I had taken down my blog post. The content had been about the private fundraising for charities in Singapore - and street fundraisers seeking donations through the public owning creding cards with the ”Direct Debit Donor Programme (DDDP)”

Confidential? I am not sure if I had breached it by raising the issue on my blog. I wrote it as I thought there was a void in relevant subject  matter on the internet, and there is immense public interest in it – people are concerned where their donations goes; how charities outsource their fundraising function, and how these company recruit people to solicit donations in the street.

Defamation? It is the communication/ publication of a false claim that caused the person/ organisation defamed to be cast in a negative light (Wikipedia,  2011). I was in disbelief – I tried to write as factually and neutral as possible, referencing to other sources of information. I know that online, my particular post had attracted a wide number of readers, but  I doubt I had been able to exert influence others to react negatively to the organisations mentioned in the blog. I admit that the comments left by anonymous readers on my post can be caustic and negative, and thus defamatory. By neglecting to remove the comments, I had made myself liable.

It is a shame that I am prohibited to blog about the subject matter. :-( I did not bother to fight back, or rebel against the unfair lawyers’ letter against myself as I am preoccupied with my work and do not want to jeopardise my career.

Nonetheless, I am deeply interested in how charities bodies runs, and its sensitive relationship to its various stakeholders – the donors, the volunteers, management, the public and the beneficiaries.  

References

Wikipedia (2011). Defamation. [Online}. Available on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation (Viewed on 6 November 2011)

The first part of the induction was “team building” at Outward Bound School (OBS), on Pulau Ubin island.

There was 45 inductees in this cohort. Initially, I was skeptical how we can break the ice and form lasting camaraderie. Besides, I am not particularly extrovert nor enjoy going around networking to advance my personal interest.

We were divided in 3 groups, and I belonged to the Sheares Team, of 14 participants. Our OBS instructor in charge, Mr Steven, was a great facilitator as he helped to break the ice between us with simple and effective games.

A summary of the 2 days 1 night OBS camp’s event – Planks Reassembling Game, Group Crossing on Planks & Bricks, Obstacle Climbing, Group Discussion, Night Walk, Exercise, Kayaking, Relay Race, and ending with a reflection session. This is probably a standard fare for every induction program, but it made a lasting impression on the inductees who came and experienced it for the first time. Away from the bustle and the stress of our work, we thoroughly enjoyed ourselves as we focused on learning more about our new friends and camp mates.

The induction at OBS was followed by a five day camp at the National Community Leadership Institute (NACLI). There were four days of theoretical learning about the different functions, departments and divisions within the organisation; inculcating us with the values, mission and culture of the organisation. Certain “corporate” buzzwords were emphasized repeatedly.

On the last day at NACLI, we were tasked to present proposals to the senior management and have a dialogue and lunch with them to clarify any doubts and misunderstandings.

In general, I am agreeable to the robustness of this induction program as it created a strong network among other new colleagues who came from different spectrum and divisions withing the organisation itself, which we would otherwise have no affinity to meet. The company has 2,500 staff, and most of them to me, are still faceless strangers.

The induction was over, and life/ work goes on as usual. At least for now, I know about 45 “comrades” working together, and who my “bosses” are. It is harder to for the inductees of the same cohort to meet up regularly due to work commitments, and it will take sheer will for us to sustain the friendship. As Henry Ford said, “Coming together is a beginning, keeping together is a process…”

As I look back, year 2011 is an historic year, for myself – I cast my votes for the first time, and twice too (once during the May 7 General Election, and the second for the August 27 Presidential Election). With the People Action Party (PAP) having won a strong mandate to govern the country since 1959, they are often seen as de facto rulers and Singapore’s political scene was once commented as being a ho-hum. This is probably the start of an exhilarating electoral fight in the political history of Singapore, as more qualified candidates came forward to contest.

The dust had settled and the adrenaline stirred by the election had passed – Singapore had already decided who are to lead them for the next coming years.

There is certainly heightened interest in politics among the youths, including myself, but according to Lee (2011) being politically aware, is about being perceptive of the political divides between different segments of society, knowledge of the direction of the economy, and understanding the opportunities available for different groups of people. Thus, although, I am not particularly political enlightened, I would nonetheless like give my own opinions on the subject matter.

Singaporeans no longer see politics as just knowing who-is-who in the Cabinet or the Member of Parliament (MP) of their constituency. Politics is a way of life and a chance to decide the best people to lead us on national issues. The policies implemented will have a lasting impact on our livelihood and our future beyond the time frame of the politicians’ tenure.

Assuming ceteris paribus (all things equal), that candidates who joined the opposition political parties are passionate and genuine at wanting to serve the country, san their political ambitions and personal interests, it is probable that the primary rise for the opposition support is a representation of the widespread discontent and a pent up frustration among the public with the ruling party.

