Ian On The Red Dot

Gollum.

Singapore Idol is about what?

Singing abilities. Check.
Dancing abilities. Check.
Stage Presence. Check.
Performing abilities. Check.

Nothing to do with race. Nor gender.

And maybe nothing to do with any other physical attributes?

So, here is what we do. We use the same avatar for every single contestant.

I mean, think about it, we do have the technology right? Look at the CGI for Avatar. Look at the CGI for Gollum.

Let’s hook up the top 24 contestants. Their singing will be what comes out of the avatar’s mouth. The actions of the avatar their actions. The facial expressions their facial expressions. The avatar’s gait their gait.

Then let it be a contest judged purely by merit of singing, dancing and performing abilities. After all, all the contestants will look the same. But who cares right? It is really about singing, dancing, and performing abilities. The physical context means nothing, only the abilities.

Something seems wrong with this picture?

I wonder what?

Because he got the most votes.

Duh.

But why did he get the most votes?

Was he really a better singer?

Was he really a better performer?

Possibly.

But I think the real reason why Sylvia Ratonel lost was because like Sylvester and Jonathan who lost to Taufik and Hady Mirza respectively, she was not a significantly better performer than Sezairi Sezali.

So here’s the deal. If somehow you end up in the final two, and one of the finalists is a cool Malay dude, and you’re not the cool Malay dude, then you jolly well be a way better singer and performer, otherwise you don’t stand a chance. For the last 3 seasons of Singapore Idol, it always seemed like either finalists had an equal chance to be the Idol based on singing and performing abilities. And that’s why for the last 3 seasons, the Malay dude always won.

Why?

I have a few theories.

Reason 1 – Gender.

You got a good looking male singer. You got a good looking female singer.

Female singer appeals to girls who want to grow up to be like her and guys who want to bang her.
Male singer appeals to guys who want to grow up to be just like him and girls who want to have his babies.

Girls who want to have potential male idol babies > (any other group of supporters)

Girls who want to have his babies is the only group that will vote with any significance. Somehow women tend to get more invested in their male idols and actually spend money supporting them. Guys, well, we just jack off.

Reason 2 – Race & the Mendaki effect.

Now, because race plays a part in the voting patterns doesn’t mean Singapore is a racist country. In fact, it is because most Singaporeans aren’t racist that the Malay dudes keep winning.

I suspect that if only 1 of the finalists is a Malay, then he or she automatically gets almost all the support of the Malay followers of Singapore Idol.

Look at Mendaki, Sinda and CDAC. Our government organizes help along ethnicity lines. They actively encourage it. Adding to this environment, the Malays think of themselves as the minority, thus they tend to support each other more.

Don’t believe? Guys who have done National Service can be testament to how the minority races organize themselves.

So, when the Malay community sees a young Malay lad, they start thinking,

“We got to support our bro.”
“We got to support this boy, almost like our son.”
“We got to support this boy, he is one of us.”

Because Malays see themselves as the minority race in Singapore, the effect of this “let’s help one of our own reach his dreams” effect is stronger than in the Chinese community under normal conditions.

So what happens is that as the non-Malay finalist, you really only can fight for the non-Malay votes. For this discussion, let’s focus on the Singaporean Chinese – the majority. Since both finalists won’t have much to differentiate themselves, then the Chinese votes get split down the middle.

One assumption is that regardless of race, a supporter will vote the same number of times. In other words, a Malay fan will vote the same number of times as a Chinese fan. It would be interesting to see if race and socioeconomic backgrounds have any impact on frequency of voting.

So, since the Chinese votes get split, and the Mendaki effect is in play, it is almost inevitable that the cool Malay dude will always win if he is the only cool Malay dude in the final.

So, how can Singapore have a non-Malay Singapore Idol? This isn’t a matter of prejudice in the sense of not wanting a Malay to win just because he or she is a Malay. There are more practical concerns. The last two Idols have barely made a splash internationally and it seems that despite Hady’s Asian Idol win, it is still arguable if he has achieved any significant impact regionally. It would not be too presumptuous to assume that the marketing potential of another Malay Singapore Idol who appeals to similar demographics will also luck out. In terms of finding a local talent that we can export, it might help if the Singapore Idol is not another cool Malay dude.

