A Love Like This...

You’d think loving somebody is tough. So how about being in a polygamous relationship? Think about it, how would you feel, and cope, if you were not the only person in your partner’s love life?

Meet this lady: 

 

She’s my grandmother. And that man beside her? He’s my grandfather. The thing is, she’s not his only wife. She’s his first wife through an arranged marriage. Years later, my grandfather would go on to marry 3 other wives but, 2 of them ran away with other men. Back when polygamy was legal in Singapore, the first wife had to go to court to affirm that she allows, and doesn’t mind that, her husband gets another wife. If this didn’t happen, the man would not be able to. Imagine how my grandmother must have felt, watching her own husband repeat this over and over again, and having to go to court for him.

One might argue as to why couldn’t she just disagree to it. Here’s why: this happened almost 70 years ago and nonetheless, in Singapore. Back then, women were oppressed – they had no say. Especially in an Asian household, the wife had to dutifully listen to not only her husband but also, her in-laws. She had no authority until she was the dowager herself.

To understand the dynamics of polygamy, imagine this:

This is exactly how it happened for my grandma. Her responsibility in the household was the greatest; and her in-laws dealt with her the strictest. Meanwhile, my grandpa did nothing to help and instead, pampered his other wives.

Grandma's posse -  biological & step-daughters, and daughter in-laws

Yet throughout it all, the love my grandmother had for her husband, and her children, stood resolute. Despite her in-laws constantly berating her for not giving birth to a boy, her love did not waver. When she adopted 2 boys, she looked after them as if they were her own children. Their own parents didn’t think twice about them but not my grandma. She loved my uncles as if they were her own flesh and blood. When my grandpa chose to live with his second wife instead of her, she persevered, and never once did her love for him falter.  When she had to look after my grandpa’s other children with his second wife, and then when they turned against her under their own mother’s instructions, she still continued loving them. 

It's the clan, minus a few...

Even now, after one of her daughters succumbed to cancer, and her husband about to, she continues to love. In fact, her love has intensified. Despite everything, my grandma’s love did not waver once. She did not question, she did not doubt. All she did was to faithfully continue loving without asking for anything in return. She loves all of us, regardless whether we are smart or mentally unsound, regardless of our background and regardless of what we do. I know for sure that no matter what happens, my grandma will continue to love those she holds dear.

 So, how often do you see a love like this; so unwavering, so steadfast? To give your all and not once expect or ask for anything in return, to selflessly love no matter what. An unconditional love like this is something so precious. If I were in my grandma’s shoes, I would have given up on love long ago.

My grandmother inspires me to want to be a better person, to love and to give without hesitation and pause. All I ask, is that she’s still around to see me get married. I just want to see her smiling face on my wedding day.

  I really do.

RESPECT.

Oh, how I love this song.

STEREOTYPES. AND BULLSHIT.

This has been getting more and more on my nerves since I’ve arrived in Brisbane. Firstly, I’ll first admit I do enjoy the occasional racist joke and even partake in some racist jokes sometimes but, there is a fine line and YOU DO NOT WANT TO CROSS THAT LINE. What does that line border on? Joking around and being completely insistent on a stereotype.

Let me illustrate by this:

It is completely fine to have those jokes (especially those online nowadays) that go shows somebody doing something and the caption states – LEVEL: ASIAN. I’m completely fine with that. In fact, I laugh along to it as well. But to completely cloud your mind and insist on a stereotypical view of an Asian is a bloody turn-off. For example, we do NOT all speak CHING CHANG CHONG. In fact, CHING CHANG CHONG DOESN’T EVEN MAKE SENSE IN ANY DAMN ASIAN LANGUAGE.

Why am I talking about this now? Well, I thought I could tolerate all these questions from people since I arrived here but no, I’ve reached my limit already. Today, for the 145810475145^th time (I know I’m exaggerating, so sue me), someone asked me about the weather in China and whether I understood English. It’s fine if you enquire about my understanding of the English language but it is NOT FINE to assume I’m from China, just because I’m Asian. Really, I don’t look at people in Australia and ask: ARE YOU FROM THE US? No, I just don’t lump all of you white people (a little racist but still) into the great big place called the United States of America. Likewise, you should not just assume I’m from China because I look Chinese. I mean, for goodness sake, we Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc all look alike anyway! So please, do not lump all of us together. We are all completely different. Like you guys, we have different customs and language and slang and so on.

