the international big guns and give bands like yours the stage you deserve.
Sorry for the impassioned reply to your post. Keep on keeping on!
Saiful
GSE