And, in Gay News today ....

Update on the 377a situation. Needless to say and to the surprise of exactly nobody, Parliament has decided to retain it.

Media reports said www.repeal377a.com garnered over 9,000 signatories for the online letter, and over 2000 for the petition to Parliament. The keep377a site got over 15,000 signatures. Oh well, it's not unexpected, but still somewhat disappointing.

On a somewhat related note, JK Rowling revealed over the weekend that Albus Dumbledore is gay (reaction posted at An Unused Voice). The international Harry Potter fandom is variously thrilled, dismayed, over-reacting and indifferent. I dare not seek out Singaporean reactions, after the encounter with keep377a. I just wonder whether someone is going to set up a website to denounce the Harry Potter series (www.repealHarryPotter.com, anyone?). Or perhaps a good, old-fashioned ritual book-burning? Or the environmentally friendly option - "Save the Earth, save our values: Recycle your Harry Potter books!" Maybe they could turn the HP books into toilet paper, which would bring the whole thing back to what started it in the first place: the a**hole.

Section 377a: The Keep vs Repeal Debate

When I was recently ranting about censorship of gay relationships on TV, I said I was not lobbying for gay rights.

Well, now I am.

Today's TODAY newspaper had an article on two websites dedicated to petitioning the Singapore government on Section 377a of Singapore's Penal code, which criminalises sex between men.

In one corner is www.repeal377a.com, a website with an open letter to the Prime Minister and a petition to be presented to Parliament.

In response, a group has set up a site supporting keeping S377a. I am not linking to it, because reading the first few lines on the site raised my blood pressure. The superior tone was galling, as was the smug assumption of the moral high ground, as if someone had bestowed upon them the status of arbiter of "family values". Not to mention the odious and condescending capitalisation of "WE, the Majority".

It may be a gross simplification to say this, but Nazi Germany had its roots in disturbingly similar sentiments. So does the Klu Klux Klan. "THEY, the Majority" (or at least the voices that spoke for them) were all too eager to assert their right to have their "values" (superiority of the white race) protected and not to be "forced" to accept something (assimilation of Jews, Poles, coloured people and other "untouchables") they are "not ready" for.

I totally, completely understand that Singapore is an Asian society, with conservative values. People are not comfortable with the concept of homosexuality, which seems so far from what we regard as the "norm". Fair enough. But how does that give any of us the right to say that homosexual acts are illegal or criminal? This is a question of law, surely, and the parameters and axioms by which laws are enacted and defined.

Frankly, I am amazed that this should be an issue in a country which prides itself on the separation of church/mosque/temple and state. If one accepts (as one should if not guided by religious tenets) that (a) homosexuality might be genetic; (b) the mere act of homosexual intercourse does not harm either the participants or anyone else; and (c) what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their own business; then what call is there for criminalising gay sex? It is faith-based value systems that cast homosexuality as "wrong" or "sinful", the same way that that certain faiths denounce pre-marital sex or birth control. Neither pre-marital sex nor birth control are illegal, are they? Which is as it should be, because the laws of the state are separate from the rules of faith.

If something is rendered illegal just because "the majority" is not comfortable with it, where would that leave us? At various points in history, it would have been illegal for women to work, for interracial couples to marry and have children, for anyone to wear black during Chinese New Year, for governments to raise taxes!!

So, you self-righteous, supercilious lot "you, the majority", please come down from your high horse. Something is not illegal just because it offends you personally. I am personally deeply offended by frilly ankle socks, talentless pop bands, bad put-on American accents by SIA flight attendants and many, many more things. You don't see me petitioning for these to be made illegal, not that I have not thought about it. Seriously, unless we are talking strictly about political elections, going the direction of "majority" vs "minority" is getting into dangerous territory in any country with diversity in its populace. In elections, the "majority" chooses the government of the day, but the "minority" is not denied the public services of government. Going beyond that, "the wisdom of crowds" can reveal very unappealing aspects of human nature.

Do the rights of the few not matter more than the "comfort level" of the many? How do we define the civil liberties of citizens in a democratic nation? Does the right to vote not represent the importance of the individual? Do gay people not have the right to do as they wish in the privacy of their bedrooms?

Another thing about the whole "majority" message that really bothered me is how it is almost like the campaign platform of one George W. Bush. It sounds like something from Focus on the Family, even bringing up gay marriage and adoption as if this was America and we were in the midst of the Bush vs Kerry period all over again. The irony, of course, is that the "majority" would accuse the pro-repeal group of being too "Westernised" in our way of thinking.

A few of the comments from the anti-repeal camp could almost be classified as expressions of bigotry, but many are more misguided than hateful, in my opinion. One letter to TODAY linked from the anti-repeal site said this:

I am not against homosexuals; I recognise that they are as human and Singaporean as I am. As citizens, they already enjoy the same rights as the others.