Also, English is the first language in Singapore. I understand that most people do not know this so I forgive all of you. But when I speak in English, do not just blurt out: WOW, you speak really good English for a Singaporean. You can comment on how good my English is, but do not associate it with my country. I understand "you speak good English" but I just don't get why people must automatically add "for a Singaporean" at the end. And when I say that English is our first language, really, it's not a big deal. Don't give me the jaw drop wide eyed look. Seriously.

Another thing is guys, I’m from Singapore. Singapore is a small island country at the South-Eastern peninsula of Asia. WE DO NOT BELONG TO CHINA. WE ARE NOWHERE NEAR CHINA SO PLEASE, STOP ASKING US THAT. Singapore enjoys good tourism, trade and military relations with Australia so there is NO EXCUSE to mistake us for some part of CHINA. Really, this is one of the points that irks me the most. You can ask me: Where is Singapore? But do not ask me: Are you guys part of China? In fact, here's a map for you:

As you can see, Singapore is far from China

 Next, being Asian doesn’t automatically make me SMART. I don’t get straight As, I do fail subjects. Don’t give me that shock face when I say that or tell me: BUT YOU’RE ASIAN. People, I will bitch slap you. I don’t look at you guys and say: WOW YOU GUYS ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT SCHOOL based on the stereotype that Australians are lazy right? So yes, you would not like someone to say that about you so please do not say that about me/ other Asians.

Yes, I am doing a Bachelor of Arts. No, I’m not doing Business or Sciences or Economics or Medicine. JUST BECAUSE I’M ASIAN DOES NOT MEAN THAT I HAVE TO PURSUE A DEGREE IN THOSE AREAS. I’ve had more people come up to me and immediately say: “Hey, are you in Business?” as compared to the people asking me: “What are you studying in uni?” So yes, please do not give me a shocked face when I say I’m doing Arts. I find that really insulting.

Yes I’m Chinese but no, I’m a Singaporean. They are not the same thing. My race is Chinese, my nationality of Singaporean. Just because I’m Chinese doesn’t mean I’m from China. Also, just because I’m Chinese (or even Asian for that matter), I do not eat dogs and cats. In fact, we don’t even eat those in Singapore. I don’t mind (sometimes) if you ask me: Do you guys eat dogs and cats in Singapore? But I definitely mind if you immediately go: EEW, YOU GUYS EAT DOGS AND CATS. Also, I do acknowledge that we Asians do eat some pretty weird food (like pigs intestine or fish eyes). However, this does not give you guys are free pass to comment and constantly go EEEW this is gross that is gross all the damn time. We do not make you eat those stuff, in fact we do not even eat it over here. So please, you can say it once, but don’t keep repeating it over and over again like a broken record. It is not only insulting but also, annoying.

Also, Asians have a thing called Filial Piety. No, it doesn’t mean we are goody two-shoes. It means we respect our parents. We are very family oriented. When we say something, or when we do things in respect to our parents’ wishes, and even if that goes against what you wish to do (for example, we might decline to stay out late everyday partying), that still does not give you the right to keep on dissing us, and our parents, and our customs. I’ve heard people go: “Oh you guys and your Asian parents, forever so strict. That’s so dumb, they’re so dumb. Why can’t they let you go out and party? That’s just stupid.” Yes, I’ve actually heard people say that to me before and I’ll tell you, it took me a lot of willpower not to slap that bastard (for lack of a better word) in his face. You might not understand it, so try to understand it. Do not immediately just shoot your mouth off. Because then, you’ll just look like one big fat idiot.

People have to understand that they are not the center of the universe. The world does not revolve around them. Their race is not superior to other race. Just because their race might sometimes be slightly more affluent than others does not mean they can constantly rag on others. For goodness sake, this is the 21^st Century already, can’t people just be more open-minded these days? There are tons of people moving across borders to live, work, study etc. Being narrow-minded and closed to the difference between people is just dumb. Always attempt to understand others and where they’re coming from, what values and virtues guide their life. You might not agree with it but at least, respect it. The day that people humble themselves and attempt to further understand others, it will be wonderful. As Bono said:

“To be one, to be united is a great thing. But to respect the right to be different is maybe even greater.”

That’s really all I’m asking for; just a little more respect. It will definitely make the world a better place. And to conclude, I'll end with a quote.

