Mustafa Shopping Centre

The other night, we were shopping at Mustafa Shopping Centre for a formal dinner function. We were surprise that we could find Chinese Chong Sum as easily as good quality Sarong from Indonesia. Of course there were large selections of good Sari. Punjabi suit and Indian salwar kameez yet there was an impressive range of formal coat and Western Suit.

This created a lasting impression on me because I noted that there was equal emphasis on clothes from the four main races in Singapore. It might be argued that these selections were motivated solely based on economic reasons. Yet in a way, it reflected the state of racial harmony that has been cultivated in Singapore. We are comfortable in wearing each other ethnic clothes and increasingly more Singaporean are adopting these ethnic clothes that do not necessary reflect their own race.

Thus, when my Eurasian daughters and my Indonesian maid wore the Chong Sum to the dinner while I wore a Baju Kurung, we only receive complements.

However, when I was attending an in service course on multi-culturalism, Prof Rahil Ismail of the National Educational Education (NIE) asked if we can see beyond the three Fs of fashion, food and festivals when it comes to promoting racial harmony in Singapore.

This might be a question worth asking as we have been celebrating Racial Harmony Day in July since 1998. Normally schools would try to promote understanding among the races by encouraging students to wear different ethnic clothes, tasting different food or watching cultural performances.

In addition, to grow the common space and deepen inter-racial understanding, Inter-Racial Confidence Circles(IRCC) for the constituencies and “Harmony Circles”(HCs) for schools, work places and other local organizations have been organized since January 2002. They are meant to be casual, self-evolved group with the aim of providing a platform for Singaporean from different races and religion to interact and to get to know one another better in the hope that confidence, friendship and trust can be cultivated.

Is this sufficient for us to maintain racial and religious harmony? While appreciating that the structure has been put in place, we as individual has to play an active role.

A recent 15-country poll by the Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press indicated that there is a deep divide between Muslim and the West. Muslim generally views Westerners as selfish, immoral and greedy while Americans and Europeans view Muslims as arrogant, violent and intolerant.

Would a similar poll done in Singapore surfaced similar view? And if it does, could we as individual help to dispel these stereotypes? Even if similar views are not found is it time for us to pat our back for a job well done in the area of racial and religious relationship? What can we do to ensure that these types of view do not grow secretly in our heart?

What has happened in the past does not necessary means that it will continue in the future. Thus, we can never take the racial harmony that we have enjoyed for the past forty years for granted.

One possibility is to view ourselves as human first. This means that we will come to the aid of our fellow being regardless of his race, language or religion. We must treat each other with dignity and must have the courage to stop any conversation that disparage, debase or demean any race. In addition, we should look upon our foreign domestic help and worker with kindness. We should come to their help when they are in trouble and treat them with kindness.

While shopping at Mustafa that same night, I met a Muslim lady that was completely veiled except for her eyes. It invoked an unfounded and illogical fear in me. The following day, I asked my good friend, a learned Muslim woman about my fear. She could explain to me with confident the rational for the way Muslim woman should dressed. I am glad that I have that conversation with her as it helped me to dispel my fear and prejudices.

We have to play an active role to consistently and consciously work on eradiating out our stereotypes that we have of other people. None of us can claimed that we do not have them but it is what we do with them that makes a difference between living in harmony or in fear.

To post or not to post

How do you feel when you read about Mongolian model Altantuya Shaarriibuu being killed on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur? Or that Thammasat University students in Thailand mocked ousted premier Thaksin with an effigy of him with a forked tongue as Singapore’s Merlion? What about the latest juicy details of excesses as the NKF civil suit unfolded in court?

Why do we read the news at all? So that we have something to contribute at the water-cooler in the office, or perhaps there’s something interesting to upload on our blog to capture eyeballs?

What happened if the above three news event were recorded on real time with phone cam instead of presented as news articles to be read? Would it serve to satisfy our voyeuristic nature?

Now that most of us have mobile phones that can take video clips, and with facilities like YouTube around, many will be tempted to upload incidents which we think might interest others.