But what they are pushing for now is the Singaporean majority's approval of their behaviour. It is clear the majority does not covet the agenda that gay activists are pushing for. If Parliament repeals Section 377A, we will be unwittingly consenting to such behaviour.

Honey, "they already enjoy the same rights as the others"? You have a right to make love to whoever you want. GAY PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THAT SAME RIGHT!!

And I doubt that the gay community is seeking "majority's approval of their behaviour." Right now, they would be pretty happy if you just left them alone to live their lives without fear of being thrown into jail for what they do in their private space.

Gay people probably do not give much of a damn about what heterosexuals do in the bedroom. Can heterosexuals not extend the same courtesy to them? Why the prurient interest in other people's affairs?

Off to www.repeal377a.com to sign the open letter.

Maid for Trouble

What is with the recent spate of maids committing crimes? Earlier this year, 2 homesick and clinically depressed maids murdered their employer. A couple of months ago, a woman was found dead lying in a pool of blood and her maid was arrested. Earlier this month, in the now infamous Orchard Road body-parts case, a maid was accused of murdering a countrywoman, also a domestic worker. And just yesterday, the papers reported the story of a maid who was poisoning her aged employer with soap.

It used to be that the papers were full of horror stories about maid abuse. We still get these stories, at depressingly frequent intervals. It is not that the tide is turning, but that the tide is becoming stronger. Foreign domestic workers are the disturbing face of global inequality. Whether victims or perpertrators of crime, their stories show us uncomfortable truths about our society and the world we live in.

How many of us can truly comprehend the poverty that FDWs leave behind to seek employment in our more affluent shores? No matter how empathetic, how can we truly understand their sense of displacement or their feelings of fear and trepidation? Most adjust perfectly well; humans are resilient and adaptable creatures, after all. Yet, there are those who cannot adjust as easily and are plagued by human reactions: depression, despair, resentment and fear. From such human frailties are crimes born.

There are no easy answers, perhaps no answer at all. The problem with people is that, well, they have personalities and feelings. Feelings are messy things that we cannot fix with policies, frameworks or laws. Much less feelings that we cannot truly grasp in full (for which we should count ourselves blessedly fortunate).

If we are merciful, we would wish for a world where poverty does not turn young women into tradeable commodities to be sold abroad to more affluent nations.

Charity: Ball in Our Court

Charities have been under scrutiny these past few weeks. They have been analysed, questioned and probed.

Now it's our turn to be tested. Us, the public, who gave freely to NKF's many shows on Mediacorp Channel 8 and who were outraged over the recent revelations of possible misuse of funds.

The President's Star Charity is upon us again. Will we, who gave so much to one single charity, be willing to give to a cause that supports 47 charities? Are we so scarred by the NKF incident that we cannot trust other charities?

Let's look at it this way. Nobody forced a gun to our heads to donate during the NKF charity shows (I am not talking about donations to NKF through other means). We sympathised with the plight of patients shown on air, we answered the pleadings of the stars flown in from abroad and we gasped at the courage of local artistes who risked life and limb (and in some cases, eyesight). We did this, mind you, knowing that NKF did more on-air charity shows than any other charity and knowing that NKF raised more money from on-air shows than any other charity.

Let's ask ourselves a few questions here. Why did we give more to NKF's shows than to shows to benefit other charities? Were the stars appearing on NKF's shows more appealing to us? Did they perform more heroic and dangerous stunts? Were the videos of the kidney patients more touching because they were more professionally made? Were the stars on the NKF shows pleading just a little harder, or seem just a little more desperate?

Here's the big question - WHY do we give to charity during such shows? I hope the answer is not because of anything in the list of questions above.

I am not naive. I know that celebrity spokespersons and charity shows are vital to charities, who might otherwise languish, with most of the public not knowing of their existence. Charity shows raise awareness for a cause. Celebrities are the messengers raising awareness. Say you like Zoe Tay. She tells you that cancer patients need your help. Would you:
a) Donate because Zoe is telling you to give?
b) Donate because you must show support for Zoe?
c) Donate because Zoe must be the celebrity that gets in the most donations (hey, it IS a competition)?
d) Pay attention to what Zoe said because you like her and donate because you now realise the plight of cancer patients.

Whatever your motivation, money gets donated and the charity benefits. That's a good thing. But if you donate because of (a), (b) and (c), then charity becomes part of the show business machinery and charity shows a form of life reality TV. How does that do the charity any good?

If charities need to appeal to those instincts in us (ie celebrity worship), lack of governance and transparency is the least of the problems facing the charity sector. As damaging as the NKF revelations have been to the sector, I would worry a lot more if the community is giving because of how the cause is packaged, rather than the cause itself. Yes, targets are important, but so are motivations.

So, this is our test now. The President's Star Charity might not be as exciting or as slick as the NKF shows. There will not be any death defying stunts. We are still recovering from the NKF saga. Do we give? Do we care?