“I'm not concerned with your liking or disliking me... All I ask is that you respect me as a human being.”

~ Jackie Robinson 

LECTURE 7 REVIEW: PUBLIC MEDIA

Last week we talked about Commercial Media. For this week, we covered Public Media.

So, what is Public Media?

Public Media is a media whose mission is to serve or engage a public. It is publicly-funded and taxpayer supported. It may be for profit, as long as its ultimate purpose is to serve the public, not turn a profit. This definition is from with the WGBH Educational Foundation Conference.

Unlike Commercial Media whose aim is just for money, the role of Public Media is to serve the public. It should not be concerned about profits but instead, bringing across programs that serve public interests (i.e. what the public wants and needs). In a democratic society, the Public Media’s role is to be in support of public and democratic processes.

“Public Media should have PUBLIC VALUE.”

According to BBC, public value is:

• Embedding a ‘public service ethos’
• Value for licence fee money
• ‘Weighing public value against market impact’
• public consultation

The Broadcasting Research Unit in 1985 defined public service broadcasting as involving:

1. geographical university
2. university of appeal
3. special provision for minorities
4. special relationship to the sense of national identity and community
5. being distanced from all vested interests
6. university of payment
7. competition in good programming rather than competition for numbers
8. liberate rather than restrict.

Basically what it means is that programmes should be available to everybody, they should cater to all kinds of tastes and interests. Disadvantaged minorities should not be ignored as well. In particular, the government should not get involved in public service broadcasting. The users should directly fund the broadcasts instead.

There are 4 basic functions of Public Media:

• nation building
• national heritage
• national identity, and
• national conversations

This being said, there can be a commercial dimension of Public Media as well. For example, BBC has BBC Worldwide, ABC has the ABC Centre in bookstores and ABC Comercial.

Another key mechanism of Public Media is NEWS. The news “style” of Public Media is serious and has a ‘broadsheet’ style. Importance of news precedes interest. News delivered are considered, not quick and unchecked. YET, it can be side to be ‘boring’ and elitist. News covered is of limited interest to the public and sometimes poorly presented. It can also be out of touch (especially with what the public wants and its interests).

Yet, Robert Richter stepped forward with words of wisdom; he says that Public Media is important because it is the last bastion of long-form investigative journalism:

“… is a special vehicle for voices to be heard… [for] visions and viewpoints… ignored by commercial media.”

Essentially, Public Media does what Commercial Media ignores because its goal is not for profits.

The communications style of Public Media is:

• ‘The Press’ – basically the news
• entertainment – programmes that provide entertainment like drama series etc
• utility – weather reports etc
• social – cooking shows etc
• propaganda – some programmes, although not publicly expressed, tend to be bias and promote certain ideologies and viewpoints

What challenges does Public Media face nowadays?

Firstly, though Commercial Media and Public media are different, they both need AUDIENCE. To get audience, Public Media needs to:

• Produce quality
• Make themselves relevant
• Engage with the democratic process
• Inform the public
• Be independent

Also, they need to ensure that the content presented are essentially neutral. Opinion plays a huge part. For example, ABC journalists are always briefed to avoid bias. Personal opinion is basically “taboo”. Lastly, there is the issue of funding. What is Public Media to do to get money? If they get funding, will their views be influenced? Also, will there be a shift to privatization? Public Media has to answer all these questions.

To go back to being independent, the differing ground rules of Commercial and Public Media is the independence. Public Media should not be ‘owned’ by the government. Instead, it should be held in ‘common’ by the people. There is a tension between being a watchdog of the government, whilst receiving funds from it. It’s like “biting the hand that feeds you”. The perceived lack of political independence means more control and targeted funding. Yet, there is a relationship between the federal government and public broadcaters. The government can exercise indirect control in 2 ways – legislations and funding. Do keep in mind though, that there will always be the allegations of bias and agenda.

As what Jeremy Paxman says:

‘I’m always asking myself, “why is this lying bastard lying to me?”.’

The future of Public Media lies in “Public Media 2.0” (sound familiar?). To quote, “… places engaged publics at its core… educating, informing, and mobilizing its users… an essential feature of truly democratic public life… media both for and by the public.”

Public should be engaged more – that’s taking a step forward for Public Media.

