Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Aw... Guo Yuan has gotta be touched by our "heart" work!Anyway, the Venezia ice cream vouchers have not been used yet so anybody wants to head there after our Economics make-up lesson on Friday? We can have dinner together afterward too. CCAs resume next week and since our lessons are going to end late on Friday, it'll be a good time for a meal/movie together as class or something after school ends. Just a humble suggestion that our Welfare Rep can look into =)!
He who wants to watch Harry Potter,
H.P. Howled at 5:29 PM
Sunday, July 12, 2009
I'm currently nodding my head and tapping my toes to this fantastic performance by the John Butler Trio and Keith Urban! Watch these awesome Aussies trade guitar solos as they collaborate for this rockin' good song on stage!
Great stuff! Let's get funky tonight completing AQ questions!
H.P. Howled at 10:33 PM
Friday, July 10, 2009
The class chalet organised by my PW group was carried out from Sunday to Monday (05/07-06/07). On the whole, I think it went alright and while I'm glad to hear that people had fun, it was not as smooth-sailing as I had hoped for it to be and there were certain things that we overlooked. But it's all good, we make mistakes, we learn. Sorry on our part, and thanks for coming.
Shall let the photos do the talking this time around. If you'd like to read about the chalet in chronological order then read from bottom up!
My eyes looked as good as closed. Didn't sleep the entire night!
Galen and Yizhang messing around ... in bed. Ahem.
Mengke looking all tensed up while playing chinese chess
That's Guo Yuan littering the bed with seaweed, Xiaoheng pondering on his next move, and Debbie trying to catch up on some sleep.
Kaleb: "Eh let's camwhore"Guo Yuan: "Okay let's do it"
Desserts at MacDonalds after cycling around the park
Zong Xian finished both cups of sundaes. Okay, just kidding.
The five of us who cycled around the park. The rest either went for movies or went all out in their night cycling adventure.
Zong Xian, Me, Debbie.
TC playing a G chord with some random Taiwanese variety show running in the background
Emo Gretal picks up the guitar
UNO!
Look at David!
Xiaoheng having a good time with the girls
Table #1: Heard they spent half an hour to complete their first game!
Table #2: Mengke picks up some pointers from TC.
Table #3: Where we almost lost a ball to the ... table?
Braving through the rain to get to E-Hub
The girls room.[Re-post from personal blog]
Have a great weekend,
H.P.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
heh, im so sorry im late. thought was 12 am:P but hooray i get to say the final word.
Should the people involved be videoed?
Who is at fault?
What should not be done?
I feel that it will be too unfair to claim that the teacher deserves to have her “lousy teaching method” exposed to the public, as much as I hope to agree with Eunice. However, one point to note is that whether the people involved should be videoed or whether the video itself should be uploaded are different issues, and I firmly believe that the latter has already involved the privacy of the teacher as well as if the student who uploaded the video actually has the rights to do so. And since the purpose of the video was not made known to public, I find hard to justify if it was right of the student to videotape down the incident. If it was for relevant purposes like what Jessie said, “a last-ditch attempt to convince the disbelieving administration”, this act is still forgivable in my opinion. But if the student videoed the incident for a sheer purpose like shaming the teacher, resulting in the invitation of unnecessary attention and uncompromising condemnation on the teacher, I have to say the student is at fault. Hence, I am more inclined to feel that this incident should not videoed, or at the very least, the public should not be aware of the existence of the video at all. On a less serious tone, I feel rather sorry for the student getting scolded, because of all the commotion to judging the teacher’s action, no one is paying him any attention even though more than two hundred thousand are viewing the videos. At the same time, I also feel that scolding should never be made public, since it is supposed to be directed at a particular person based on a particular act committed by the person. So whatever purpose the video has desired to serve, it has definitely fulfilled the purpose of conveniently inflicting embarrassment on the student, even if it was unintentionally.
Fault is one of the largest, if not the only critical constituent in all commotions regarding controversial issues as such, if it is even at all. If the one at fault is the one who contributed to the outcome of this publicized video, then both the teacher and the student filming the process are at fault. Unlike how Eening and Eunice have felt, personally I do not think the teacher deserves a larger portion of the blame. Firstly, I’d like to say that in no way do I condone the acts of a teacher who puts a student down in front of the whole class. I mean, it is inevitable that many may perceive the situation as seen from the video to be extremely possible for most of the blame to be shifted to the teacher, but we can never know for sure what actually happens. Yes, no doubt I agree to what the rest (my com is feeling too lazy to scroll up and name who) has stated, that the teacher should not be that harsh with her words, or pass discouraging comments. If, as seen from the video, the teacher really did not bother to give the student a chance to account for his work, and neither did she care less for rephrasing her unpleasant scolding with flowery language, then indeed she deserves the blame to be put upon her. But then again, going back to my repetitive and boring point, the liability of the video is questionable because it does not reveal all of what really happened. A video like this is subjected to different interpretation, where no one is able to determine the right from wrong. What we see from the video is unable to account for the clarity of if the fault is shared between both parties (the teacher and the student who uploaded the video) or more towards either side.
Even if what she did was pardonable, I’m sure she must have had her fair share of punishment, since the incident has caught the attention of many. And, another point I’m trying to make is that since the video does not tell it all, it can be hard to shift the blame to the teacher for it may all be false accusations, but it is definitely not difficult to claim that the student who uploaded the video has to be responsible for this incident. What I’m trying to say is that it may turn out to be justifiable for the teacher’s actions but the student being at fault for taking the video is for sure. The problem is no longer how wrong the teacher is to hurt the student’s self-esteem, but whether the student should even upload the video onto YouTube, which has already claimed itself to be void of privacy. Perhaps it did not occur to him that the video would have received so much attention, or that he already achieved his aim, but I am rather disappointed that incidents like that can happen in a so-called elite school, where students cannot be anymore bothered if this incident will remain a stain on the reputation of their school?
But then again, if we are determined to trace back to the ultimate one at fault, then blame it on YouTube, or on cyberspace. The fault lies squarely on the shoulders of this medium which does not limit to the committing of these atrocities. Unlike newspapers and magazines, it can be hard to hold a party accountable for publishing false or defamatory information. Like what Rodney A. Smolla, an award-winning author and currently the Dean of the Washington and Lee School of Law said, “The Internet has now matured to the point that we are beginning to see that the ordinary rules of law that govern our lives in physical space should also govern our lives in cyber space."
To sum it up, the student should not have allowed the video to circulate, much less publicized on YouTube. In fact, anyone who is intending to share any kind of videos really has to think of the consequences the videos may lead to and be responsible for it. Perhaps I should say that the teacher shouldn’t have scolded the student to such extent, but it leads me to ponder if the other teachers will think twice before lecturing a student, or simply just say what is pleasant to the students’ ears. I’m sure there are many who are glad that this episode is brought to light so that this incident will play a deterrent to other teachers who may commit such acts in front of other students, given the consequences. Well, on the bright side, perhaps it can serve as a flashpoint or a wake-up call.
you know you love meiling:D Howled at 4:49 PM
Posting on behalf of Pamela
Comments on the article
After reading the article, I personally feel disgusted by the fact that people nowadays actually do such things in public places. Such intimate acts should be reserved for the bedroom. The bus is no place for such acts. Buses are public places, where even children take them. Even if the couple are at the corner, it does not mean that the children cannot see them in the act. Children are naturally inquisitive people, if they see that the couple is doing something that they do not normally see, they are bound to ask questions. How do you expect the parents to answer them?