Tragedy in London

This weekend, there was a sad twist in the tale of the London bombings. London plain clothes police shot to death a Brazillian man in a London tube station. He had left a building under police surveillance for housing terrorists and conspirators. He was wearing bulky clothes that might have concealed explosives. He had panicked and jumped over a train ticket barrier when approached by the police. He fit "the profile" of a potential suicide bomber. The police felt they had no choice but to shoot him in the head, lest they set off explosives if they shoot his body. The fatal mistake was that this was a completely innocent man.

The Guardian has an excellent leader article analysing the complex moral and practical dilemma faced by policy makers and law enforcers in London's current climate.

One always has to condemn the unnecessary death of an innocent man. But in these circumstances, did the police have any choice? They were acting on available intelligence, after all. The scary thing is that terrorism related intelligence will never be 100% accurate. Is that element of doubt enough to negate all police action? Should they prize the sanctity of "the one over the many" or should they act to maximise "the greater good"?

I don't know the answer. I am just glad that I don't have to answer questions like that. It is easy to pontificate from far away, when I don't have family living in London under the dual threat of intended terrorist attacks and unintended police action.

To the family of the innocent Brazilian electrician, this unimaginable tragedy must understandably forever shake their faith in London's law enforcers. I hope that in time, they will recognise that their son was ultimately yet another victim the terrorists who planned and executed the bomb attacks; they might not have pulled the trigger but they are the true killers here. This, then, is the great achievement of the terrorists; an environment of heightened fear and paranoia, where people can die even without another bomb going off.

Freaks, Fans, Fury and Fallibility

It's been a few weeks now since the jury in the case of State of California vs Michael Jackson found the accused not guilty on all counts. It caused something of an uproar in America - in equal parts, unrestrained joy and scandalised outrage. And then there were those were cautiously pleased with the verdicts. Regardless of what they were personally inclined to believe about MJ, they assessed that the prosecution had not presented a case proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If Americans are to continue to have faith in their legal system, "Not Guilty" was pretty much the only verdict that would be acceptable. The due process of law must be respected, even if it sometimes appears to fly in the face of what is emotionally felt to be "justice". I have watched enough of "The Practice" to understand this sentiment, and to ultimately, sympathise with it. (I know, it's sad to take instruction from a TV series, especially one which got unwatchable towards the end; but for a couple of seasons, the show made a few pretty good points about access to justice).

For myself, this case is interesting from so many perspectives, perhaps underlying the inherent pruriency in each of us.

Michael Jackson - wacko or sly? Watching his interviews, you know at once that Michael Jackson is undoubtedly not like most people. Of course, his lifestyle (and fame and fortune) alone is unlike most people's. But where he really differs from you and me is in his mind. I don't know enough to say that he is crazy or deranged, but the man clearly is odd. I don't think he realises how strange much of his behaviour seems to the rest of the world (the Bubbles thing, dangling his baby from the balcony, buying the remains of the Elephant Man, the horrific painting of himself surrounded by boy cherubs). And yet, there is a certain shiftiness about him when he talks about his facial surgeries (or as he claims, his lack of surgery), his relationship with Debbie Rowe and the origin of his children. It was almost like he was cultivating a deliberately obtuse demeanour that we were SUPPOSED to see through. Perhaps he knows he is seen as strange and doesn't understand why, but is willing to play along with it as part of being Michael Jackson, being strange in ways that are understandable to him. If he ever allows himself to receive therapy, the medical records should make for great reading some day in the future, when the patient confidentiality period has lapsed.

Michael Jackson - pedophile? In its purest, original form, the term "pedophilia" is Greek for "lover of children". "Love" here is taken in a romantic/erotic context. The term pedophile has become pathologised as pedophilia is treated in the DSM as a mental illness. Even certain dictionaries define a pedophile as one who engages in sexual activities with children. But its literal meaning has nothing to do with the actual act of sex, so we can talk about MJ being a pedophile without saying that he has had sexual contact with children. It appears obvious that he IS a pedophile, in that he loves children (technicallly, only boys) romantically. Even unbiased commentators (for instance, J Randy Taborelli who wrote The Magic and The Madness, a respectful biography of Jackson) report MJ's behaviour around Jordan Chandler in the early days as that of a man in love. He cried when Chandler's mother blocked access to the boy, became desperate and begged to see him. He wanted to be the the boy constantly. There were other boys before and after Jordan Chandler, MJ's "special friends" who followed him on tour, attended functions with him and were seen holding hands with him as they posed for the press. But Jordan Chandler might well have been the love of his life. The upshot is this - Michael Jackson becomes infatuated and falls in love with young boys (and often of a certain type - exotic features, olive skinned and handsome), so yes, he is a lover of boys - hence a pedophile.

Michael Jackson - child molester? Has he acted on this love he has for boys? The evidence we have is simply not enough for an outright "yes" or "no". I have read the graphic allegations made by Jordan Chandler on The Smoking Gun; they do seem convincing, but I wouldn't put money on it myself. The recently concluded case surfaced more graphic details (appealing to the prurient in us all, no doubt). Again, the problem is that these are words that require us to "believe", and we only ever need to believe when we cannot KNOW. I happen to believe that he has molested at least one boy at some time, but I do not know it. Do I believe beyond a reasonable doubt? That's another matter altogether. I did not follow the case closely enough, so I can only say that my belief might not be founded on all available evidence.