So how can the next Singapore Idol not be a cool Malay dude?

I have some suggestions.

1. Market a strong Christian singer. The Christians are another voting bloc that is just as strong as the one created by the Mendaki effect.

2. Test the SINDA effect.

3. Paradoxically, make the next Singapore Idol season to be a battle between two cool Malay dudes. Place heavy emphasis on the rivarly in marketing the season. Split the traditional voting bloc for the cool Malay dude. Ensure that there is signifcant animosity between the two camps such that if one of them is voted out of the final two, the supporters will not shift support to the remaining cool Malay dude in the final. Weaken the traditional support base of the cool Malay dude by having two cool Malay dudes. Don’t try to have the first female idol by pushing for more female talent to be in the finals. Underplay the first female idol card. Have less females so the votes don’t get split.

A probable undesirable effect of overt marketing of Singapore Idol as the battle between two Malay dudes will be the galvanization of the racist elements in society. A play on the perception and fears that Singapore Idol is really Malay Idol could be effective in ensuring that Singapore Idol will not have another cool Malay dude as the winner.

At the end though, having all the 3 Singapore Idols being Malay is a good sign. If Singaporeans are voting based on racial lines, then at least it shows that the Malay community has the economic power to carry their guys forward, so we know they aren’t being left behind. If Singaporeans aren’t voting along racial lines, and voting for talent, then the Singapore government’s efforts to promote racial tolerance and harmony is working.

Frankly, I rather things be left the way it is – no strategy to force a non-Malay Singapore Idol. When the day comes that we actually have a non-Malay Singapore Idol, one who actually overcomes the voting patterns by sheer force of talent, we would have someone who is so awesomely talented that keeping him or her in Singapore would be impossible.

Note:

After the performances ended, I got ready to leave my gf’s place for home. She asked why I wasn’t staying for the results. It was because I knew who the winner will be. That cool Malay dude.

The Malays really do have a stronger sense of community, at least based on my experiences growing up living in a HDB flat. When I was younger, my Malay neighbor would cook satay along the corridor and shared the food freely. When I moved to my new flat in Sengkang, my neighbor prepared a rather hearty meal to welcome my family.

Further thoughts:
I wonder what the voting percentages were like. Did Sezairi keep scrapping through and avoided enough elimination rounds until all the other Malay contestants lost and then built up significant voting power when their supporters shifted to him.

To be fair, though it may seem boring that we have another Malay Singaporean Idol, he did hold his own against Sylvia, in fact besting her for at least 1 set.

A couple of minutes ago, Christmas ended. It felt like a non-event.

Slightly more than 24 hours earlier, the Christmas celebrations started with a dinner with the girlfriend’s friends. Is it a problem that after all these years, it is still my friends and her friends instead of our friends? It is almost like we are preparing for a separation.

That’s your book. Ok, this is my CD. Yup, you can keep the dog. Ok, these are my friends. You can keep Jane. I’m glad to be rid of her.

Christmas eve dinner with friends followed by watching 2012.

When did that happen?

What happened to the drunken night of debauchery with nubile virgins stuck in a manger?

When did I give up excess for a night of nothing?

Christmas morning started lazy and painless enough. No throbbing headaches. No pressure to rush off to church to thank God for sending his beloved son to die for us so that our sins might be forgiven only if we accept his generous mercy, repent, and accept him as the awesome creator of this fine world we live in. Talk about no conditions.

Then I got a call from my Project Manager, “we have a severity one issue with the production system.”

Immediately my heart goes out to my wallet, sorry for the bonus it will never get to see. I had to rush down to the office to get something fixed. There goes my Christmas, totally lost to work.

And I was happy.

I was happy because now the day had purpose. I was going to be fixing something rather than spending time with the girlfriend at home doing nothing.