Should the people involved be videoed?
While I do agree that taking videos of other people without their permission is just plain rude, in this case, the couple is just asking for trouble to do such intimate acts in public. If you do such acts in public, people are bound to take videos, either for the sake of evidence, or just because they are sick in the mind. While it is an invasion of their privacy, I feel that these people should be videoed as they are not being socially responsible and hence, should be “punished” by losing their privacy.
Who is at fault?
As the saying goes, it takes two hands to clap. Both parties are at fault. The person taking the video clip is at fault as he circulated the video around. However I feel that if the person taking the video took the video only for the sole purpose of evidence, the fault would be solely the couples. However since, the person taking the videos circulated them on the internet, it makes him at fault. He should have just given the video to the police for them to handle and to what is deemed fit to them. The one who is most at fault is obviously the couple. Since they have the guts to do such things in public, they should bear the consequences of their actions. Public places are not places where such acts can be tolerated. They could have booked a hotel room, especially since hotels are quite a common sight anywhere.
What should not be done?
There are many things that should not be done in this case. Firstly, the couple should not have done such intimate acts in public. They should have booked a room or gone home to do their private business. This is the gravest mistake they have made. Secondly, the person who videoed the process should not have posted in on the internet. He should have just given it to the police to handle. Howled at 4:41 PM
(Auntie Anti-social behavious in bus)
Should the people involved be videoed?
With the nationwide promotion of having the public masses uploading videos they took on online portals such as Stomp, a Straits Times interactive website, it is no wonder why Singaporeans are increasingly recording unusual or queer footages to share with other netizens. Every average citizen is can be their own "public journalists/reporters", as long as they have an account on the online portal. This would spur the rapid spreading of information on the net knowing how permeable it is these days.
My take on whether or not this scene, that clearly captured an act of a lack of social graces, should have been taken would be that it was not the right thing to do. What he did with confronting her to stop her from peeling the prawns would have been enough, or he could just alert the bus driver who would have the authority to deal with her. However shocking her actions may be, there is no need for the recording and uploading online for the public condemn it.
I do not wholly agree with Xiaoheng that it could be for entertainment value and to share with others that led to the videotaker to record the scene. He obviously had the intent at that point in time to post it online for the public to mock the aunty's actions as seen from his comments on Youtube: "Taken in a TIBS bus, this auntie was peeling the skin of the prawns and throwing it onto the floor. And I haven't even mentioned the raw prawn smell that stinked and polluted the whole aircon bus. It was only until I told her not to do that then she claimed that she will pick it up later, which she eventually did. And she claimed all along that was her intention. You guys decide how true is that. " It was sarcastic and more of complaining about how inconsiderate her actions were than to just laugh it off.
Who is at fault?
It was indeed utterly inconsiderate of the aunty firstly to peel the skin of the prawns in a confined space on the bus. Worse still, instead of perhaps throwing the shells in another plastic bag, she flung them on the floor. Not only would the bus stink of the stench of seafood that would take awhile to dissipate, it would be littered with the prawn shells. No one would actually inconvenience themselves by throwing something on the floor on purpose only to pick it up later on. Thus I do not believe that her original intentions were to pick up the prawn shells from the ground after she was done peeling them and that she only did so as others were alerted about what she was doing and eyeing on her. Since she knew that it was wrong, she should not have done whatever she did. I agree with Xiaoheng on the point that it is unfair for the other passengers on the same ride as her to have to bear the stench of her peeled prawns, an act that was wrong to begin with. Such pungent smells would attract flies and other pests, that would indirectly cause nuisance to others around her. It would also be unfair for the bus driver who would have to clear up the mess she created and the consequences would be for him to bear and not her as he is the one maintaining the bus.
In my opinion, the videotaker is less at fault. One cannot blame others for recording them under the guise of invasion of privacy. If they dare to commit such acts in public, they should be responsible for their own actions and face up to the consequences. The aunty should also have been aware that she would attract negative attention by peeling the prawns on a public transport and not in her private car. If she was not doing anything out of the ordinary, why would people film her? However, still, the videotaker should not have recorded her actions with the intent of spreading it online even if his intent at that point of time was merely to entertain or even to mock since he would confront her later on.
What should not be done?
The aunty should not have been peeling the prawns on the bus no matter how tied up for time she is or how bored she was on the bus. It was definitely something that no one around her would like to experience and she was also taking up the seat beside her that should have been meant for someone else to sit instead.
No matter how disgusted the videotaker was or how inconceivable her actions were, he should not have done so either. It was an inappropriate handling of matters in their own hands on the videotaker's part.
Debbie
Howled at 4:12 PM
Article 1: "Bus sex videotaping"
Should the people be videotaped?
After reading the article, i feel that it is hardly possible to restrict others from taking a picture or a video without formal consent with the technological advancements in the present age. These camera-integrated hand phones make it especially convienient for on-the-go scene captures. Besides, as mentioned in the article, critical evidence may present itself in the form of these "unauthorized" pictures and video. As such, it is hard to impose a hard and fast rule as for what can or cannot be filmed. It is also almost impossible to regulate such actions.Who is at fault for it is in the end, an act of freewill, just like molestation or rape would be. It is the consequences that result that would be the only barrier from preventing inapproriate usage of such devices.
Who is at fault?
Both parties.
The teens, being unable to control their actions should have thought of such consequences and fully deserve it. The only 3rd party that are innocent are the children, with their not-yet corrupted minds. The person who posted the video was short sighted and selfish. He did not mind the subjects in the video being berated or even despised by society, thus he was in the wrong too. I belive that a law could be set up to prevent people from repeating such idiotic acts of uploading inappropriate videos, such as fines or even jailing for a couple of days. Such videos should only be available for personal use and in the corporate world, would deliver immense repercussions.
What should not have been done?
Taking pictures of others in public without permission AND Most importantly getting discovered for doing so. Such actions are akin to the topic of flamming on blogs etc. Though these are not firmly established laws, they are distasteful to the victims and the society in general, especially in on that is conservative, that of Singapore.
Galen Howled at 3:35 PM
Should the people involved be videoed?
After reading the article on the bus sex, I feel that the people involved should be videoed. Although it may be regarded as illegal to record footage with such nature, but I feel that it is only by doing so that Singaporeans are aware of the atrocious that others commit and learn from others' mistakes. If this video had not sufaced in STOMP, and the person who witnessed the scene merely informed the bus captian to put a stop to this, wouldn't it be wasting a chance to educate the public on the importance of socially adequate behaviour as well as putting this couple to shame and letting them learn from the unpleasant repercussions of their actions?