What was really going on with the jury? In post verdict interviews, a few of the jurors seemed to have based their "reasonable doubt" on the fact that the accuser's mother had come across as unreliable and a bit of a nutcase. I suppose one has to credit the defence for deflecting the burden of proof from the boy onto the mother, who is far less sympathetic. But did the jury acquit because they did not believe the mother, or because they simply did not like her? We are all human, and we allow our feelings towards other people to cloud our judgement of what they do and say. Staying objective is difficult, but necessary. I just wonder if the jury managed it.

Not guilty by reason of celebrity? One has to admit that a few of the jurors appeared rather star-struck. One juror attended the post-verdict celebration party thrown by the Jackson family, which does seem rather inappropriate. Might this have influenced their decision? First OJ Simpson, now Michael Jackson. Does celebrity bring with it an inbuilt defence? I think any juror would be affected by the fact that the defendant is a celebrity - it might make them more anxious to be neither overly-critical nor overly-lenient. When the defendant is well-known, he cannot get a "jury of his peers" because his celebrity is a factor which affects their perception of him, and of the case. An unknown man accused of the identical crime as Michael Jackson would not have been regarded in the same way by the jurors - and might not have received the same verdict.

The true-believing fans - deluded or convinced? Apparently, there was a group of loyal Jackson fans that came from all over the world and camped outside the court house for the duration of the trial. I am endlessly fascinated by the psychology of fandom. Do they believe in his innocence because they are such great fans of him as a musician? I imagine it must be difficult to reconcile the creative output of the musician that touches their soul with the criminal acts he was accused of. Or are these staunch believers of his innocence also fans of the person (or at least the persona of benevolent do-gooder and child-saver that was Jackson's public face before the weirdness crowded out everything else)? For me personally, one can be a fan of an artiste's output, without necessarily believing him to be beyond all reproach. Richard Wagner was a known anti-Semite and I "hate" him for that, but every time I listen to Tristan and Isolde or the great love duet in Sigfried, my breath is taken away anew and I am again humbled by Wagner's genious. I don't know if I might feel differently if he was a child molester, as there are boundaries and deal-breakers for us all. Are these Jackson fans clinging to his innocence because the allegations are so unthinkable?

Public outrage - reasoned or over-reacting? Outside of the Jackson fansites which are of course numerous, public response on the Internet seems to be predominantly one of disbelief and outrage. Some were upset because they work with or have experience with child abuse victims - the verdict seemed a blow against what they obviously feel strongly about. Yet they seemed to have taken these less personally and reacted more mildly than others. Many people, or at least those who are vocal on the Internet, believe with an absolute certainty that he is guilty and has gotten away with his crimes on the strength of his celebrity and the imputed stupidity of the jury. In the first flush of their fury, strong words were being bandied about and some even wished fates much worse than death on Jackson and the jury. The die-hard believing Jackson fans were termed "floons" (as in F Loons, no prizes for guessing what the F stands for). A herd mentality also began to take root, resulting in tendency to believe every scrap of negative gossip and conjecture about Jackson. There was something unmeasured about much of this. The beast of public opinion is a strange one; it seemed to me that the communal activity of posting on an Internet message board seems to have enabled and fueled their fury, even more than the verdict itself.

Michael Jackson - What next? Who knows? I hope he gets help. Even those closest to him have acknowledged that he didn't have a normal childhood, that he was never allowed to grow up with a view of the world that in any way resembles the views of others. He has likely jeopardised his already fragile musical legacy, but that seems inconsequential now given the many lifes in disarray because of this case, the accuser and his family chief among them. They are so young, with so many years ahead of them and will forever have this high-profile event in their past. Jordan Chandler received millions as part of the out of court settlement 12 years ago; but has lived as a recluse and will probably never have true anonimity. Perhaps most disturbingly for me, Jackson has children that might be growing up in an environment even less conducive than the one he had as a child. If nothing can be done for Michael Jackson anymore, can something not be done for them? When the freak-show ends and we lose interest in the shocking, lurid details of his weirdness, there are still lives other than his to be lived.

Charity: Not so Cut and Durai

Two major court cases are in the news this week. In one courtroom, the murder trial of the chap who is accused on murdering young Huang Na last year. In another, NKF CEO TT Durai has taken SPH to court over an article in the Straits Times last year, in which NKF was depicted as somewhat lavish in its spending on taps in the CEO's executive washroom.

Usually, the lurid tale of murder and sexual molestation of a child would grab all the headlines, but the outrage and public attention have landed squarely on a defamation suit over bathroom fixtures. I bet more than one NKF PR advisor had taken heart that the Huang Na case was being tried in the same week, the better to deflect attention from the NKF suit. You simply have to love the unpredictability of public response!