With broadband being made available all over Singapore, computing is progressing beyond the desktop to something we do on the move 24/7. It has become so ubiquitous that online is now merging with offline, with us having access to the net constantly. We can stay connected with portable, wireless, handheld gadget so that at any moment, we can create and disseminate news.

If you are a regular visitor to YouTude you might have come across the sexy, handsome professor from NTU bemoaning that students were suppose to give feedback about his teaching instead of declaring their love for him.

You might even sympathise with the Hong Kong Bus Uncle who had a metaphysical discussion on the proper behaviour of using handphone in the bus.

But where do we draw the line between human decency and playing part-time vigilante?
For some of us, there’s a sense of power when what we upload on the new media draws a reaction, or perhaps even a policy change by the authorities.

But what happens when you witness a crime unfold in front of your eyes, or when you see someone performing an indecent act – or an act that is simply unacceptable to you?

The other day, I was doing my work at a cafe, when I saw two teenage girls French kissing passionately every few minutes while pretending to study. I was tempted to videotape their next exchange, when I stopped myself and asked the following questions.

Why did I feel upset? What was wrong with the scene I was watching? Would I feel the same were it a boy and a girl? And why was I so intent on putting it up on Youtube? Was it meant to further an agenda of mine, or just to share something I’d seen with others?

Recently two teenagers were caught having sex in the bus on the phone cam. What set me thinking was not why the teenager did what they do. Rather, I was concerned with the purpose of the person who used the phone cam to tape the event.

What happens if it was a life and death situation? Would he continues to tape the event in the name of recording news or would he stops and helps the victim? Did it satisfy his lust for power when he put the tape up on the net for the rest of the world to see?

News-gathering no longer rests on the mainstream professional like reporters, journalist and broadcasters. It is a fact that these days, “news” can be reported by anyone with a hand phone and broadband access.

How do we handle such power? It is more than a twitch of our thumb to send an SMS, or the click of the mouse to upload the information. The information that we upload will have an impact on others as well as the newsmaker. We have to take them into consideration in our action. What purpose will it serve? Will it destroy their life? Will it bring about changes that will improve their life?

Who should police such power? Perhaps we can trust humanity and believe that decency and self-discipline will ensure that the new media would not degenerate into a cess pool. Or should the law should be changed so that individual privacy can be protected? What about the rights of owner of the phone cam? Is his right violated if he is prevented from putting up on the net whatever he fancy? Should the freedom given to speech now include freedom to blog, to upload video clip and to podcast?

Perhaps we should not be so trigger happy when we plan to upload any news on the net without the permission of the newsmaker. A bit of caution and reflection is always preferable to throwing caution to the wind as we wait to see how this power is managed by society.

One out of twelve

My colleague was working as a lawyer last July, when she decided to throw in the towel and follow her dreams to be a teacher. We were curious as to why she gave up a high paying career and asked her for the reasons.

She answered that she did not want to be a lawyer but her academic result was good enough for her to qualify. Her parents encouraged her to go into the law profession even though she has no interest in it. After practicing law for a few years to satisfy her parents’ wish, she decided to do what she feels is her calling. She is much happier now.

Now that the O level results have been released, I wondered how parents will advise their children, who have taken the O level exam last year, about the next step in their academic career.

Would they be ashamed of their child if they failed to get the required 5 O level credits and thus avoid visiting relatives during Chinese New Year period? Or would they insist that their child go to a top junior collage even though the child wants to pursuit the poly route?

Some parents advised their children to go to the junior collage not because it is in the interest of the child but because they would be able to boast about it at the office. Others live their dream through their children and insist that they take up profession that their child has no interest in at all. Some still harbous prejudices against students in the art streams, or students who wants to pursuit drama, music or fashion.

Students with ‘O’ level results can now submit their applications under both the Joint Admissions Exercise and the Joint-Polytechnic Special Admissions Exercise. This is conducted annually by the Ministry of Education (MOE) to allow students who have sat for the O level examination to apply for admission to courses offered by junior colleges, Millennia Institute, polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education. They are given until 4.00 p.m. on Wednesday, 14 February 2007 to register for the JAE. Students are given up to twelve options to put on their application form.