I was happy because now the day had purpose. Instead of praising an absentee God for a son whose work I never got to see nor will ever see, I was actually spending the day doing something which would produce a tangible effect.

Then what’s wrong?

Why am I feeling something is missing?

And why am I remembering what happened 10 years ago – the staying over at a friend’s place (vaguely remembering this was after watching ‘American Pie’) followed by the rushing to church to perform in a play for the morning’s service.

Something is missing and I think I’ve to go find it.

If the people’s trust is valuable to our leaders, then it seems to me that they would be wary not only of actual corruption but the perception of corruption.

One of the reasons why Minister Mentor took some of his adversaries to court was because he felt they had defamed him. It would seem, at least to Minister Mentor, that perception matters and there is a real cost if perception does not sync with reality.

Example:
Minister Mentor is not corrupt.
Someone without any factual basis alleges wrongly that Minister Mentor is corrupt.
Minister Mentor has been defamed.
Minister Mentor took the opposition to court wanting compensation for the damaging perception that might have been accepted by the public.

Why?

Because perception matters.
And because the trust between the leaders and those they claim to serve and lead is important and fragile.

The recent coverage of grassroots leader Sear Hock Rongs by Temasek Review is interesting not so much because there is actual corruption but because people perceive that there might be shenanigans going on.

Let’s get this out of the way first. It does look like there are some conflicts of interest but conflicts of interest can be mitigated and dealt with by the correct processes. Arguably such processes have their limitations but these limitations are not evidence of corruption.

The truth is this. If you want to serve the community, then sometimes, though it may seem unfair, effective compartmentalization is needed.

Let’s say you have a company. A great company. You provide awesome services and products. So awesome in fact that you have a lot of clients. Yet your company is still a young company, and you are more than happy to get as many projects as you can. Your company is after all still growing.

Say you also volunteer in an organization and by the grace of God, the organization needs the products and services your company can provide. This is a win-win situation. You can give the organization a great deal, get some business and make some money.

You need to compartmentalize. You need to make it only a win situation for your organization.

How?

Using your expertise running a company that provides such goods and services, you get quotes from other companies, and ensure that these companies provide similar if not better products and services at the same prices you could have offered. After all, you run a similar company. You know when they are bullshitting you on the quotes.

Now, it may be painful to lose a business that really could have been yours. After all, you aren’t overcharging. Nor are you providing a shoddy product or service. For all intents and purposes, you will probably be as good as the company that eventually wins the contract to deliver the product or service.

But that’s why being a grassroots leader isn’t the same as joining the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. It isn’t about being close to potential business. It isn’t about getting contacts to improve your network.

It is about service.

And service comes with sacrifice. Sacrifice of time. Sacrifice of more money.

Sure, you aren’t corrupt. The organization you serve isn’t corrupt. The committee you are part of has processes to ensure, if awarded the contract, your company is deserving.

But life isn’t fair.

And the trust between you and those you claim to serve is so valuable that you are willing to lose that extra dollar to prevent even a false hint of impropriety.

Trust. It is so fragile, a false whisper can destroy it.

The old guard earned it. Don’t squander it for that extra buck.

Learned of this 3in1kopitiam forum today.

Truly a revelation. Go and read the posts there.

The government is slowing trying to move the chess pieces to ensure a flawless checkmate once we move into the next elections proper.

So, what are we the citizens who are concerned about the next elections and a fair playing field doing about it?

More specifically, what are we doing about it online?

We have SingaporeDaily.net that aggregates posts from blogs. We have blogs offering an alternative voice.

It doesn’t seem enough. It doesn’t seem like we are preparing enough.

What sort of preparations might be needed?

Sidetrack.

It seems to me that the pro-PAP/pro-government people who try to do things online are clueless at best and indifferent at worse. It is like they feel they have nothing to worry about the online space. Could it be that they think that they have the mainstream media all sewn up?

On the flip-side, the general Singaporean online is too lenient towards the alternative voices on the web. Being an alternative voice to the mainstream media does not mean being a constant dissenting voice against the government.