And now, public outcry has led the resignation of NKF's CEO and Board. It happened within a space of 2 amazing days after court proceedings revealed a littany of lavish spending by NKF on salaries and executive perks. Singapore had not become so united behind a non-sport event since the MacDonald's Hello Kitty craze, when young and old queued overnight outside MacDonald's restaurants and established a kampung camaraderie reminiscent of the pre-1960's.

What is at the heart of this public outrage? The surface facts are enough to set off several alarm bells:

• NKF CEO earned $25,000 a month
• He received 12 months' bonus last year, earning $600,000 in total
  
• In last 3 years, his salary and bonuses totalled $1.8 million
• NKF's coffers has enough reserves ($260 million!) to last over 20 years , not the 3 years previously stated
• NKF has overstated the number of kidney patients that need its help - the true number is closer to 2,000, rather than the 3,000 plus figure that Durai has stated in the past
• NKF CEO is entitled to business class travel on SIA
• He has traded this for flying 1st class on lower-cost airlines
• NKF CEO has used NKF resources for his and his family's personal convenience

Many of these revelations did not surprise me, not the salary and the bonus, nor the inaccuracies about the number of patients and the size of the reserves. For more than a few years now, I have regarded NKF as an anomaly - a charitable organisation run like a profit-oriented conglomerate. NKF has engaged in active expansion of services and operations, marketed aggressively and successfully branded itself as the household name in charities. It is a corporatised charity, its management driven by financial and market imperatives. Its reward structure would naturally encourage income maximisation; in its case, income in the form of public and donations (corporate donations are apparently a minor proportio of its funding). In pursuit of this, is it any wonder that the need for funds is somewhat exaggerated? Would we be as willing to give if we knew NKF had enough reserves for 10 years, never mind 20? 3,000 patients instead of 2,000; reserves for 3 years instead of 20. To certain NKF executives, this might have seen like nothing more than taking minor creative license. After all, advertisers engage in "puffery" when selling a product or service; it makes the public more inclined to part with its dollars. It is accepted practice in business, so why not for a corporatised charity?

TT Durai was something of a fund-raising savant, coming up with ever newer and brighter ideas, from SMS solicitations using the name of stars to lucky draw chances. He also engineered an alliance with Mediacorp, which at times almost functioned like the solicitations arm of NKF. The alliance was wildly successful, raking in tens of millions in donations each year. (Surely it's not being cynical to note that it also boosted the visibility of the Mediacorp artistes, adding a heroic dimension to their public persona. Next to family and friends, "Mr Durai" might have been the person most thanked at last year's Star Awards.)

It made me uncomfortable, this juggernaut with its large databases of donors and ever-more frequent star-studded charity shows. I have the fullest sympathy for kidney patients (and know families who have had to deal with kidney diseases). Dialysis is expensive and the need for assistance is real. But NKF so dominated the fund-raising space that there seemed to be nothing left for the 900 other charities in Singapore. What of the cancer patients, orphaned children, the disabled and the infirm elderly? How much more can individuals give to others if so much already goes to NKF? NKF itself, in its zeal to swell its own coffer of reserves, did not seem to have ever considered the needs of other charities. It was never openly said, but its "business model" might have regarded other charities as "competition". After all, when your KPI is to bring it as much public funds as possible from a limited pool, can you help but regard the likes of Singapore Cancer Society and Singapore Heart Foundation as competitors? Every dollar that goes elsewhere is a dollar less for NKF, a dollar less counting towards the KPI.

For so long, NKF was the household name in VWOs. It was the most visible, even sponsoring Mediacorp drama serials in the run up to its various charity shows (I have my beef with Mediacorp's role in this, but this is not the place to voice that). It was the one that most people donated to, whether through monthly contributions or donations during televised charity shows. Other charities were relegated to the back of our minds, because they did not market themselves so aggressively that they were in our consciousness the way that NKF was. Now that NKF is disgraced, will the public be able to continue separating NKF from other charities? Or has this one broad brush tarred all the others? It seems that Singapore Cancer Society has already received requests to cancel monthly contriutions, although they have absolutely nothing to do with NKF. Perhaps this confusion arose because NKF's latest drive was for its Cancer Fund. Which then brought this question to my mind - was there a need for a NKF Cancer Fund when the Singapore Cancer Society has accumulated more experience and expertise in cancer-related programs? Was this not creating competition in a sphere that would probably best function without it?

Arising from the ashes of this debacle is the need for greater transparency and better governance at NKF and other VWOs. It is actually remarkable to me that this hasn't become an issue before. NKF raises so many millions a year, yet its practices have never been scrutinised closely. Perhaps we had thought that governance belonged in the realm of private corporations, where scandals such as Enron and CAO have been widely publicised. Perhaps it was unthinkable that charitable organisations would not be able to self-govern with the same ethics, altruism and selflessness that seemingly underly their very existence. It is ironic that the NKF saga broke the same week that the Government announced that it is accepting proposed changes to the Code of Corporate Governance. The newspapers were a hoot; one on page, we saw headlines about Madam Ho's speech on Corporate Governance as the Singapore Economics Society dinner; on the facing page, we read about the public's outrage over the NKF revelations.