But why are Singaporeans angry?

I believe that equity theory is relevant in this context. It proposed that satisfaction is correlated to the perception of fair/unfair distribution of resources, based on one’s inputs and contributions, within interpersonal relationships (Adams, 1965 cited in Wikipedia 2011). Anger arises when one feels threatened or ill treated in response to a perceived provocation or underpayment inequity (Adams, 1965, cited in Wikipedia, 2011).

Meritocracy, the cornerstone of our society and governance, gives equal opportunities to everyone and selects individuals based on their performance, regardless of background, racial groups or religions. However, in the process, it created strata within the society which segregates us based on our talents, abilities and performance.

In the past, university graduates formed merely 5-6% of the students’ cohort, and were naturally accepted as the cream of the crop. In comparison there is somewhat 50% of the population who are graduates nowadays. We vie and fight for the few coveted positions at the top of the social pyramid – creating a dichotomy between the so-called elites and the average. The matrix for evaluating performance had changed; resulting in a majority of the people who started feeling “injustice” for being deemed “average” despite putting the efforts to obtain their Bachelor/ Honour degrees. Without transparency to the selection process for the elites, it had somehow caused suspicion between these two categories of society, and became a harsh judgment of our competency and value as a person. People are outraged that they are passed over for their peers, and became disillusioned with the system.

It is thus no wonder that Lee Kuan Yew’s stance on the younger generation Singaporean’s attitude and the rationale to attract foreign talent often incur the wrath of Singaporeans, as demonstrated from the flurry of negative comments and defamation towards the ruling party on social media.

In my opinion, the following issues listed below are the plausible sources of Singaporean’s fury.

1. Income disparity between the Rich and the Poor

• Although the gini coefficient was 0.472 in 2010 (Singapore Statistics, 2010), the pursuit of material wealth and the relentless comparison to the wealthier counterparts breeds envy, jealousy and contempt among the middle class.
• The Poor gets poorer as wages began to stagnant and unable to keep up with the high standard of livings and inflation.

1. Locals v.s Foreigners

• Singaporewas once an migrant city where our ancestors hailed from all parts of the world. However, as the locals settled down and assumed the identity of Singaporeans, the nagging fear of being replaced, or being deemed as being inferior to the imported talents remained. Singaporeans had to endure mandatory National Service, the disciplinarian regime of governance, the competitive education system, and are disgruntled and upset when they see foreigners gathered here to benefit the fruits of their labour without undergoing the same experience or hardship. They are also concerned about being crowded out of their own home, and being deprived of the social mobility in the competition for scarce resources.

1. Jante Law

• Singaporeans treasure their social stability, economic progress, harmony and had placed all their stakes in their country. Thus, we are a can be distrustful and even hostile towards the foreigners for these reasons — their differences stick out glaringly as they are unable to assimilate into our culture; or are deemed to be deemed superior and come usurp our position and compete for the desirable jobs and; they can come and go from the country as they please and make use of Singapore as a stepping stone.
• Resentment
• The feelings of many Singaporeans were bruised, when they feel that the Government does not acknowledge their fears, concerns and insecurity, in the single mindedness for the steady growth of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). There are people who nursed a grudge towards the Government, who may had implemented certain policies brusquely without sensitivity towards the minority whose interests are at stake for the purpose of satisfying the majority.

Singapore’s overly rapid pace of progress since its independence had indeed sowed the seeds of discord that threaten the national solidarity which the previous generation of leaders strived to build up. Racial lines may have blurred and a shallow national identity had been built up over the years, but tension stemmed from our measuring our social-economic status relative to our peers in terms of material wealth. As Goh Keng Swee wistfully acknowledged in his thesis in the 1960s, the erosion of our social fabric is the price paid for our economic miracle.

References

Wikipedia. (2011). Anger. [Online]. Available on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger. (Viewed 10 September 2011).

Wikipeida (2011). Equity Theory. [Online]. Available on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_theory. (Viewed 10 September 2011).

Tan, J. (2011). Political divide must not become national divide. Yahoo News. [Online]. Available on http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/political-divide-must-not-become-national-divide-235319981.html. (Viewed 10 September 2011).

Singapore Statistics. (2011). Literacy & Education. [Online]. Available on http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/keyind.html#litedu (viewed 10 September 2011).

Education Statistics Digest (2011). Ministry of Education. [Online]. Avail able on http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/education-statistics-digest/files/esd-2011.pdf (Viewed 10 September 2011).

Goh, K.S. (1972) The Economics of Modernization and other essays. Singapore: Asia Pacific Press, 294p. A collection of speeches from 1955-1971. [HC497.12 Goh]

Thus far, so good. My Creative Director and my colleagues have been taking care of me, although there is a gap between what was learnt in school and the actual practice at the company.