Who is at fault?
In this case, I feel that the couple who are behaving in such an intimate manner are at fault. While it may be wrong to take the video, however, the couple should have the intellectual capacity to think for themselves and weigh the consequences of their actions with the benefits they would be able to reap from this behaviour.
While some may argue that maybe the couple could not control their instincts or (hormonal surges), and may have acted on impulse, and so the person who videoed the scene down was the one at fault as he did it intentionally. This may be true to a certain extent, but it is human nature to be curious and inquisitive, and in this day and age, who wouldn't want to capture such a "juicy" scene down and show it to everyone? After all, if they are willing to do such things in public, then they can't blame anyone for taking it down since the word "Public" means that the good is non-excludable and non-rivalry. Hence, it is impossible or prohibitively expensive to exclude non-payers from viewing the show, not to mention capturing this "magical" moment.
What should not be done?
The couple should not be behaving in such a manner in public. What may seem to be sweet to some may be sour to others. The couple may be having the time of their lives, however, to the passerby, this may just be the scene to make them go on a week long fast. So, for the benefit of the public and the majority, the couple should not commit such obscene behaviour in a place whereby everyone is able to access.
(GY)
Howled at 1:18 PM
Should the couple be videoed?
I believe that it depends on what is done with the video. If the couple were videoed with the intent of distributing it over the internet with the aim of making money, it should not have been videoed. On the other hand, if the aim of doing so was to have evidence of their indecent acts in public which could be used in court, then it is justifiable. Also, I personally believe that if the video shames the couple, then it would be a bonus. Their indecent acts deserve the public's condemnation.
Who is at fault
Certainly, the couple is at fault. I do not believe that "they just can't control themselves" is an legitimate excuse. If so, criminals all over the world would be walking scot-free: "I saw a sexy chick and couldn't control myself so I raped her." Humans are granted intelligence above that of other animals, and therefore humans should be able to utilise that intelligence to understand the concept of self control and apply it. Furthermore, there are many other couples around capable of riding the bus without fooling around in the back - surely this couple could, with practice if they need it, keep their hands off each other for the duration of a bus journey.
Their acts were done in public, where children could have seen them. This lack of public awareness is revolting. Is the innocence of Singapore's children to be sacrificed just so a couple can fool around in the back of a bus?
However, going along those lines, the person who videoed them and uploaded it onto Stomp would also be at fault, as he is disseminating their offensive acts for public viewing on a much larger scale than the couple. Instead of posting it online, he should have sent it to the appropriate authorities and raised the matter on Stomp without actually allowing people to see the lewd acts committed.
What should not be done?
Lewd acts on public transport should not be done. People utilise public transport to get from one place to another, not to watch free pornography. The couple should have the decency to restrain themselves despite their apparent over-abundance of hormones. Also, the commuter should not have uploaded the video onto a public portal, as he is disseminating objectionable and offensive content to the public at large.
-Gretal
Howled at 12:56 PM
Should the people involved be videoed?
Technology is here to stay. That we cannot deny. We are constantly reminded that the future is a terrifying spectacle by literature such as George Orwell’s 1984 (mentioned by Hua Peng) or even comic-book-turned-film V for Vendetta. In our generation bombarded with video sharing websites such as YouTube, and video-recording devices such as hand phones which are getting smaller and smaller, it is impossible to stop the onslaught of ‘home-made’ videos circulating the net every single day.
Yes, perhaps the people involved should not be videoed based on moral grounds. But yet again our rights to freedom in communication enable us to do so. Then again, society is never impartial, we constantly tread the fine line between what is constructive (which is condoned by the society) and what is a blatant disregard for privacy or human rights. This grey area complicates the matter of whether people should be videoed and published on the net.
I personally feel that these people shouldn’t be videoed, conceivably due to my deep-rooted moral values (hehe), but of course there will be an equal number of people who will oppose my view.
Who is at fault?
Judging from the previous entries in the blog, I can tell that the common consensus is that the couple and the person videoing the act are at fault. Again, yes, I agree that the couple should not have been publicly committing the sex acts as this can be classified under the abuse of their freedom of 'expression', and that they may be a bad influence to society thus should maintain some self-control. Furthermore, the person recording it should have just reported it to the bus driver and that he should not have stayed back to record the show… All of these are valid points.
However, I believe that we are missing the bigger issue in this debate (and yes I’m tired to reading the same old thing). For that we need to question our own answers. Why did the couple do their sex act on the bus instead of a hotel room? In this case, maybe we have to point the finger at the hyper-sexualized antics by the media where shows such as Sex and the City or even Desperate Housewives (I’m not saying that these shows are ‘bad’, just a reflection of the media climate) resort to using sex as one way of selling their programmes. This is entrenched into our society so deeply that now images that we were once provocative have become numb to us and the media will constantly turn-up the shock factor to incite viewer’s response.
Then we have video-sharing websites, like YouTube that have become a portal to fulfill people’ voyeuristic desires. Coupled (bad pun) with the following-the-herd mentality as well as the increasing liberal attitudes of society, people have mistaken that as the right to infringe other people’s privacy.
Who are we to blame? I’m going to take the safe route here and say that everyone, including the media, the society in general has to take some blame in allowing this incident to happen.
What should not be done…?
I have no clue now. Based on my bleak description, everything is going to turn from bad to worse and nothing will be able to stop this. Laws are not really applicable in this case as the internet is extremely difficult to regulate, and everyone will always find loopholes to the system. Changing the attitudes, mindsets of the people will take time and I doubt anyone will find it feasible enough (or want to) to implement such change.
I don’t agree with Zhong Jin’s point that the commuter is trying to manipulate the feelings of others or to create strong negative sentiments against the couple. I doubt again that the commuter had any malicious intentions against the couple, but merely posted it up to garner publicity or just to share the ‘interesting’ sights.
But when all else fails I will just rely on these: The couple should not have committed the act and that the person should not have videoed it down. Ha that’s 2 sided. What should be done is to get the government to send these clips to me so that I can view and veto which videos can be uploaded to STOMP =D.
Edited @ 5pm due to some reference errors.
Technology is here to stay. That we cannot deny. We are constantly reminded that the future is a terrifying spectacle by literature such as George Orwell’s 1984 (mentioned by Hua Peng) or even comic-book-turned-film V for Vendetta. In our generation bombarded with video sharing websites such as YouTube, and video-recording devices such as hand phones which are getting smaller and smaller, it is impossible to stop the onslaught of ‘home-made’ videos circulating the net every single day.
Yes, perhaps the people involved should not be videoed based on moral grounds. But yet again our rights to freedom in communication enable us to do so. Then again, society is never impartial, we constantly tread the fine line between what is constructive (which is condoned by the society) and what is a blatant disregard for privacy or human rights. This grey area complicates the matter of whether people should be videoed and published on the net.