Of course, the Code does not apply to non-profit organisations, but perhaps these organisations should be held to be just as accountable as public-listed corporations. If NKF has prided itself on its corporate management style, then if should have been subjected to the same legal, reporting and disclosure requirements as any corporation. Under the mantle of a non-profit organisations, they get many breaks - not the least of which, tax-related exemptions - but they have manifestly not functioned like a non-profit organisation. They have been labelled social entrepreneurs, which is remarkably telling. I believe that social entrepreneurship is one of the great developments in business philosophy. But I have always upheld it to be wonderful because it was practised by profit-oriented organisations. In the act of making profits, an entrepreneur is socially responsible and positively affects society in a way that circularly benefits his business venture. It is beautifully, elegantly complete - a rare synthesis of socialism and capitalism. It is about serving society's good while making profits. It is in fact the reverse of what NKF does, which is to make profits while serving a social cause. If this appears a stylised over-simplification, it is. The facts lend themselves to stylisation; I just do not believe that NKF is in any way a suitable model for social entrepreneurship as I understand it.

I am NOT against a more professional approach to fund raising and running charities. Yes, you have to spend money to raise money, and yes, you have to reward professionals who do a good job raising money. But I would contend that the sky is NOT the limit for a charity, the way it is for a private concern. You can raise TOO much money, although most charities are never in this happy position. You have raised too much money when you can survive for another 20 years without active fund-raising and if you do not invest in high-risk basic research. Who knows, in 5 year's time, we might have a cure for diabetes and viable low-cost options for patients with kidney failure. What will happen then to the excess funds - declare an even fatter bonus for the staff?

I hope this incident has opened the public's eyes to the importance of finding out about the charities they donate to. In the past, were we blinded by the dazzling star power that entreated us to give to NKF? Did we feel compelled to donate as we watched Mediacorp artistes endanger their lives on live television? Did we fall for the hard-sell that follows the free health screenings provided? Were we tempted by the chance at winning a condominium or a fat wad of cash? Probably yes. Are these really the reasons why we give to charity? Do we not care where the money goes as long as the message (or messenger) is persuasive enough? To be responsible donors, we need to do our research too. Whatever the reason we give to charity (for good karma, because of pure altruism, out of gratitude for past assistance), we should know how our money is being used and how the cause is being supported. It is the responsibility of the VWO to provide this information for us to make informed decisions.

This does not detract from what NKF has achieved and the good work that it has done and will continue to do. It serves an important cause and provides invaluable assistance to many people, and should be lauded for its forward-thinking initiatives and innovative practices. NKF does many things which are very right and for the right reasons. But I am glad that what it has done wrongly has come to light. It was time that we knew.

All this Talk is Bad for Business

I caught the highlights of the Parliamentary "debate" last night, which was expectedly focused on the casino. The theme for the evening seemed to be "Gambling is a very, very bad thing." I believe PM Lee might have said something about it being a pointless activity. The newspapers today have picked up this thread of thought, with multiple headlines decrying the act of gambling and informing us how to not be lured into the dark pits of the casino.

I know this is all very well-intentioned. It shows that the government understands that gambling is a social ill. This is a public service announcement for more and better education. It also serves to appease those who might have felt ignored when they voiced their concerns over the ills of gambling.

However, it's almost like shooting yourself in the foot. Here's the message being relentless drilled into the watching and reading public - "Gambling is bad. If you are smart, you will stay away from the casino." Well, that's all fine and maybe true, but it's hardly going to inspire confidence in potential investors. "Hey, come build a casino. Heck, build TWO casinos. Business will be GREAT!!! By the way, we are doing everything we can to keep people away."

I suppose the rationale is that the casino is not meant for locals. It's for tourists. The ones who are too dumb or not educated enough to realise they shouldn't be going to the casino. The ones who are imprudent and lack self-control. It's a pretty condescending signal to send out to foreign visitors.

I PERSONALLY believe that gambling is bad and a waste of money, but I don't agree that this is an universal truth. In economics, we speak of the "utility" derived from consumption. For people like me, there is no utility gained from gambling when there is only money going out and none coming in. For others, the process of gambling, of "buying a little hope" provides plenty of utility, which is not eroded one bit by their failure to win or to break even. The money spent in buying hope also buys them enjoyment, much as we might enjoy a movie or a foot massage, both of which we are willing to pay for. It makes people feel good for the duration of the experience. And if people can do this within their means, is that so bad?

I think the casino is a great idea for people who can enjoy the gambling experience in this way. And they should not be made to feel bad or stupid for this. The unbalanced assessment of gambling as being absolutely bad might put some people off. And these are exactly the people that are needed to make the casinos successful economically - which was the main reason why they will be built at all.