I feel that the online space, with regards to political matters, is moving towards the direction of just being solely dissenting.

Where are the non-partisans online?
Back to the question. What sort of preparations might be needed?

Above question isn’t rhetorical. Do any of you have any ideas what preparations might be needed? Preparations done in a non-partisan way.

How is that possible you ask?

One of my favorite television shows, and ironically enough a credible source of news, is Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. One thing that amazes me is how quickly they can write jokes that parodies or satirizes the day’s event. More importantly, the thing that really impresses is how they are about to spot topics, events and issues that will really resonate with the audience.

I don’ think it is just a bunch of cool dudes and babes sitting around a table deciding what funny shit to say on television.

I actually think they have a dedicated team collecting data from the newspapers and television news shows. Some, probably obsessively compulsive, intern is scanning and taping. Cataloging. Note Taking.

I think we need that for Singapore.

We need a, cue the buzzword, crowd-source way of pulling in every single coverage of our MPs and potential candidates leading up to and during the next elections. Scans from the ST. Screenshots of the online papers. Scans from New Paper. Everything that is available. Recording of Channel News Asia. Recording of the evening news. In English and in Mandarin. And in Bahasa and in Tamil. With subs for the non-English recordings.

Why?

Not for us online folks to have more source material to rant or write funny posts.

For possibly something greater.

Any thoughts on how such a base of information that is cataloged properly (admittedly, properly is such a vague way of describing the organization of the information) can help?

Now, some people may read this post and think, IanTimothy doesn’t like the government, so he must obviously like the opposition.

To that I answer, why can’t I dislike both?

Here is the problem as I see it with the opposition,

The government is like the kid with rich parents who can afford to buy him a football. Since he is the only one with a ball, when he goes to the basketball court, which in Singapore is obviously meant to be for playing football, every kid wants to play with him. And if no kid wants to play his game, well, he can afford to pay them to play with him. The opposition is like the kid who occasionally gets bullied by the rich kid. The kid who instead of training up and learning how to fight properly so he can defend himself, runs to the parents and other kids to cry and complain. Life is so unfair this weak little kid likes to say.

The truth is, for the next elections, I’m really sitting on the fence. And it is really true what the wise Chinese man says,

He who sits on fence hurts his balls.

Back to something greater.

Intuitively, I have a feeling I know what the PAP candidates always talk about. But won’t it be better if we can have proof?

Something along the lines of, based on the information we have, PAP candidates spend 50% of their time telling us how screwed the opposition is and 70% of the time, the opposition whines about how PAP screws them.

And then, maybe we have something like, based on the information, we know that PAP Awesome Hand Picked Candidate Number 1 spends 10% of the time talking about Foreign Talent and 90% of the time talking about how PAP has helped the poor in Singapore (without actually talking about how they have helped). And Opposition Super Underdog Candidate 1 spends 90% of the time talking about how PAP doesn’t give him the right to freedom of speech and only 10% of the time addressing the impact in the reduction of Foreign Labour in Singapore.

Something like that.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

said by Salvor Hardin in “Foundation“.

I have been using a variation of the above quote when describing the behavior of noob players in DOTA.

Vulgarities is the last bastion of the defeated.

A long time ago, after a chat with Rambling Librarian ( who had an awesome presentation at barcampsg3 ) I was reminded that if an idea was a good one, a lucid articulation of that idea will get the point effectively across.

Vulgarities is not needed for any sort of ‘impact’.

So, I’m going to reduce the amount of vulgarities spewed on this blog.

Old article, but still useful to understand what’s going on above:

Incremental project builders provide a mechanism for processing resources in a project and producing some build output. The builder framework makes it easier to incrementally maintain that built state as the input resources change

but the size of your flat will get smaller as the Price Per Square Foot increases…

also, do note that your wages have not increased by the same percentages even though HDB prices have increased by astronomical percentages…

but the economy is growing and doing well so the cost of your flat has to increase…

that’s how you benefit from the growth, even though you don’t actually have more money to pay for it…

even though when you sell your flat, the price of every other flat is also that high…

so when you buy a new place, you actually might have less than before, or more than before but in a worse flat/environment…

also, well, now we let your borrow more money….

that’s how something becomes affordable…

we let you borrow more… bond your life to us longer….

this is your home. COMMIT TO IT.