How would students selection these options? Will they go to a junior college because their friends are going to the same junior college? Or would they prefer a polytechnics course because they do not have to wear school uniform? Will they be pressurized by their parents to do a course that they do not like? Or will they be doing a course because they think is prestigious?

For many students, choose a course for tertiary education would be the first major decision that they make in their life. This should not be taken lightly and frivolously. An informed choice is better than a choice made in haste.

The decision should be based on the student’s interest, his talent, and his academic ability.
My daughter will be selecting her options and make her decision soon. She has visited several polytechnics and visited several websites of institute of higher learning.

On several occasions, I was tempted to maneuver her to choose a particular course that I want her to do. Sometime when she was exploring options that I do not agree with, I have to learn to bit my tongue and see her rational for her choices before I give her advise and opinions.

It is difficult to trust my daughter as a thinking rational adult who can make good decision. Sometimes, I still see her as my cute, cuddly seven years old.

But all too soon, she has blossom into a teenager soon to be an adult. I guess I must learn to let go and let her make some of life mistake, decisions and choices by herself now.

Note: She gave her mother a heart attack when she only put down one choice when given twelve options. One can only guess why she took such a step.

RK House -No Pork

One night, one of my children let me hear a sound file entitled “RK House – No Pork”. Apparently the recording was a copy cat of the film Borat. It featured some boys visiting a famous prata shop in Serangoon Garden. The boys consistently asked for pork when placing their order knowing that the shop was a halal one. The aim, I supposed was to make the shopkeeper angry and secretly record his angry respond.

While my children were laughing at the conversation that was taking place in the sound file, my husband and I was worried about the consequence that this sound file will have. After the laughter had died, we instructed them not to pass the sound file nor share it with their friends, as we felt that the boys in the sound file had shown disrespect to our Muslim community.

I was watching one episode of the show, The Arena, where the topic discussed was “Don't try to be funny! Our society does not encourage a sense of humour.”

There are many ways to encourage a sense of humour in our society. Having taken part in many humorous contests in the Toastmaster circle, I have come to realized that humour if handled well, will bring more then a knowing smile to the listener. But handled incorrectly and it will hurt especially when the joke is made at the expense of others.

When I make a humorous speech, I always try to make sure that the materials I used are used to laugh at myself. It shows that I do not take myself too seriously. This makes others more comfortable with me. Therefore, it should be alright for me to make joke about my pleasantly plum figure but I do not make fat joke about other people.

Drawing a line between acceptable and unacceptable humour does not mean that our society does not encourage a sense of humour.

I remembered a local cartoonist, George Noris wrote a cartoon book entitled “Hello Chok Tong, Goodbye Kuan Yew. “ It was a ground breaking book when it was published in 1991 as it tried to make us laugh at ourselves. He was pushing the boundary but with a sense of responsibility. It was courageous of him to explore the limit and he confessed in that book that many publishers were not willing to embark on that project because they felt that he was touching on a taboo subject.

However, in this case, I feel that the boys have oversteps their boundary. They cannot claime that the tape was made in the name of humour and entertainment as the laughter was gain at the expense of making another person looks bad.

One teenager posted her video response to the tape on Youtube praising the boys for having the gut to make such a video, for doing a good job and that she looks forward to more such production.

Like many teenagers, she sees only the entertainment value of the tape without considering the impact that such a tape would have on others.


There are three kinds of impact that any mass media will have on the audience. --- the intended explicit impact, and the unintended impact Here, I believe that the intended impact explicit was to have fun, make a joke and be entertained. The unintended impact however, is that it might have hurt the feeling of those who are being made fun of.
In this era where anyone and everyone can easily make sound file, video file and
Pod cast, there is a need for all of us to be aware of the consequence of our action.




This article was not published.

SCUFFLE OVER OP TO REMOVE ORGANS

We thought he'll WAKE UP THE NEXT DAY

His tears roll when we speak to him
He grips my hand when I hold his
That's why brother of dead man says...