Why are they calling it a "debate"?

So, the green-light has been given for a casino (well, 2 of them!) in Singapore. Oh, sorry ... I meant to say "Integrated Resort", of which the casino is only a small part. Less than 5% of each IR floorspace will be taken up by the casino. I think I would like to know another figure. What proportion of investments is expected to be channeled to developing the casino part of the IR? I bet (haha, "bet", get it?) the figure would be a lot higher than 5%. Here's another number I would like to know. What proportion of the IR profits is expected to be derived from casino operations? Odds are (there I go again, with the gambling terms!) the figure would be closer to 95% than it is to 5%.

What I don't understand is why the media persists in calling the parliamentary proceedings a "debate" over the casino issue. Isn't it more or less dried and dusted and now in the process of a highly civilised discussion to ensure collective consensus? The word "debate" suggests opposing points of view. It hardly seems to apply here, when firstly, the go-ahead to build the casinos has been given, and secondly, everyone seems to agree that the analysis supports this decision. What exactly is being debated here?

All debate over this issue has been taking place in the last few months, in civil society and the public sphere. Opinions have truly been split on this and the discourse between parties has resembled real debate, with valid points being raised on both ends. The case against the casino has been largely social, the case for has been largely economics. Unfortunately, I think the decision hinged on choosing one over the other, which reduced a complicated issue to overly simplistic terms.

Now that the decision has been made, does this signal a victory of economics and money over social and family values? Certain petitioners who rallied against the casino might be tempted to think so, in their disappointment. I sympathise, but of the many aspects of national wellbeing that a government must provide for, I think the most crucial are legal and economics. These are the basis for jobs, health, peace and order. Social and cultural policing is as much the responsibility of the individual and family unit, as it is the government's.

I think gambling can be likened to drugs, tobacco and alcohol, in that it is potentially addictive and hazardous. Drugs are illegal (and trafficking is punishable by death in Singapore and Malaysia), but smoking and drinking are not. The ostensible reason is that the health hazards of drugs are far better established medically, than those of tobacco and alcohol. The cynic in me believes that might have something to do with the political clout of cigarette and alcohol manufacturers, especially in the US. That said, the point is this - drinking and smoking, which introduce toxicities directly into the body, are not banned. The social ills of gambling addiction are easy to anecdotise, but impossible to empiricise. Without indisputable proof, a secular government cannot deny its citizens their civil liberties and criminalise the act of gambling. And if a government is to allow gambling, it might as well reap the economic benefits of having a home-based casino.

Do I sound like a casino apologist? To be honest, I was leaning towards the "against" camp in the initial debates. In part, this was because I have little faith in people's abilities to practice self-control and not fall prey to the temptations of a remote "chance at glory". I don't know how much we understand about the psychology of gambling addiction. My hunch is that those who are succeptible will give in the minute the opportunities to gamble are presented, like a chemical trigger in the brain. Self-control might not even be a factor, because it's an intinctive response like animals fending for themselves in the wild.

It seems cruel to provoke these people who are predisposed to gambling addiction. The studies show that 55,000 Singaporeans fall into this category. This works out to around 2% of the population. Putting on my statistician's hat, we could argue that the likelihood of having a gambling addiction is no worse than having a peanut allergy. Peanuts are not banned because of this 2% of people who are allergic. To protect allergic people, there are food labelling laws to indicate all ingredients in food products. To protect potential gambling addicts, there are the proposed safeguards of substantial entry fees and family intervention. These are not perfect, but better than nothing. I suppose the point is that the problems of 2% should not negate the harmless enjoyment of the other 98%.

And yet, every time I hear about someone committing suicide after losing everything they own in a casino, it is hard to be completely objective. Therefore I remain sympathetic to those who oppose the casino, even whilst I agree with the government's decision.

See, a DECISION was announced yesterday in Parliament. A decision is not debated. A PROPOSAL is debated. And this passed the proposal stage ages ago. In fact, there are some who might say that it was never really a proposal, but a decision-in-progress, because it was economically inevitable.

Score: Liberty 15 - Freedom 27

In the end, it was a convincing victory for Freedom, although Liberty was nipping at its heel for a while. Momentarily, it seemed that an upset was on the cards, but Freedom pulled ahead on the strength of a lengthy discussion of American ideals.

I am, referring of course to the Inaugural Address. The handy wordcount function in MS Word tells me that the entire speech had a total of 2086 words. 'Freedom' accounted for 27 of these, 'liberty' for another 15, while 'free' popped up 7 times (showing that a noun always sells better than an adjective; and, for this administration, a verb) and 'tyranny' had a decent showing of 5 appearances.