I personally feel that these people shouldn’t be videoed, conceivably due to my deep-rooted moral values (hehe), but of course there will be an equal number of people who will oppose my view.
Who is at fault?
Judging from the previous entries in the blog, I can tell that the common consensus is that the couple and the person videoing the act are at fault. Again, yes, I agree that the couple should not have been publicly committing the sex acts as this can be classified under the abuse of their freedom of 'expression', and that they may be a bad influence to society thus should maintain some self-control. Furthermore, the person recording it should have just reported it to the bus driver and that he should not have stayed back to record the show… All of these are valid points.
However, I believe that we are missing the bigger issue in this debate (and yes I’m tired to reading the same old thing). For that we need to question our own answers. Why did the couple do their sex act on the bus instead of a hotel room? In this case, maybe we have to point the finger at the hyper-sexualized antics by the media where shows such as Sex and the City or even Desperate Housewives (I’m not saying that these shows are ‘bad’, just a reflection of the media climate) resort to using sex as one way of selling their programmes. This is entrenched into our society so deeply that now images that we were once provocative have become numb to us and the media will constantly turn-up the shock factor to incite viewer’s response.
Then we have video-sharing websites, like YouTube that have become a portal to fulfill people’ voyeuristic desires. Coupled (bad pun) with the following-the-herd mentality as well as the increasing liberal attitudes of society, people have mistaken that as the right to infringe other people’s privacy.
Who are we to blame? I’m going to take the safe route here and say that everyone, including the media, the society in general has to take some blame in allowing this incident to happen.
What should not be done…?
I have no clue now. Based on my bleak description, everything is going to turn from bad to worse and nothing will be able to stop this. Laws are not really applicable in this case as the internet is extremely difficult to regulate, and everyone will always find loopholes to the system. Changing the attitudes, mindsets of the people will take time and I doubt anyone will find it feasible enough (or want to) to implement such change.
I don’t agree with Zhong Jin’s point that the commuter is trying to manipulate the feelings of others or to create strong negative sentiments against the couple. I doubt again that the commuter had any malicious intentions against the couple, but merely posted it up to garner publicity or just to share the ‘interesting’ sights.
But when all else fails I will just rely on these: The couple should not have committed the act and that the person should not have videoed it down. Ha that’s 2 sided. What should be done is to get the government to send these clips to me so that I can view and veto which videos can be uploaded to STOMP =D.
Edited @ 5pm due to some reference errors.
-david
Howled at 12:43 PM
Should the people be videoed?
In response to Article 1: Bus sex videotaping, I believe that it is justifiable to videotape such indecent acts in public, but it should be with the intention to raise awareness and not to shame or publicize. In this case, the commuter decided to post the video on Stomp to ‘show’ that such acts actually took place in a SBS bus. I question his intentions. Was it to create a furore over the act or to flaunt his opportunistic instincts? If it was intended to raise public awareness, he would have considered sending in a complaint email to the relevant authorities and attach the video to back up his claims.
Who is at fault?
Both parties are at fault as they were not able to practise enough self-restraint to suppress their urges. The couple was oblivious to their surroundings and laid their sexual escapade bare for public consumption. Yet, the SBS bus is a public transport without a M18 rating, and there may be children in the bus forced to witness such unsavoury acts. Their failure to restrain themselves in public deserves criticism, but it does not vest other commuters with the right to string them on a noose and allow the online community to flame them. While it is true that the couple had relinquished their own share of self-respect, I believe the others should not relish such opportunities as avenues to express their strong feelings.
What should not be done?
The commuter should not have used the media to manipulate the feelings of others or to create strong negative sentiments against the couple, even if they are in the wrong. Doing so does not alleviate the situation; moreover, it serves as a free buffet for the online community to further chip off bits and pieces of the couple’s already-deficient integrity and decency.
-Zhong Jin Howled at 12:22 PM
In the well-renowned book 1984 written by George Orwell, citizens of Oceania - a totalitarian and oppressive regime - are constantly reminded that "Big Brother is Watching You". Leader of the The Party, Big Brother is portrayed as ever-present, wise and infallible. Best, or rather worst, of all, nobody's actions can escape the sight of Big Brother.
In today's technologically savvy society, it is commonplace for people to own gadgets with video recording capabilities such as small and easily concealable mobile phones. The emergence of new media such as blogs and video-sharing websites makes it almost fuss-free for anyone to upload photos or videos they have taken and share it with "netizens". One such incident which has sparked public outrage would be the "Bus sex videotaping".
Should the people involved be videoed?
Like many others, I do hold the view that if the couple had the guts to commit such an indecent, obscene and raunchy act in public, they should have no qualms with the scene being captured and then made known to web users.
This is mere speculation, but the person behind the camera could have captured the footage in hope that the public would heap criticism on the couple for their wrongdoing to discourage any members of the public who harbour similar intentions of committing such an act in public. Either that, or, it could be for entertainment's sake. Whatever it is, I feel that such a video raises awareness of this incident to the general public, and the condemnation of the couple by the public is both justifiable and desirable - there is simply no excuse for such an act to be carried out in public.
Who is at fault?
It should be of no question that the couple is in the wrong here. Public transport such as bus services are meant to allow commuters to travel from one place to another with ease and comfort. If the couple were indeed so deeply in love and caught up in that moment so much so that they were unable to restrict themselves, just get yourselves a hotel room.
What should not be done?
The couple should not have carried out sexual intercourse in broad daylight in public. Just imagine the horror if kids were present in the bus at that point of time. The couple should have exercised self-restraint and use their common sense to realise that a public bus is neither an appropriate nor the most hygienic of places to carry out sexual intercourse. I disagree with XH's view that the video should have been submitted to the authorities and not uploaded on a public site. It is only when the public unequivocally condemn and criticise the couple would they learn their lesson, especially when this is such a serious offence.
At the end of the day, just remember,
Big Brother is Watching You =).
Hua Peng
(Sorry that I'm late by 10mins!) Howled at 12:10 PM
Should the people involved be videoed?
No I do not think that the people involved should be videoed. Although it is true that what they were doing on the bus were deemed unacceptable by many people, that does not mean that their privacy can be intruded and their acts made public. After all, what good wills that do except to humiliate the couple and draw another heated debate on whose fault is it? It does not address the root problem that this kind of act should not be allowed in public, and there is no practical meaning to videoing the couple. Even the fact that what the couple did was wrong does not justify the videoing of their actions.
Who is at fault?
In my opinion, both parties, couple and the person who took the video, are at fault. The couple should recognize that their actions are susceptible to the opinions and assessments of third parties, no matter how justified they think they are. Society is shaped by what people think of you, not by what you think of yourself. Moreover, the couple obviously did not consider the possible implications of their actions, such as being videoed and posted on the net. Such irresponsible and unacceptable acts may also contaminate children and teenagers, much less damage the image of the Singaporean society.