To conclude, I will draw on the differences between Commercial and Public Media. In a nutshell, Commercial Media is profit driven while Public Media is there is serve the public. Commercial Media is concerned with money as opposed to the public while Public Media should be concerned with the public rather than the money.

The next quote pretty much summarises everything.

“The difference between commercial broadcasting and public broadcasting is the difference between consumers and citizens.”

~Nigel Milan

And that’s all folks, for both Commercial Media and Public Media.

Cheers

LECTURE 6 REVIEW: COMMERCIAL MEDIA

Commercial Media is essentially all about MONEY - CASH. DOUGH. THE BIG BUCKS. FINANCE. MOOLA. WEALTH etc. And you can see where I'm going with this.

If it wasn't because media outlets need the money and wanted to make money, commercial media would not be as affluent as it is today. Commercial Media is a PROFIT-DRIVEN media production, as I mentioned earlier. It is NOT government funded and business success is crucial to its survival or failure. Basically, Commercial Media gets its business through "generating audience". How does this work? This is because audience is needed to generate profit through advertisements.

Advertisers pay for advertisements and for Commercial Media outlets to get that profit from advertisers, they have to ensure that they have an audience. After all, which advertiser would want to pay for advertisements on media channels that have very little audience. Thus, Commercial Media relies heavily on audiences.

The BIG ISSUE with Commercial Media is:

"Can Commercial Media deliver on BOTH commercial and social functions?"

Essentially, is it possible for Commercial Media to deliver a social (public trust) function apart from dealing with the profits alone? The Hutchins Commission came up with the social responsibility of the media in a democracy. Based on those responsibilities, is the media able to deliver on a social function if it is so preoccupied with profits all the time? One might argue that we could keep it under control via formal state requirements, legal prescriptions and state oversight. But when the state get involved, no matter what people say, will there be government influence over the materials published and broadcasted? Thus, on top of being manipulated by commercial gains, media might also be used to the government's advantage. In this case, will the people be getting a fair oversight of events and news? Will the public trust in media outlets be shaken?

As what C. P. Scott, the editior/owner of The Guardian says:

"The first duty [of the media] is to shin the temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred."

If we look at Commercial Media nowadays, what are we getting, really? Essentially, what we can understand is that the stress is really on profit over quality. The desire to please and generate audience overpowers the desire to present the truth to people. Sensational news over serious news; tabloids are all there is. Commercial Media start to omit the things that are important, serious and dull and instead go for news that are more likely to catch people's attention. There is also the "dumbing down" of news.

"Commercial = corrupt; lack of quality; profit over-rides social responsibility."

- John McManus

This quote summaries this issue pretty well.

Despite this, Commercial Media is facing some pretty tough challenges nowadays, especially with the rise of the Internet. As people start to do advertisement online through the web nowadays, the advertising revenue for media starts to slide. For example, less people are using broadcast media for advertising nowadays. This loss of revenue leads to loss of investments and thus, less money for quality productions. What do people do about that? They start to buy other content (loss of originality) and start having repeats of old sitcoms and an influx of reality tv (which, let's face it people, is pretty much nothing but crap). And the thing is, although this is happening (i.e. in my opinion, shows are getting worse, especially reality programs), people still watch those shows, and that is just, bad.

So how should Commercial Media handle this problem? Here's one way. They should start by having QUALITY CONTENT. By having more and more good quality stuff, people might actually start to pay and enjoy those programs. I mean, even if you can sensationalise news, people are only going to bother about it and after a while, it just dies down. But, if you have a constant flow of good, quality content, people will actually actively source you out and patronise that particular media medium, be it a TV channel or magazine.

And with that, your audience number will increase again and viola! People might actually start paying to have advertisements in your media once more. But that might probably set off a chain reaction and the whole cycle will repeat itself again... So yeah, media outlets should just keep in mind that quality over profit is the way to go (which, is actually easier said than done). But hey, I've got faith. Sorta...

Yet, that's just my opinion. What's yours?

BUFFER

I know I said I would be updating this blog regularly but yeah, other stuff kinda took priority. Crappy excuse, I know.

With regards to my earlier language initiative, nobody seemed to be getting it so I'm sad to say, I canned it. What could possibly be so important to take priority in my life over blogging? Well, I had my POLS1301 and 1201 essays due the weeks before the holidays, and those were massive. I mean, they were probably peanuts or something to others but well, I haven't been back to school for almost 1.5 years and I have never done any essay based coursework in my life so yeah, they were kinda tough for me! (excuses, excuses. I've a whole book of them.)