(Nb. The good folks at the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart were keeping score in an episode that aired way before this post so I can't claim any originality. Perhaps it goes to show that the speech lends itself to word-counting! I haven't seen that episode of the Daily Show yet, nor do I know if this segment will make it to the Global Edition, which is what we get to see on CNN here. In any case, our scores matched! And I had the same idea as the Daily Show team!!! My gosh ... wow, perhaps that writing career is not so out of the question after all, hehe.)

For a speech that mentions Freedom and Liberty so often, it doesn't exactly inspire any great hope for either ideals. The one-line precis is: "Do things my way or else". While many despaired for America after November 2nd, I think we now despair for the world. Even before the inaugural address, the world feared for what may come during this second term. What more now, when the war cry has been sounded? Who is the tyrant and where is the freedom?

On the merits of the speech itself, the White House hires very higly qualified people to write speeches for the President (at least, that's what The West Wing tells me), usually lawyer types that are armed with thesauri, dictionaries and copies of old speeches. All that brain power and they used 'Freedom' 27 times??? Sure, maybe they were going for 'reinforcement through repetition'. But 27 times? That seems to be more a case of 'running out of ideas'. It was aiming for 'inspirational' but landed somewhere closer to 'cliched'. The speech-writers may have consulted Civics text books more than they did the thesaurus. Actually, given that they repeated the same two words so many times, the thesaurus may not have come off the shelf at all (or be summoned on the word processor).

Maybe I shouldn't blame the speech writers. They were probably just working on instructions.

** "See, the idea is that I want to rule the world. I want to get those pesky rogue nations in line. Well, not all of them, just the ones with oil or something else my family business could use. Actually, come to think of it, just go for the whole world while you're at it. No harm having a few countries at the side. My cronies may need someplace to holiday when I am no longer here. And ... what's that you say? I can't just say I want to rule the world? Oh, okay, I guess you have a point. You know what, just tell them I am helping to liberate the world from tyranny. They bought it the first time, right? The election proved it; they gave me an overwhelming mandate, didn't they? Freedom, that's the word. You just have to use that, a lot. And Liberty, to mix it up a bit. Got that? Good. Bring it on!"

I did not actually hear the speech, only read the transcript. That was enough to make the bile rise. I could not have sat through watching and listening to him spout that arrogant, condescending message to the world. I can barely even see a photo of him in the papers or on webpages without instinctively flinching. I call it a "visceral cringe". I have read about others who have similar reactions. One person said that the sight of his face quickened her heartbeat and made the blood rush to her head, but in a BAD way! Another said that he may well be certifiably allergic to the man.

I sometimes wonder if I worry too much about a man who lives in a country so far away. How much does what he says affect my life? Perhaps not much, if we are looking at the direct, tangible aspects of getting about our daily lifes. But what of the rest of it, the things we don't see immediately or can't see or which are in the future? Chaos ascends (hey, first reference to this blog's title!!) and eventually influences everything. I worry because of this but I count myself lucky that I have less cause to worry than many people in many other countries.

** Imaginary monologue purely of my own invention. Any similarity to words actually spoken may or may not be entirely coincidental.

Blood Boiler

When scouring a few of my regular boards, I came across this. The US Presidential Coronation (oops, er ... Inauguration) seems to be becoming an ostentatious celebration of the elite and privileged.

Some figures that made the blood boil:

$40 million: Cost of Bush inaugural ball festivities, not counting security costs.

22 million: Number of children in regions devastated by the tsunami who could have received vaccinations and preventive health care with the amount of money spent on the inauguration.

1,160,000: Number of girls who could be sent to school for a year in Afghanistan with the amount of money lavished on the inauguration.

$17 million: Amount of money the White House is forcing the cash-strapped city of Washington, D.C., to pony up for inauguration security.

9: Percentage of D.C. residents who voted for Bush in 2004.

I find America fascinating, as a nation, as a society, as a political entity and as a people. I pepper my conversations with American pop culture references. I like milkshakes and meatloaf and cheese fries. I watch the NBA and the World Series. I read the New York Times online. More than half my Internet bookmarks are American sites. So pervasive are American cultural influences in my life, I sometimes think I understand America.

I was on a plane, enroute to LA, when the Coalition troops first invaded Iraq. In LA airport, large groups gathered in front of TV screens showing CNN's coverage. The lack of chatter in the transit lounge was surreal as people silently watched the images on the screens. I was relatively neutral then, my pacifist leanings tampered by a belief in the threat of WMDs. A number of Americans I spoke to over the next few days uniformly condemned the war. In the many months that followed, it became apparent that they had been right.

And so I watched Michael Moore and am reading Al Franken. I don't believe everything they tell me, but it has been revelatory. They have opened my eyes to the extent of spin that takes place in the media, and perhaps more shockingly, the extent of outright untruth-telling. It has taught me to read even the Singapore media with a more jaundiced eye.

Even with all the media spin, the facts were there: the cost of war, the absence of WMDs, the escalating violence. And yet, November 2nd and soon, January 20th.

I still watch American TV and movies, listen to American music, eat American food, follow American sports and read American publications. But after recent events, I must say I don't understand America after all.