Yet, on the other hand, the guy who videoed the couple also has his wrongs. Yes, the couple did wrong, but what good will videoing them do? I question his motive for taking the video. This intrusion of privacy is obviously unnecessary. Why video them instead of stopping them from continuing with their indiscreet acts? Contrary to what ZongXian has said, I believe it to be an unnecessary breach of privacy. Education does not require the use of a ‘live feed’. Are Singaporeans so ignorant that they can only be educated with such ‘hard evidence’ presented on them? I think not. Also, I doubt that by making such exclusive material available to the whole world will make them realize the problems and immorality of these acts. In fact, they will more likely treat it as another porn material.
What should not be done?
Committing such obscene acts in public as well as videotaping the whole process should not be done. The couple’s actions indeed deserves some reprimanding and ‘education’, but the video-er’s actions are also rather inappropriate. Forget about the intrusion of privacy. Uploading the video on the Internet does not just leave the problem unsolved, it has aggravated the situation, making such obscene material available to the public as well as hurting the esteem of the couple in question. In the end, everyone will be on the losing side.
Jin Hao
Howled at 12:07 PMRjc- teacher scolding student incident
Should the people involved be videoed?
To a large extent, I do not feel that the people involved should be videoed, and especially do not deserve for the video to be put up on the internet for the world to see. Though the boy’s face could not be seen, it is hard to imagine the type of embarrassment that the boy has to be put through especially after the harsh scolding that he had to go through. I am sure that through the video, both of the characters in the video have become infamous characters in their school. Though we do not know the purpose of putting up this video, most people will conclude that it is to embarrass the teacher showing everyone the harsh and unfair treatment to her students. However, as both Jessie and Yijiao have said, this could have been a one-off incident and does not show the true teaching style of the teacher as such we should not jump to conclusions about the teacher too quickly.
Who is at fault?
From what I can see, both the person taking the video as well as the teacher taking the video are at fault here.
As what Yijiao has said, the person taking the video could have been taking it for his own pleasure, but then again, what right does he have to take it down in the first place. He or she had not asked the permission of either party in the video. Also, by taking these kind of videos, it is inevitable that the video will spread especially if the video involves top schools causing much controversy for both the school and the teacher and both the teacher’s and student’s reputation will drop.
The teacher involved here is also at fault as by tearing up the student’s work as well as using harsh language was perhaps too much for scolding the student about the tardy work that he has handed in. Even if the student has done this more than once before, he does not deserve to be scolded like this, especially in front of other students. Though I feel that scolding is needed to ensure that students do hand in their work on time, the teacher could maybe use less harsh language on the student so as to not make the student so discouraged.
What should be done?
As both parties are at fault here, both must look back and reflect on their actions. The real question would be should the video even be put up on the internet? As we do not know the full story of the incident, we are unable to make a conclusion about the incident. If this was a once off incident in which the teacher is usually very concerned about the teacher then the video should not be put up. However, if this is the true behavior of the teacher, the video serves as a reminder on how teachers should treat student.
Sylvie Howled at 11:34 AM
Should the people involved be videoed?
I believe that the people involved should not be videoed. Privacy is of course, what we all have rights to, and nobody likes to have their privacy invaded unless they have completely no dignity at all. If the teacher in the video does indeed behave like she does in the video on a day to day basis, her students would be able to justify her actions if the situation calls for it. There would have been no need to have any videos taken.
Who is at fault?
By looking at the incident from the actual scene (aka the classroom), the teacher would have largely been at fault. Her choice of words and the tone of her voice was uncalled for and if she merely wanted to discipline the student, she could have done so in a less derogatory way. Furthermore, the student is not local and may have difficulty understand what she had expected him to do. Not everyone, even in top schools, are fast learners and it is not easy to get a job well done on the first try. Throughout the whole video, the student was hardly given a chance to explain himself and was constantly shot down by the teacher, which in turn would have harmed his self esteem.
By taking another look from the point of view of the students, the student who videotaped the incident and uploaded on the internet is at fault. Firstly, as stated previously, nobody likes others to intrude on his own privacy and by making the video public has caused the privacy of the teacher's and even the student's to be invaded. The underlying purpose of uploading the video might not be to shed light on the teacher's behaviour, but it could be to give the student a temporary moment of enjoyment of sharing it with his friends. If that was the case, the student clearly did not bear in mind the consequences that were to follow and the damage that would be done to the reputation of the school just by uploading the video.
What should not be done?
Yes, perhaps the student could have videotaped it to gather evidence to shed light on the teacher's disciplinary methods. However, the problem is that the student uploaded the video of the incident onto the internet and gave the public full access to it. On a side note, the video does causes one to think about how a teacher should treat his or her students and the usage of the correct tone and words to discipline them. In this case, the teacher should not have used words that might have caused a huge impact on the student's self esteem and ego.
- Ee Ning - Howled at 9:58 AM
I would like to comment on the article on "Bus sex videotaping".
Should the people involved be videoed?
No, I do not think that the people should be videoed. I do not think that there is any point in taking the video. Perhaps the person wanted to inform the public about such indecent behaviour happening in Singapore but I personally think that it is not a must for the public to know and believe that such an incident happened. Furthermore, at that point in time, a better reaction to what is happening would be to stop them from whatever they are doing instead of watching them and taking a video of them. If not, the person could have always call the poilce to handle the situation.
Who is at fault?
Both the couple who commited the act on the bus and the person who took the video are at fault. Firstly, why are the couple commiting such an indecent act on the bus? Such acts should not be seen in the public at all. They do not consider the fact that children may be boarding the bus and see them in such an act. On the other hand, the person should not have took the video too. In a way, he is invading on the couple's privacy. What he should have done was to inform the couple that they should not be doing what they are doing in everyone's plain sight. Although the root cause of this incident is the couple, the reason that this was blown into such a huge matter is due to the person who took the video.
What should not be done?
Commiting the act and videotaping the act are both things that should not be done. However, other than that the internet community should also not have done what they did. When the video appeared on the net, they should have simply ignored the video. By continuously commenting and taking notice of the video, they are indirectly encouraging the person who took the video and give the impression that what he did is correct, when in actual fact he should not have taken the video. The internet community should not have given so much publicity to the video. Hence, in this way, the media also also at fault. Simply informing the public about such an incident is more than enough, there was no need to go around asking for the opinions of various people.
~MK~
Howled at 8:39 AM
Should the people involved be videoed?
While it is indeed true that videotaping such controversial incidents may serve well to shed light on certain actions which may be deemed unacceptable, it will also direct the person in question to unnecessary and biased criticisms and comments. As Jessie puts, this incident may have been one-off, and more importantly, the viewers of this video have not been at the scene at that moment of time and would not have been able to understand why and how it even happened. The problem with top schools such as HCJC and RIJC is that whatever happens that has to be with anyone from there would be blown up and exaggerated. Readers and viewers would not realize what they are seeing or reading is in fact, to an extent true yet false, and are blinded by the outrage from the biased POV. When such happens, it seems almost unfair to whoever is in the video that he or she is subject to insults and criticisms when it may not have been that big a deal.