As there was not much tasks entrusted to me in the initial weeks, I got to observe the dynamics of human relations in the office, as well as the way of work life.

The length of time it takes to complete a advertisement depends on several factors: 1) the number of marketing collaterals, 2) the complexity of the design, and 3) the responsiveness of the clients approval.

As part of the creatives, one of the major source of frustrations is having to make umpteen changes to the already fine artwork. Adjustment to the pagination; amendments to the copy (text); modify the graphic elements; replace the images; and so on. “No, Reject, Redo”… are the much dreaded words. My colleagues shared with me, that although they are busy meeting the deadline for the whole day, they sometimes do not know what they are actual busy with – stuck with the same job and obliging the client’s requests for constant changes.

I had asked my Creative Director, whether the clients are paying their fickleness.

He replied that firstly, with the advent of the technology, many clients are overestimating the ease  for corrections, with little regards to the technical difficulties of the task, and thus take the ability of the creatives for granted. Hence, there are times when graphic designers are treated like “production workers” who churn out marketing materials.

Secondly, there are clients who either have difficulty articulating their aesthetic needs, or are clueless of what they want. The constant ping pong of the artwork –- from the creatives, to the account executives, to the clients, to the company’s upper echelons –- often result in  disruptions, bottlenecks and mis-communication, as the concept and intent of the designer are lost between the different layers of bureaucracy. I believe that this problem is a common occurrence, not just in this office, but in every organization.

He further added, although it is technically alright to demand payment from the client to compensate for the effort and time wasted with regards to regular changes, this practice is not common in Singapore. Clients have greater bargaining power over the advertising company or the creatives, due to the over-competitiveness of the industry. They will always be freelancers or graphic designers who are “spoil markets” -  people who are willing to take the tedious job at a lower pay.

I am definitely learning a lot in the company – from the technical know how in regards to the execution of artwork, to understanding the preparation of the artwork for the various advertising mediums available. Yet there is still a depth of knowledge which I had yet grasp. I felt fortunate that my Creative Director is patient mentor to me. :-)

Genre: Computer Animated Comedy
Director: Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud
Voice Cast: Steve Carell, Miranda Cosgrove, Jason Segel, Russell Brand, and Julie Andrews.
Opening Day: 8 July 2010

Young Sis:

The movie was basically like this: Bad guy, Gru, hatched evil plot. He adopted 3 little orphan girls as part of his grand evil plan to steal the moon. In the end, he failed his evil mission but gained love as the cutie pies melted his cold and frozen heart (awwww… :-)) and they lived happily ever after. Not an unusual storyline, but what makes this movie outstanding is its despicable method of tugging at people’s hearts.

I love how the movie people introduced subtle changes to the main character‘s personality; a gradual but obvious evolution. The animation was quite excellent. There was a scene where everyone rode on a rollercoaster, allowing the audience to see through their perspective – I felt as if I was actually on the ride itself, heart lurching at the sudden drop in gradient and experiencing the same kind of thrill and excitement!

The slapdick humor was tastefully executed, evident from the frequent bursts of laughter. As a critic, I felt that it is part of my job to pounce on a mistake and then criticize and attack it to death but honestly, besides the predictable ending, there wasn’t anything much for me to pick on. I had enjoyed myself thoroughly and this is the perfect film if you’re looking out for a good, solid family love.

Youngest Sis:

Hmmm, the popcorn wasn’t sweet enough for my taste. But that’s beside the point.

The screen started by advertising the upcoming movies which I must say did its job very well – I was super tempted to watch all the films. The last Airbender, anyone?

Anyway, the movie is about an evil villain who transformed into a sweet guy due to the 3 girls he adopted. The yellow creatures were sooo cute and funny, esp the “kissy” one (WATCH THE MOVIE AND YOU’LL UNDERSTAND!) My personal favorite was the part where 3 stupid yellow things went to the shops and create hilarious chaos, just to get a unicorn toy, haha.

Other than the funny bits, this movie provides lots of food for thought. The main character was the man he was, (that is, evil) was because he craves approval from his mother who basically ignored him and hence did outrageous stuff to capture her attention. And that if a person wants to reform to be a better man he should adopt 3 little girls. Best if one of them is obsessed with unicorns.

BTW that’s this fat evil guy (not the lead) who reminds me of the dumb pointy head boss from Dilbert. Hmmm, interesting.

The touching scenes includes: sending off the children back to orphanage, superpowers grown from within as he set off to rescue his precious kids, and the storytelling time. Oooh there are still a lot more memorable scenes but I’m not telling :D

Overall, this movie was great. I LOVE IT! Highly recommended.