So anyway, the Easter weekend was kind of dead for me? Most of the people I live with or my friends headed back home for the holidays so the place has been kinda quiet. I decided to go to the city but wow, shops don't open on public holidays over here, do they? It was a minor shock for me, because in Singapore, we take advantage of public holidays and open all our shops, and sometimes we even have extended shopping hours. So, seeing the whole city like a ghost town was a whole new thing for me. *cue nervous laughter*

Finally caught a movie for the first time since I've arrived here over the weekends. Watched Mirror Mirror over at South Bank. The movie was alright, I guess? Not really like the typical fairytale. Just couldn't decide whether it was supposed to be fantasy/comedy/romance or what, felt mixed altogether. But it was still good, in my opinion. (:

Actually, this post serves as sort of a buffer post for me before I do the review on the Commercial Media lecture. Felt weird just launching into that post out of nowhere so I decided to add a random post before starting on it.

One more thing, I've finally gotten my smiley piercing after wanting it for 3 whole years. Woke up that day and decided: HMM, I SHALL GET IT PIERCED TODAY. Felt really awesome after doing it, then guilt started to eat away at me for not telling my parents beforehand because I just know they are gonna explode if they find out. So yeah, not telling them AT ALL for the time being.

And yes, I guess I should stop here and get started on the lecture review because this is getting to be a really mindless post.

Cheers.

*insert track here*

LECTURE 5 REVIEW: STORYTELLING THROUGH SOUND

Originally, I attempted doing a  sound recording for this review but well, it failed. ): So yes, I’m back here doing a text post instead.

This lecture was basically a podcast of two interviews of two different radio presenters. The first one started by talking about the difference between radio and TV. He basically summed it up and said that radio is much more intimate medium of communication than TV. It was also mentioned that while people go about their daily lives with the radio on in the background, it becomes almost like the voice is right in your head.

The evolution of radio was also touched on, with how radio has kept up with times by developing new technologies and most recently, the introduction of podcasts.

On top of that, conducting good interviews on radio was also talked about. In a way, the points touched on can not only be applied to radio interviews, but anybody who wants to do a sound post (be it podcast or blog post) can also apply these points. Firstly, content that is too long (e.g. more than 15 minutes) can get boring. Thus, it is essential to make the content interesting. How can that be done? By kicking it up and injecting humour! This is especially relevant when the people on air have been doing this for a long time and this almost become a daily mundane thing to them. To prevent the whole show from going southwards, a little humour always works. Secondly, maintaining warmth and empathy helps you to connect with the audience as well. You can do this by picturing your audience and drawing on your own life experiences.

The second part of the podcast, radio as the “theatre of the mind” came into place. When you are on air, you should try to bring the picture or scenario right into the minds of your listeners. This can be done with proper use of vocabulary and language. The interviewee also touched on empathy. This can be done vocally by changing the tone of your voice. This is because your audience will not be able to read your body language and by changing your tone, they will subconsciously pick it up.

Telling stories through sound, as there are no text or pictures, the enunciation of words is extremely important. We cannot just go about it the same way as our daily conversations. If we do that, the audience will not be able to understand us at all.

Essentially, what we want to achieve through radio or telling stories through sound is to communicate with our audience. We can do this by bringing down the barriers between our audience and us. We could ask questions to communicate (for example, Do you agree?) and hold it sort of like a conversation rather than to drone on and on.

We should not discount the human and life experiences as well. It was said that human are essentially emotional people and discussing personal experiences will help audience connect better.

Lastly, we should not be close-minded people. We must be open to different opinions. We have to keep asking questions and discovering new things, not just from our point of view but others as well. This exposure will help us see and present things in a totally different light that will not only add richness to our content, but will appeal more to our audience as well. We have to shift the thought about ME to WHAT DOES MY AUDIENCE WANT?

This being said, I am not much a fan of storytelling through sound. I enjoy listening to the radio leisurely but if it concerns anything serious (like lectures, or serious discussions or even a story/novel etc), I prefer reading text and looking at pictures. The podcast itself was great, I picked up a lot of different stuff about sound storytelling but if given the choice, I wouldn’t pick it. It might be because I’m more of a visual person rather than a auditory person but hey, that’s just my own opinion anyway.

WHAT SAY YOU?