Who is at fault?
Perhaps both the person who took the video and the teacher scolding the student could be considered at fault.
No one likes their privacy invaded, and I think if the person videotaping the incident was videotaped videotaping the incident, it would have been an extremely different story. Even if the student was videotaping for his own pleasure, to share with his close friends, the moment the video starts to circulate, it will slowly but surely find its way onto the mass media. The person who videotaped it may not have had the intention to put it online, but videotaping the incident would have increased the chances of it being exposed to the world. I am reminded of the “Tammy Sex Scandal”, where the person who videotaped the video had no intention to put it on the Net, yet someone who found the phone had done so. In such a case, it seems that the person who uploaded the video is the one who is most at fault.
But of course, for the teacher scolding the student, she could be considered at fault too, for scolding the student so badly and making herself vulnerable to be filmed and then attacked. It may have been one-off or exaggerated, but even so, one mistake is enough to turn your life upside down. For example, the principal who had hit a student with a book was immediately disapproved by the public and had to step down from his job. He may have been the nicest guy in the school for years, but that one mistake was enough to change his life.
What should not be done?
Since there are people considered at fault, they should then be considered not to have done what they did. Perhaps in the case of the teacher, she should have scolded the student (some students do need scolding -_-), but not so viciously as that might seriously damage the student’s ego and self esteem.
-yijiao Howled at 12:32 AM
Should the people involved be videoed? Who is at fault? What should not be done?
I feel that more should be known about the circumstances of the situation before coming with any form of conclusion as to whether the teacher should have been videoed and who is at fault. For all we know, this might have been a one-off situation, and not a true reflection of this teacher’s usual disciplinary methods, and this video would then be unfair to her, as we are led to assume that this is the usual way she disciplines her students. Further more, I feel that it is disrespectful of the student to video his/her teacher without permission. If he/she had issues with the teacher in question, why not approach the teacher directly or report the dissatisfaction towards her disciplinary methods to her superiors? Unless it was a last-ditch attempt to convince the disbelieving administration of the teacher’s inadequate teaching methods, it is difficult to see exactly what purpose this video serves in solving anything, and especially – why post it on youtube? The purpose of the video, with the posting of it on youtube, seems to be to embarrass the teacher, instead of resolving any of the student’s apparent disapproval of her teaching methods.
I disagree with Eunice’s statement that, ‘the intention of the student was clearly to open room for discussion with regards to whether the teacher's actions are justifiable.’ I believe that there are many other students that would have witnessed her unsatisfactory methods first-hand if this is the usual way she disciplines her students, and so, there should be an abundant amount of students that would be able to open discussions and judge on their own whether her actions are justifiable without the video, which is disrespectful and invasive in the first place. Hence, I would have to disagree and say that I am unable to see why this video is needed, except to embarrass and pinpoint the teacher on an online platform without giving her a chance to justify her actions or improve on her methods, especially if this is just a one-off.
But again, much of what I have discussed is just speculation on my part, and in the same way, we have no clear idea of whether the student deserved the scolding at all. It is entirely probable that he might have had a truly forgivable excuse for the standard of work he produced, or that he might have really been irresponsible and guilty of handing sub-standard work on a regular basis. We are unable to fairly accuse any party without having more information about the circumstances.
However, I do agree that her words are a tad too harsh and inappropriate, with many negative words used to put down the student. I also disapprove of the label she puts on the student in her lecture – with her saying that “all the good PRC students have never disappointed me,” and lamenting the student for being the first student to disappoint her. I do not see why the teacher has to bring in the fact that the student is a PRC, and as a teacher, she should discourage stereotypes, yet here, she is perpetuating the idea that PRC students are obedient and high-achieving students that always do well, even holding her student to such a stereotype.
In conclusion, my opinion is that more about the situation needs to be known before concluding about who is at fault and whether the video should have been taken. While the video does serve as a reminder for teachers to be mindful of their words when lecturing students, the motive behind taking the video should be questioned, together with the teacher’s, and student’s track record, instead of mindlessly berating the teacher without understanding more about the situation.
- jessie Howled at 12:18 AM
On video “Anti-social behaviour”.
Should the people involved be videoed?
In the past, I’ve seen many videos similar to this one, films featuring people committing acts that are considered wrong by the general public. However, most of the ppl filming these videos are not trying to raise public awareness. They only have one simple reason, which is to entertain, not only themselves, but masses on the internet. They often find such acts funny or lame and thus entertaining to watch. Such mindset often brings negative impact onto our society. Instead of avoiding such acts, ppl start to imitate them. One such example would be the phrase “All your base are belong to us”. It is originally a piece of broken English used by a translated version of a Japanese video game. It is supposed to be showing what a fool you’ll make if you use a language wrongly, thus encouraging ppl to learn every language correctly. However, the effect is far from the expectations. It has become a popular internet phenomenon.
Thus, it is the attitude that matters instead of the action of filming. From my point of view, maker of this video do want to raise public awareness of such issues. However, part of his/her purpose is still to entertain others which is wrong.
Who is at fault?
The lady peeling her prawns are definitely at fault. This is without question. Her action has not only created inconvenience for others (I don’t think anyone would like to seat on top of prawn shells, do they?). It has also polluted the surrounding. People inside the bus would have to bear with the pungent air the prawn shells give off. They must also bear with pests the prawn shell may attract. These pests would spread diseases or damage objects. Despite all these undesirable consequences, she continued with her action regardless of others welfare. Thus, she’s at fault.
However, the one taking the video is not entirely innocent. Though he/she has tried to spread public awareness by posting this online, I believe this person did that partly to entertain others. She could have reported this to other authorities where this problem would be looked at and addressed more properly.
What should not be done?
As stated above, the lady should definitely not peel prawns on top of the bus. The person who has taken a video of it should also use that content more appropriately instead of letting it run wild on the internet. Based on the responses made by the viewers, we can clearly see that most of the posts are senseless flaming without any real solution to the problem. Towards the end, we can even see certain elements of racial discrimination. If this has been done by a more professional authority, these would not have happened.
Have "fun" with e-learning. Ha...
‡LXH‡
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Comments on Article 1
Singapore marked herself as a democratic nation, which thus meant that every citizens have their rights and freedom to do what they deemed fit. In theory, this will in turn meant that videoing others in their private moments would meant invading of privacy and violating the rights of those being videotaped. Furthermore, there is the bus driver to go to if the one videotaping it is uncomfortable with what the couple was doing, which leads to the point that strongly hints on the fact that the one videotaping the whole act intentionally did it, not for use as evidence but something more which only he can know. With this ulterior motive in mind, the one videotaping is the one at fault of intrusion of privacy as I am certain no one will accidentally videotape such as a scene especially in a bus. Therefore, with that I can say that the one videotaping the whole act in the bus is the one at fault for videotaping the act for enjoyment purposes. To deal with this problem, the government should implement a stricter law regarding the rights and privacy of others, with severe capital punishment on those who flout the laws.
