Friday, October 8, 2010 ' 7:08 PM
In today's Straits Time newspaper, if i am not wrong , owned by the sole mainstream media company in Singapore and with, apparently many said, government affiliation, there's this "juicy" article about this 2 jc girls whose tryst in the school toilet was filmed by someone without their consent and the film proliferated till the school management got wind of it and took "disciplinary actions". And i think this "juicy" article is even "juicy" enough to be qualified to be a story published in The New Paper.
I read it closely, and i can't help but have some, if skeptical, thoughts about the article. Blame it on the General Paper that i am always doubtful whether something is true or not (more like, it somehow makes me distrustful of anything), whether the author's arguments are valid, feasible or sweeping or not, and detect the purpose and tone in the author's expressions.
Ok wait. Maybe i'd say, it has become a habit, but then i feel kinda lazy to criticise it so much, and also i don't wanna get into trouble.
In the first place, why would this article even appear in the newspaper? I just feel it's strange for it to be there. How did journalists find out about this incident when the school would most likely hide this incident away from the media since it could probably be embarrassing to the school admin, and the college's principal even decline to comment about everything except for a single "We would like to assure you that no one has been expelled from the school.", in her only email reply response to queries from the newspaper.
But wait, in the first paragraph the article states "..., leading to the duo leaving the school."
I thought they weren't expelled?
Well, during dinner time just now and for a long time already i was forced to watch that retarded no-logic 7pm taiwanese melodrama at Channel 8 (since my mum wants to watch it, and it's a torture i dare say), and i was pretty amazed that i can think of all sorts of plots or ploys about this incident. (because that show is just plain evil and disturbing; Viewer discretion needed, don't watch unless you have a punching bag or a stress relief toy beside you while watching.)
Of course this would all be daydream. I daydreamed about how the admin possibly "persuaded" the girls to leave "on their own accord" so they can't called it as harsh as being "expelled".
But of course probably the video footage of their tryst proliferated without their permission, so i guess they are being bullied in some sense and have to get out of school to avoid harm and insensitive people's finger pointing. ( though i think in this age, the "insensitive" people would include those old antiques who can't keep up with change and have their neurotransmitters blocked such that they can't accept new and revolutionary ideas. Why can't intimate activities between 2 girls be allowed? What's wrong with that? But i'll leave it to feminists to argue this for me.)
But the more important thing here is that, the article went on to talk about self-censorship and an apparently separate incident about another video that showed a person from that school tied up and had food stuffed in her face, which was posted online. D:
What exactly is the link with censorship + the tied-up girl video with this current incident here? I'd say there's none.
From the article, i believe that the footage of the 2 girls' tryst was filmed and circulated without their consent and could be a case of bullying.
And it's not like the girls purposely want to it to be circulated. The author cannot just lump these 2 separate issues together like that. And in the first place, it has nothing to do with the internet and how some youths are seen as exposing every part of themselves on the internet. Note that i use the word "some".
This is a very bad and illogical timing for the author to write about self-censorship here.
(I am very particular towards this issue of censorship, but of course it's partly since censorship is a topic for General Paper.)
And i can't help but suspect if he has any other reasons in talking about censorship here, given that recently there's this censorship review committee being formed to review current censorship policies in Singapore which i read about in this Straits Times a few weeks ago.
If my memory didn't fail me, i think that review committee didn't seem to get anything worthwhile changed or improved, except for the screening of R21 movies brought away and prevented from screening in neighbourhood cinema complexes.
I LOL-ed hard when i heard about that. What's the point? Come on how big is Singapore? If anyone is serious ( and stupid and lame enough to actually go watch these shows), he can just take the bus or train and would take less than 30 to 45 minutes to be able to watch it.
If my memory didn't fail me again, i also read something about how the some members of the review committee/commentator/other people suggested that what works effectively now is that we should just be responsible by ourselves with self-censorship.
And now this article here says (or quotes someone saying that) there is no self-censorship especially in youths these days.
(Now this is a sweeping statement fyi.)
I am not accusing anyone of anything, but i wanna point out what exactly is the message that the newspaper wants to tell? What is its purpose in doing so?
I hope it is not to subtly "hoodwink" people who didn't bother to think objectively when reading the newspaper to accept harsher censorship measures from the government.
And lol serious issues aside, the journalist interviewed a student who knew of this incident, and he said, "What i saw disgusted me," and also said he could not bring himself to continue watching the rest of the clip.
This is kinda... funny. It's either he's trying to act as if he's damn pure and free from corruption like a saint, to salvage the school's image or his own image i am not sure and he's told to say that to the journalist, or the author simply made it up in attempt to cater to the conservativeness and close-mindedness of the society. It could be the former.
Still, he could be gay. Oh well.
Anyway i hope i won't be derided or be subjected to personal attacks by "intellectuals" or be accused of being radical or even corrupting the "precious" "social fabric of morals in society" and have this blog taken down just like the how the 1 of the 2 girls' facebook profile was deleted and her Formspring site being taken down (which from the passive tone of the article in describing it, i am guessing now whether they are being forced to do so, which i have no way to find out. But then again, they would have to do so if this is a case of cyber-bullying so that they will not be bullied further, and also so that they won't be bugged by nosy people or journalists.)
Sleep with the trauma that kept you sleepless