Whenever you think you understand how the world works, when you think your perception of the world is correct, it is important to realize the role of the observer. The observer by the act of observing changes things.

When I hear newly weds (or those soon to be married) discuss red packets at weddings, I get the distinct impression that to them, red packets and by extension the guests, are a means to cover cost. Now, is that how these couples feel, or is it just merely how I think they feel.

I know how I got the impression although I can’t remember whose wedding led to the impression. Many many years ago, I was invited to a wedding. Last minute. Like a few days before the wedding. When I attended the wedding, I was stuck at a table with strangers. The wedding was just one whole going through the motions charade.

Stand up to welcome couple. Sit down. Wait for first course. Watch video montage of photos. Eat a few more courses. Stand up for the couple’s second entrance. Toast the couple. Hear best man say a few words. Hear the speech from the groom. Eat a little more. Take photo with couple. Eat a little more. Walk out main entrance shaking the hands of the parents and the couple.

Singaporean weddings are so standardized that it would make Henry Ford proud.

I shared the incident of the last-minute wedding with some friends and the consensus was that I was a third-tier friend, invited only because a space opened up and the couple didn’t want to waste a slot (i.e. pay for an empty seat).

And so I developed a cynicism that activated each time I got a wedding invitation. Was I being invited because the couple genuinely wanted me there. Or was I a last minute inclusion because a more important friend couldn’t make it. Had they initially wanted me at the wedding but I was excluded because of space constraints and now they were more than happy that they could include me. Or was I there to make sure they didn’t get one less red packet.

You would think that I would know the strength of my own friendships with my friends to not be bugged by such questions. And it is true. For most weddings I’ve been invited to, I knew the reason I was invited and going – to celebrate an important occasion with friends I love.

But the questions became relevant when I started wondering why other people were at these weddings. Did my friends invite them because of their parents? Was it because the use of the ballroom demanded that a certain number of tables be filled? Were these extra tables subsidizing the couple’s desire to have a wedding in a ballroom at a specific hotel?

The thought process that goes through my head when deciding the amount to put into a red packet.

1. He/She is a good friend. I really want to give an amount to bless them.
2. But hey, don’t you remember, red packets are really just about covering cost (this is my arguably flawed perception of the thinking occurring in the minds of people getting married).
3. So what’s the cost of a table?
4. Ok, I’ll just give my share.
5. But wait, he/she is a good friend.
6. Ok, so I give enough to cover my cost and a little more.
7. Wait, can I afford to give enough to cover both the cost and the blessing?

The continuation of the above thought process is linked to how I see people react when they realize they didn’t get a red packet from a guest or that the guest gave below a certain benchmark (usually the cost of a table divided by ten) – they get upset.

Now, there are many reasons to be upset, some valid, some invalid, and one of them which I think is invalid is the feeling that the guest didn’t live up to the expectation of helping the couple not lose money for the banquet.

A valid one might be – I thought we are close friends, and well, they aren’t poor, so giving so little, makes me think our friendship is not valuable (sadly, whether we like it or not, money is a marker of worth and value in our society).

And so,

8. Since society has made it really just about covering cost (or rather since I think society has really made it just about covering cost), then, I’ll shall just put enough to cover cost. If that’s the standard, then, let’s play by it.

Which of course is rather petty.

Giving the red packet isn’t about how my married friends will react to the amount or about what their expectations are or even how society at large plays this game. It is really about me wanting to do right with my friends.

It is about me wanting to bless them as they enter the next phase in their lives.

In a way, I’ve missed the opportunity to think that way with 3 of my best friends – JS, HX and WS. I won’t make that mistake anymore.