By Chong Shin Yen
10 February 2007
The New Paper

HIS eyes twitched. His family saw tears.However little, this was enough to give the family of the late Mr Sim Tee Hua a sliver of hope. That was why they asked to be given one more day, they said, even though doctors had declared the 45-year-old brain dead. They were still hoping for a miracle.

Speaking in Mandarin to The New Paper at his brother's wake at Tampines Street 21 last night, Mr Sim's elder brother, Tee Yong, said: 'We noticed that tears would roll down from his eyes when we spoke to him, telling him not to give up. 'His eyes would twitch too. Once I felt him grip my hand when I held his hand. We thought he might wake up despite what the doctors said.'
But he was on life support and needed machines to keep his body alive.

A Ministry of Health spokesman explained that the eyes of a brain-dead person can twitch and have tears. This could be a reflex action caused by some irritation to the eye.

Mr Sim, a lorry driver, suffered a stroke at work on 1 Feb. He was rushed to Singapore General Hospital and regained consciousness.

'He could talk but was unable to move. He was agitated and said he could not accept that he had a stroke,' said the elder Mr Sim. Mr Sim had a brain haemorrhage two days later, on Saturday.
He was certified brain dead on Monday. That means brain activity had stopped completely and irreversibly and he would never regain consciousness. The family said doctors did explain this to them.

'We also know that medically a brain-dead person cannot wake up. But we did not want to give up hope,' said the elder Mr Sim, 49, a crane operator. The family was told that his brother had not opted out of the Human Organ Transplant Act. So his organs would be harvested for transplant that same day.

This could save organ failure patients, waiting for years, hoping for a transplant.
But Mr Sim's family asked for more time, clinging to their own hope.

His younger sister, Madam Sim Chew Lang, 32, said: 'We asked for two more days before they harvest his organs. 'My mother had prayed to the deities and was told that my brother would wake up in two days.'

GIVEN ONE DAY
They were given one day, until 10pm on Tuesday. The clock was ticking. Organs deteriorate with time and an MOH spokesman said there was a need to balance the needs of the family and the lives of organ failure patients.

'In some cases, a delay of a few days is possible,' the spokesman said.
'In other cases, the transplant needs to take place soon after brain-death certification, otherwise the organs would deteriorate to the point that the opportunity to help an organ failure patient is lost.'

The elder Mr Sim confirmed this was what happened to his brother. 'We were told by the doctors that because of the extension, his liver had deteriorated and could not be harvested,' he said.

As the deadline approached, Mr Sim's family asked for another day's extension. 'We believed that my brother would wake up the next day. We didn't want to give up hope,' said the elder Mr Sim.

When the family was told that a further extension was not possible, all hell broke loose.
There were about 20 family members outside the ICU where Mr Sim was warded. They included Mr Sim's mother, five siblings, uncles, aunties and cousins.

Said his sister, Chew Lang: 'My mother, me and five other relatives went down on our knees, crying and begging doctors to delay the organ harvesting for one more day.'

But they were turned down. The family then got into an argument with the hospital staff, which lasted for about three hours. Nine police officers and about 10 hospital security staff members were sent to the scene to calm them down.

Emotions were running high, with some of them wailing and screaming in an attempt to stop hospital staff from pushing Mr Sim into the operating theatre.

Said Madam Sim: 'We couldn't bear to give up on our brother and see him being pushed into the theatre. That would mean an end to all our hopes of him waking up.'

Madam Sim said she was held back by at least three police officers and bit one of them on his arm. 'I was just anxious to get to my niece and nephew because the police officers were holding them,' she said.

The elder Mr Sim said: 'We were told that his organs would deteriorate and cannot be transplanted if they waited too long.

'We want to help the organ failure patients, but we thought that one more day is not too much to ask for.'

Mr Sim, who is single, had a girlfriend from Hainan Island in China for the past six months.
'We were so happy for him when he told us he was planning to marry his girlfriend this year. I even told him that I would help him film his wedding,' said the elder Mr Sim.

He said Mr Sim's girlfriend has been told of his death but she was not planning to fly here to attend his funeral.