On the other hand, we will take into account that Singapore unlike America is also influenced by the conservative thinking of Asia due to Chinese ancestry. This meant that indecent acts in public should not be tolerated especially a sexual act in broad daylight in a bus of all places. According to Singapore’s law, nudity in public is also illegal though in this case thankfully, it did not cause any trouble for the other passengers. However, this hints at Singaporeans not having the right moral concepts to be able to conduct such indecent act in public. This strongly suggests the need of a more well thought-out moral education for students especially under the increasing influence of the West, which imparts Singaporeans with the mindset that they can do anything they want, abusing their freedom of rights and speech. Therefore, looking from this point of view of our morals, it is indeed the ones committing the sexual act being at fault as they abuse their rights, which meant that they do not deserve their privacy rights, thus justifying the reason behind the videotaping of the act.
In conclusion, both parties can be said to be at fault in their respective ways. The one videotaping is at fault for being a busybody and invading the privacy of others while the couple is at fault for committing an indecent act in public. What matters is that in this era of new media, every action you do must come from logical reasoning as you never know who is looking. Someone may have just inserted in a pin-hole camera in your house, monitoring your every movement.
By: Zheng Feng
should the people involved be videoed? Who is at fault? What should not be done?
With regards to the bus incident and "peeling of prawns on the bus" incident, i agree with kaleb that if they had dared to do it in the public, they should accept the fact that there lies a chance that this would be uploaded. With the ease of recording technology and uploading, it would not be uncommon if people would want to record these videos and upload. What the videos have done is to highlight some of these unacceptable social behaviour, and these videos can help to bring to the rest of the public as to what are some of these acts. Therefore doing such actions in public, they have also given an unwritten consent that they are willing or do not mind doing such actions in the public, and they are opening up themselves for free comment and viewing. Although it might be argued that these actions seem to be in a corner, it does not change the fact that the bus is still a public place and it is susceptible to being observed by others.
I'm inclined to believe that those videod are at greater fault then those not. After all, being a public place, they would be susceptible to being seen by others. In my view, taking a video in this case is just making the incident more public, which means to say that this action is no longer private, and just that more people are viewing the same public action as if they were at the scene. This is not a breach of privacy. Unlike the incident of the teacher which is limited to the school, the other two are in open public places, and therefore it is their onus to keep their actions to themselves, rather than to do it openly and blame others for posting this video online. Rather, those that did the video-ing have a role to play, to a certain extent, in education. In the role of showing and opening up discussion within people to allow people to understand, criticise and offer suggestions. This is the role of the media, to allow others to know about whats happening at the ground to think about the way society is developing.
The point of focus, I believe, shouldn't be on if the video should be uploaded. In this day and age, it is hard to control these actions. Naturally the same could be said for those being video-ed, that if they do not mind being video-ed, they have the liberty to do so in the public, since they are fully aware and might even want to take this chance to show off their sexual prowess or culinary skills. However I believe that these videos could magnify the effect of shaming and awareness, to a point that they realise that the society is not accepting of these things, and that any continued argument would just shame themselves further. Men, in the end, have an ego to protect. What should be done is that there should be open discussion on these topics, to allow other people also to be conscious of these actions, and to understand that the world is watching them where ever they go, and hopefully will serve as a decentive for these actions, unless they are truly unafraid of being videoed and believe that the show of sexual promiscuity will cover up for the destroyed ego.
Hence I believe ultimately, it is onus of people to make sure that actions are kept decent, or at least the indecent ones are kept in the privacy of their homes. If they fail to do so, then its the role of the media to play up these and serve as a way of education to allow them to understand that society does not approve. Of course, thats assuming that society does not approve of these actions. If society does approve of such actions, then it is entirely different story, and these might even be hailed as heroes
Imagine: Woman hailed hero for peeling prawns on bus.
Subheading: Lauded for ability to peel prawns while on the move with one hand and unprecedented speed.
Zong Xian
Howled at 10:45 PM
should the people involved be videoed?
In my opinion, yes. The purpose of recording and uploading this video for public view was probably to expose the teacher's lousy teaching method. Though one may argue that there is an intrusion of privacy, it serves as concrete evidence for the teacher's lousy teaching method, and tells us what is not acceptable in the eyes of the student body.
Who is at fault?
I personally feel that the teacher is at fault. The student may have produced work that was below her expectations. However, using such discouraging words to scold him in front of his own classmates will not motivate him to do better, but would instead lower his self esteem and even destroy the student-teacher relationship between them. Yes, the teacher probably had her own stress and trouble to cope with, and every teacher should have the right to discipline her students. However, the aim of a teacher should be to nurture the students' interest to learn, and her negative choice of words is actually causing her to deviate from her goal.
"You ignore the teacher's instructions, you do as you like, you do your work on your own terms..."
as we can see, she pointed out all the student's weaknesses, which does not make him aware of his strengths. How then is he expected to work on his strengths or have a positive direction to work towards?
it would have made a huge difference if she said things like,
"It would be good if you can improve on..." or "You could have done much better if you..."
at least, the student would have more incentive to work harder and produce better quality work next time.
does the person recording the video have any fault then? yes, to a small extent, as some may comment that disrespect is shown to the teacher by defaming her and violating her privacy. However, the intention of the student was clearly to open room for discussion with regards to whether the teacher's actions are justifiable. according to the video's comments, it is proven that her method of teaching is not only ineffective, but disapproved by many.
What should not be done? (or rather, what should be done...-.-)
though the reputation of the teacher (and even the school) are at stake, this video serves as a reminder that one should be responsible for his or her own actions. the teacher should not have anything to worry about if what she was doing was correct in the first place. in this case, the teacher should be mindful of her actions, especially when the school's reputation is in her hands.
In my opinion, yes. The purpose of recording and uploading this video for public view was probably to expose the teacher's lousy teaching method. Though one may argue that there is an intrusion of privacy, it serves as concrete evidence for the teacher's lousy teaching method, and tells us what is not acceptable in the eyes of the student body.
Who is at fault?
I personally feel that the teacher is at fault. The student may have produced work that was below her expectations. However, using such discouraging words to scold him in front of his own classmates will not motivate him to do better, but would instead lower his self esteem and even destroy the student-teacher relationship between them. Yes, the teacher probably had her own stress and trouble to cope with, and every teacher should have the right to discipline her students. However, the aim of a teacher should be to nurture the students' interest to learn, and her negative choice of words is actually causing her to deviate from her goal.
"You ignore the teacher's instructions, you do as you like, you do your work on your own terms..."
as we can see, she pointed out all the student's weaknesses, which does not make him aware of his strengths. How then is he expected to work on his strengths or have a positive direction to work towards?
it would have made a huge difference if she said things like,
"It would be good if you can improve on..." or "You could have done much better if you..."
at least, the student would have more incentive to work harder and produce better quality work next time.
does the person recording the video have any fault then? yes, to a small extent, as some may comment that disrespect is shown to the teacher by defaming her and violating her privacy. However, the intention of the student was clearly to open room for discussion with regards to whether the teacher's actions are justifiable. according to the video's comments, it is proven that her method of teaching is not only ineffective, but disapproved by many.
