President’s Star Charity Show- is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?

President’s Star Charity Show is an annual event in Singapore. The artistes are invited to perform to public to milk the public’s compassion for more donations. However, somebody doubt that is it necessary for these artistes to carry out more and more pompous performance to stimulate public’s compassion these year. The doubt is reasonable, because the amount of donation in President’s Star Charity Show is really decreasing these years and the pompous performances do not stop it at all. In my opinion, there is no need for artistes to perform stunts to milk people’s compassion for more generous donation.

Firstly, a pompous performance actually can not milk public’s compassion at all. It will be good if stunts can stimulate public’s compassion. However, there is no relationship between stunts and compassion. Enjoying a stunt is a kind of entertainment; it makes the audience felt comfortable and happy things. But how can the entertainment link to the donation? How can they know the difficulties the poor faced? And then how can they show their sympathy on the poor in this way? You see, during the Charity Show, there are full of screaming and shouting when the famous artistes appear under the spotlight. It is like a vocal recital, the audiences’ aims are to see there own idol but not because of charity. In this way, the Charity Show became useless, and the main idea had changed. Thus, it is no good for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion.

Secondly, a great show means a lot of money, even if the artistes do not need pay. And some people say, the government has enough money to hold the great show, but why the government does not have money to help the poor. They also say that was the main reason why they decrease their donations. And some people say, why not the artistes donate more money to the charity, but carry out showy performances without real worth. Yes, if this large amount of money can be donated to the poor, it will help them more. Thus, the pompous performance is no need in the Charity Show.

However, I can not say the Charity Show is no use. We need appropriate people to propagate the thing to public. You see, people will not donate any money if they do not know the charity at all. The famous stars become the ideal propagators. They can make more people fix their eyes on the event. And no other better way is more effective than that. The more people fix on the charity, the more donations will be. There is no doubt that the Charity Show playing an important role in milking others’ compassion and enhancing the donations.

Nowadays, the gap between the rich and the poor becomes bigger and bigger. The rich people can not really understand the situation the poor faced, thus, the compassion loses. We need the Charity Show to make people remind their compassion. However, the Show shouldn’t me an entertainment event. Therefore, it is no need for artistes to perform stunts. And they should do something really relate to the poor and charity.

Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore

Mr. Brown, as many people known, was called the Father of Blogs in Singapore. He was the first one who initiated the popularity of writing blogs in Singapore. Otherwise, he was also the first one who put personal political commentary in his blogs. Nowadays, the government becomes more open. More advices from public are acceptable to governors. People have the freedom of speech so that they are allowed to talk about the political freely. But do we need regulation to control the political commentary on the internet? Most people do not think it is a wise measure because it means a limitation to the freedom of speech. But I think appropriate regulation of political commentary on the Internet is important.

Firstly, wrong political commentary would lead teenagers to astray. Different kinds of opinions exist in the internet, including criticizes to the government. However not everything in the internet is true. Moreover, internet also offers people especially students a convenient place to get information and study new things. Thus, one piece of information can easily spread widely through the internet. For example, some local people lost their job in the finical crisis; they thought foreign workers snatch their jobs, which is clearly not right; and then this idea spread among the internet. Many people then asked the government to reduce the foreign staff and preserve the benefits of local people. The things also made some local people, including students, hate the foreigners who were actually innocent. This kind of misunderstandings could teach teenagers or students wrong information. Adults can reorganize which they should follow and which should not follow. However, teenagers do not have this ability; therefore, it is easier for teenagers to be affected by wrong political commentary.

Secondly, it is no good for other countries to know our domestic political. Internet is a global thing. Everything on the internet in shared to others all over the world. The foreigners can easily find the political commentary in Singapore. There was an old saying, “Don’t wash your dirty linen in public.” That is said domestic shame should not be made in public. These commentaries will leave a bad impression for the government to the other countries, though some of them may not have any basis. Besides, these entire things are considered as a kind of intelligence of nation. Some of them may not be so serious to be exposed. But the things like the locations of military facilities, power stations or reservoirs are both so important that they cannot be exposed. People may not tell these things on purpose, but the information will be contained in the political commentary unwittingly. Thus, in this way, regulation of political commentary on the Internet is necessary.

However, the regulation is still a limitation to the freedom of speech. We should admit that a country cannot run properly if the people do not have the freedom of speech. And we should also admit that these political commentaries from public help the government a lot to correct its mistakes. Without these advices or commentaries, it will be more difficult for the government to find the mistakes itself. Thus, the regulation seems to be an unwise measure.

After weighing the point I get above, I still think the regulation is essential. Although the freedom of speech is also important, people can still express themselves in other ways like connecting with the local government directly, not only on the internet. And regulation doesn’t mean absolutely no, it is just a measure to help people to raise a advise properly and protect the welfare of nation.