The family said Mr Sim had been healthy and would go jogging occasionally to keep fit.
The elder Mr Sim denied that the family got upset because they did not want his brother's organs to be donated.

'My brother had always been jovial and helpful. We know that he would be happy that his organs could help others,' he said.

'We had no objections to donating his organs, but all we asked for is just one more day for a miracle to happen.'





The revised HOTA includes four organs - kidney, liver, heart and cornea. Those who do not wish to donate a particular organ can register their objections for the specific organs.

In other words, they can opt out of any or all of the four organs under HOTA.Objection forms for this purpose are available at all public hospitals, polyclinics and the Organ Donor Registry. The form can als be downloaded from the Pledge Forms section.


People who opt-out of the revised HOTA, as well as those who are not covered under the revised HOTA, will receive lower priority on the waiting lists for the specific organs which they have opted out or have not pledged.


Muslims can pledge their kidneys under MTERA and receive equal priority on the kidney transplant list as other Singaporeans and Permanent Residents who have not opt out of HOTA.


In the mean while from Talkingock.com
by Pak Cham Kai

The Ministry of Health has warned citizens not too read too much into the current debate over whether to allow the open sale and trading of human organs.“This is purely in the interests of gauging public opinion on a developing issue of bioethics,” said SingHealth spokesman Dr. Helthi Singh.

“They should not read anything into the fact that the issue was broached by National Neuroscience Institute director Dr. Lee, whose father just happens to be Lord Voldemo… I mean, You Know Who.”

Dr. Singh said that citizens should not interpret the current debate as being the beginning of yet another process whereby:
• The elites want something done
• The ‘sensitive’ issue is first gently broached, preferably not by a direct member of the Gahmen
• Public opinion is then sought
• Public opinion is then said to be ‘considered’, but the Gahmen will act in the best interests of the country as it sees fit and all objections would have already been evaluated by the Gahmen’s elite scholars anyway
• Whatever policy the Gahmen wants, the Gahmen gets
• The Gahmen will embark on a heavy justification exercise in the media

“I don’t think citizens should be cynical and think that the legalization of organ trading is a fait accompli,” said Dr. Singh. “It’s not as if we have a group of ageing leaders and elites who will soon need spare parts, or who are impatient with waiting for peasants to mati. Right?”

“I agree,” said Por Cheng Hu, an anonymous pro-Gahmen comment poster on Sammyboy. “Anyway, why would our ageing elites want, like, other people’s hearts? For so long, they’ve been running the country just fine without any heart, mah.”

How much is that kidney in the window?

The Human Organ Transplant Act Amendment (HOTA) Bill passed by Parliament in 2004 allows for the organs (including kidney, liver, heart and cornea) of Singapore citizens and permanent residents to be removed in the event of death for the purpose of transplantation. It is applicable to non-Muslims between the ages of 21 and 60 years.

With people on waiting lists for organ donations dying everyday due to the shortage of organ donations, society is often tempted to suggest the sale of organs as a quick fix solution.

It has been argued that healthy people can live with one kidney or part of a liver. Some see nothing wrong for a potential living donor to save another person’s life given the right monetary incentive. They argue that as long as safeguards are put in place to protect the donor’s health, selling an organ is no different from selling an orange.

Others have argued that basic human necessities like food, shelter and medicine are already subject to market forces and so should the sale of organs, for without these organs life will be lost.

But is buying a heart the same as buying a house?

Using money to buy a house or other basic necessity that keeps us alive is different from using money to buy organs that come from other human beings. The sale of organs makes the seller less intact. Perhaps the loss of one kidney is less clear then the loss of a cornea. Nobody can accept a cornea peacefully knowing that he has made another human being half blind in the process. Moreover, the seller might now be more susceptible to disease or injury and sometimes even closer to death.

Some may counter argue that the above objections can be removed if we sell our organs after we died and pass on the money obtained from the sales to our love ones or even bequeath it to a charity. This is a naive argument as now the seller is at risk of being killed by individuals who stand to benefit due to the death of the seller.