What should not be done? (or rather, what should be done...-.-)
though the reputation of the teacher (and even the school) are at stake, this video serves as a reminder that one should be responsible for his or her own actions. the teacher should not have anything to worry about if what she was doing was correct in the first place. in this case, the teacher should be mindful of her actions, especially when the school's reputation is in her hands.
Eunice
Howled at 6:16 PM
As kaleb and Tian Ci have covered the main points in the argument, i would like to focus upon another aspect, the platform on which this video was broadcast. Stomp was initially created to provide a platform on which the netizens could express their thoughts. However, it has since veered off its purpose of meaningful discussion and has become a platform where the netizens criticise other people behind their computer.
A quick peek at STOMP would quickly reveil the direction its heading. Posts such as ' Suggestive photos of Miss S'pore Universe scandalises netizens ', 'China couple kiss non-stop and get touchy-feely on bus ' show a certain sexual nature of the web. In the Miss S'pore post, comments such as " Confirm, she likes BJ services. " and " Her name said it all, "Kum!", That's what she likes! " also show netizens on the web are not just there to critique ungracious moments by S'poreans but to engage in a little voyeuristic moment of their own as well. :P
However, we do have to acknowledge the good things STOMP has done. Its wide audience range and relative lack of restrictions has allowed the public outcry to flow at full speed. This has not only provided amusing readings but has also also created a moral guideline for S'poreans. Granted, many would feel there are 2, the BC 2000 guideline and the 2009 guideline but it provides one nonetheless.
STOMP has also provided us a motivation to behave ourselves. Few people would engage in their small ' romantic ' moments if they expected phone cameras to come out and start clicking. By providing an extensive civilian policing of all things they presume wrong, STOMP has created an environment where our sense of privacy stops us from engaging in public displays of affection, be it for good or for bad.
With the rapid liberalisation of our society, such conflicts would become more and more common with the moments captured more and more absurd. STOMP would be at the frontline when these moral battles take place and let us just hope we dont end up on the main page one day. :)
YI ZHANG Howled at 5:41 PM
Article 1: Bus sex videotaping
Should the people involved be videoed?
Who is at fault?
What should not be done?
Though I concur that the people involved should not be videoed for the benefit of those who may be so unfortunate as to chance upon the wildly inappropriate and repulsive act committed in the most... unhygenic of places, I believe that this should be more of a 'could' issue as opposed to a 'should' issue. In my earnest opinion, if the couple were to have the gall to perform the act on public transport, that would mean they had no issues with anyone looking, or videotaping for that matter of fact.
Regardless, no one was at fault. Some jest, likening the internet to a public bathroom wall; as a sleazy platform. Yet, this brings us to the fact that the internet may similarly likened to a country, or even a world, which has a gamut of places from malls to houses, just that these places are the websites in the internet. Then again though, it boils down to whether the internet transcends what we define to be public and private. We choose what we view, comment on the internet, just like how we can control the houses we visit, we can extend control over the sites we visit. There is nothing wrong in uploading a video taken in a public place into another space, and there is even less problem in the people who perform the act as it was not meant to be private as they did it in public.
Of course, some may violently disagree on the basis that the content may be viewed by inappropriate audiences such as how children accidentally chance upon porn, or as a matter of fact, this act, it is undeniable that children can be protected from it. As how a child may be free from negative influence by imposing curfews and locking him up at home, a child can be protected on the net by using the many programs that are already available on the net.
Hence, actually if someone were to be faulted, it should be the people who watch the video and was effronted as it was their personal choice
However, I am not entirely rejecting the possibility that the act could have been done in impulse and the person who took the video should be blamed as they have already tried to be as discreet as possible. Then again, they have allowed their instincts to overcome rationality, and it does stand as a fact that they have committed a mistake and they must face the music. Just like how a child is punished for his mistakes, adults should be too.
In retrospect, long as an act has been performed in public, the act can should face no restriction, it should be allowed to be viewed at anyone's discretion. There shouldnt be any limits, unless a person were to perform an act privately and it is publicized
Just my two cents worth.
Kaleb :) Howled at 5:30 PM
Hmm looks like I'm one of the few who got scammed into waking up early today.
So anw, heres the response to the GP e-learning thingy.
Article 1: "Bus sex videotaping"
Should the people involved be videoed?
I would take it as an established common consensus to not take videos and/or photos of others without their consent. Under the heavy influence of the Western emphasis on personal space, such acts can be seen as a intrusion of privacy, and deemed highly socially undesirable and illegal to some extent.
However, in this time and age, it is hardly possible to restrict others from taking a picture or a video with or without consent. The camera-integrated hand phones makes it so much easier for "stealth". Besides, as mentioned in the article, critical evidence may present itself in the form of these "unauthorized" pictures and video. As such, it is hard to impose a hard and fast rule as for what can or cannot be filmed. It is also almost impossible to regulate such actions.
Hence, the focus should instead be on the issue of whether such materials should be posted on public channels and made available for the public. One may argue that taking these "unauthorized" pictures or videos for personal use (or pleasure. or idk-what-and-i-dun-wanna-know-what) will not affect the lives of anyone else besides themselves. However, the act of uploading the video and making it available to public means it is now open to public criticism and defamation of the subjects. Now, that will not only violate personal privacy, but also involve public disclosure of private facts.
In short, my stand is that the people involved should not have been filmed. But more so, the film should not have been uploaded and made public.
Who is at fault?
Once again, it is undisputable that both parties are at fault.
No doubt, the teens should keep their hanky-panky activities somewhere private, away from the watchful eyes of innocent kiddies, and not-so-innocent people like the filmer, and the definately-not-innocent cheekopeks outs there. However high and raging their hormones may be, it doesnt call for a public display of any sort.
The video-taker, on the other hand, could have kindly ask them to stop or inform the bus driver. Or even just sit there and enjoy the "free show" (okay i did not say that).
Anything that does not involve whipping out his camera and filming the incident. Doing so makes his intentions highly suspicious. We all know how some people are just too free and like to post materials on STOMP to gain attention (only to be shot down quite badly. which is QUITE amusing).
What is the use of raising these kind of "public awareness"?! Whatever it is, I'm quite sure it doesnt erase the disturbing scene from children's minds; it doesnt make Singapore a better society; it doesnt right the fact that you were snooping around; and most importantly, more often then not, you tempt teen's curiosity and encourage them to "explore".
What should not be done?
Uhhh i think i kinda covered this already. In short, don't do it on a bus or anywhere public, don't intrude privacy, and definately don't be an ass/attention whore and put it up on the internet, thinking tt it'd gain u some fame and praise. Knowing the critical world out there, its highly likely that you'd back fire.
Yeah tts all. Sry, couldn't really keep the serious tone after a while.
-Tian Ci :D Howled at 9:25 AM
