|
|
|
November 22, 2005
Make Your Own Kind of Music
You've got to make your own kind of music I was very surprised recently to find myself slandered online. The writer didn't even have his or her facts correct. The cause of the slander was an online article about myself, which the slanderer has referring to. I requested the removal of the article but I was politely rejected, and told I was a public figure and so had to respect the wishes of people who wished to read and write about me (the article itself was not offensive). I was reminded of this sorry incident recently when I stopped by Xiaxue's blog and read an entry entitled "hahahaha" (give or take a 'ha') about something very similar. She pointed out that no matter what she wrote, no matter how innocuous, or sensible, or how well-meaning, there were people who had made up their minds to dislike her and criticise her. She shared some examples, in her own inimitable wit. I hadn't read her blog in a while but it was a reminder of why she's so popular: she has an excellent ability to express what a lot of people would like to say but can't, and she expresses it in a lingo that is accessible to many people. I think she's got a very significant point about not letting what other people decide are right and wrong for us dissuade us from making our own choices in life- especially the opinions of faceless strangers who don't have all the facts. In a related story, I learnt that an op-ed in the Straits Times contrasted my feat with Annabel Chong's. She became famous in 1995 for having sex with 251 men in 10 hours in 1995, then a new world record (since broken). A documentary was later made about her. She became an international superstar, and every Singaporean knew who she was. To the consternation of many, she had attended the top schools in Singapore and was very much part of our academic and intellectual elite, but chose to make herself famous in what many considered a morally reprehensible way. The coulmnist wrote, "You have to admit, for example, in a tiny country eternally obsessed with punching above its weight, Annabel put Singapore on the world map in a big way. Just like scaling Mount Everest or swimming across the English Channel, having sex with 251 was a daredevil act that required physical endurance and mental courage in equal measures." Predictably, this generated furious responses to the forum page of the Straits Times:
Or: "We can have the same daring spirit climbing Mount Everest, swimming across the English Channel, flying to Phuket to help disaster victims, but not by performing an undesirable sexual act. One letter published did support the columnist's view; the entire article and the letters in response are linked below- click 'more' to read them. From my point of view, it seems to me that the entire difference between what David or myself did, and what Annabel did, is entirely down to the moral dimension. I don't think we can dispute that what she did indeed require tremendous courage, endurance and mental stamina. Perhaps one difference might be that she didn't really need to train for it, but I wouldn't know. Maybe she did need to train and build up stamina over time. I'm not too concerned about it- to me, it's a feat. I think what people are concerned about, basically, we can celebrate climbing, or swimming; but can we celebrate sex? As I've said in my speeches and elsewhere, my own view about sex is one of responsibility. It's an act which you have to understand the consequences of. It's potentially life-changing. You could get pregnant; you could get AIDS. But in and of itself, I don't see anything shameful or morally reprehensible about sex, or having frank and open discussions about it. I think it's important for a modern, liberal society to be able to openly discuss these issues and not confine them to private. Ignorance is what leads us into danger; education is liberation. Only be knowing and understanding can we make informed choices, especially about about the risks we are willing to take. As for Annabel, I think what she did was significant in its own way. Whether she intended to or not, she forced the public's attention toward issues which are important. For example, the question of female sexuality, or sexual liberation. Also, it is later revealed that the organisers lied when they told her that all the men had been screened for diseases (she did it without protection), thus raising important questions about the dangers of promiscuity and the possibility of disease. Equally, as the columnist mentioned, she set an example for bravery and courage. The fact is, probably more Singaporeans, and definitely more people worldwide, know who she is than who David or I are. And if just a few of them stop to think about the consequences of her actions, and about the issues surrounding what she did, then it's possible that some lives may be changed. I wouldn't do what she did; and I don't agree that what she did was the best way to go about focusing attention on sexual liberation and other issues. But the fact is, I don't think anyone has the right to judge her on whether she is right or wrong. As I've said before, I believe that, as long as you don't harm anyone else, you can go ahead and do whatever you want. I also believe there is no absolute right and wrong in life, only choices. Annabel made her choice. She decided who she wanted to become. She had the courage to go for it. And I will never, ever condemn someone for that. Scan of the original column (part 1) Scan of the original column (part 2) Letters to the Forum page (part 1) Letters to the Forum page (part 2) Posted by pj at 10:52 PM
|
|
|
| o |
I'm not sure if you are aware of the fact that Annabel was mass raped when she was younger.
I doubt what she did (esp without protection) is an expression of liberty.It sounds more like self harming--maybe she was trying to find a way to release the pain and anger that has been with her for a long time.I wouldn't say she hasn't harmed anyone--she certainly had,to those who truly love her and care for her.
I didn't mean to condemn her.Like you said,no one has the right to judge her on whether she is right or wrong.
Well...Let's just hope that it has made her a happier person.
Hey, I heard about the thing with the article: don't let the buggers get you down I say. None of those who care about you- i.e. the important people in your life- would think that kind of thing.
I was interested in the reason the website gave for not taking the article down though. It seemed to me to raise two questions: first at what point does a public figure become a public figure? If you run for public office, that is one thing, but this was in essence a private endeavour. Yes, you sought to raise money for charity and therefore wanted people to know about it, and yes you became a focus for national pride but throughout it I would argue that you remained a private individual. ç How would you define a "public figure" and do you see yourself as one?
Second, what are the boundaries in relation to public figures. Even starting from the premise that you did become a public figure, does that give others the right to insult you in a personal and direct manner. To take an example, Tony Blair is a public figure who chose to be a public figure: I think that it is entirely legitimate for me to inquire into all aspects of his public life and his exercise of the powers and privileges of the offices he has held. But is it legitimate to delve into his family life? In the same way, an actor accepts that his work is public property: but does that mean that we have the right to learn about their private lives? I think that most people accept that there are lines that divide the public and the private: but where exactly are these lines to be placed?
Also, from what I gather, what was said about you was not just opinion but was demonstrably untrue: surely therefore the site had to take it down?
Anyway, don't take what was said too literally. As I said, it is the opinion of those who know and care for you which matters, and we all know that it was BS.
Steph spoke on November 26, 2005 01:36 AMI just found your blog. Keep up the good work. Would you care to comment on the plight of Ngyun Tuong Van? I am absolutely outraged that Singapore would be known forever as the country that executed a man for 14 ounces of heroin. 14 ounces is a ridiculously minute amount compared to a human life. Justifiably executing drug trafficers is one thing. But 14 ounces of heroin is the size of a man's finger. What about the thousands and thousands of tons of drugs that are traded internationally at any given moment? How such a young country turned so barbaric so quickly is anyone's guess. Imagine if the US instituted such a policy in its drug war - how many promising (for all intents and purposes) 25 year old lives would be snuffed out over one moment of indiscretion and poor judgment? And think about how many great self-medicating authors, poets and composers would be executed? My heart goes out to this young man and his family. I cannot imagine the horror and anguish of his thoughts and the despairing helplessness of his loved ones who must sit aside and watch their child be hanged in a foreign country over 14 ounces - that's not even a pound! - of dope.
Singaporean Observer spoke on December 1, 2005 03:46 PMI just wanted to comment on Singaporean Observer's post: 14 ounces is enough for 26,000 doses of the drug. Make out what you will of this piece of info.
JJ spoke on December 18, 2005 03:53 PM