We must extend our empathy to those who are in need of an organ to live a better life. It must be tough living between hope and despair waiting for the day when an organ can be found to be transplanted. However, in our eagerness to save the lives of those who have organ failures, have we forgotten that we need to treat other human beings with equal dignity and respect?

Just as Jonathan Swift’s satirical essay entitled A Modest Proposal suggests that the Irish eat their own children so that children of poor people in Ireland will be beneficial to the public, the argument for the sale of human organs will value a human life like that of a chicken. In future, we will be tempted to have children so that we can harvest their organs, just as we rear chickens so that they will become food for our bodies.

We must hold each and every individual as equally valuable in the eyes of society. We should not allow our emotions be swayed by the suffering of those who need an organ to the point of treating those who are healthy as less valuable.

Finally, we should not attempt to save the lives of those in need of an organ at all costs. There is a need to educate them to see the alternative of welcoming death with dignity.

Life never blessed us all equally with healthy organs. Some of us are allowed to live to a ripe old age while others are asked to leave the stage early. Faced with the possibility of death, we should not extend our lives at the expense of others.



This article was rejected by both TODAY and the Starits Time.

First AIDS

While I was in Hong Kong last year, I came across this the article about an odd job labourer of sixty-five who had been ostracized by his children and his wife because he has Aids.

He had unprotected sex with prostitutes from mainland China even though he knew full well the danger of contracting Aids. He said that he preferred having sex with mainland Chinese as they do not demand that he used condoms. When asked if he was aware of the danger of contracting Aids, his retort was that he was already so old and about to die so he does not mind taking the risk.

It is very easy for those of us who live by a particular set of moral values and ethical standard to sit on our high chair and judge those who have contracted Aids.

My first reaction when I read the article was not sympathy for him but moral indignation. There were several questions that came to my mind.

Why did he not learn to exercise self-control? How can he expect his wife and children to look after him when he chose to expose himself to such risks? Why should he expect society and his family to have pity on him?

Later, I watched a documentary on Freddie Mercury, about how he lived life to the fullest and how he tragically died of Aids on 24th November 1991.

Freddie fit the stereotype that most of us main stream heterosexual, family-orientated, faithful to a single partner adults have of people who have Aids. He was a homosexual; he had wild parties organized for his friends where sex, drugs and drinks were freely available.

Yet, before we continue to condemn people who suffer from Aids, we should pause and reflect if we too have made similar transgression.

For example, we have been advised many times through public campaign, television programme and other mass media that we should cut back on our salt intake, reduce our consumption of meat and fats or else we might have a heart attack or a stroke.

Yet, when we do not change our life style choice and have a heart attack, our family and our friends more often then not offer their care and concern for us and do not treat us like condemned criminal.

How often have we cheated life when we continue to smoke another pack of cigarettes thinking that we will not harm our body?

What about breaking the speed limit driving home with alcohol above the legal acceptable limit?

All of us have one time or another diced with life and death. We have taken chances or calculated risks. Some Aids patients, like the rest of us, have made life style choices that resulted in them contracting Aids. Like all of us, they will have to live with the consequences and responsibility of their choice.

What they do not need is our righteous, virtuous attitude, with us ever ready to cast the first stone.

Yes, some of us may not agree with the Aids patient’s lifestyle choices due to our religious belief or moral and ethical values. And often we are tempted to argue that because they do not ascribe to our particular framework of understanding, they are being punished.

Yet, if we calm down and think clearly, Aids patients deserved our care and concern as much as other patients who have contract other life-style disease like diabetes, stroke or sexual transmitted disease.

What they need right now is our acceptance, our assurance that they are still human and that we as follow human being, can see beyond their actions and transgression.

We can begin by being more sensitive when we discuss about Aids issues with our friends and family. Through our conversations, we can promote the attitude that we are ready to accept Aids as a disease and not a death sentence. Only when enough of use openly proclaimed that Aids suffers are part of our society can we claimed that ours is an inclusive society.

Even a convicted murderer is treated with dignity and respect before he is executed.

This article was not published in TODAY.