My Scouting Light

How was the weekend for you? Did any Boy/Girl Scout knock on your door asking for a job?
Well apparently I was part of the some 10,000 Scouts scattered all over Singapore, knocking on doors of residences offering my services.

Click HERE to find out more about Job week.

Job Week aside, today’s entry will revolve around my experience as a Scout.



Being a Scout since my Secondary school days, I’ve been through many stages (i.e. junior, senior, Patrol Leader, Venture). Very clearly, there is a STRUCTURE of HIERARCHY in place, whereby power comes from status, which in turn depends on one’s age. Authority is defined in such a way that anyone of a higher “level” has the rights to give orders to anyone of a lower “level”, and the latter has to follow the orders. Very seldom is there room for questioning, and whether or not the rationale behind such decisions is made known will depend on the individual senior. As such, communication is very much DOWNWARD, and very little UPWARD. While this may be a common characteristic among all Uniformed Groups, it can actually be a bad thing. Consider a junior member following his/her senior instructions without knowing why it is being done. He/She has no rights to question the given instructions, and hence remains mum even though he/she is puzzled. After some time, when the junior member becomes a senior, he/she gives the same set of instructions just because it was done that way the last time. Over the years, the same situation repeats itself many times over. Obviously, times change and there will be new and better ways to cope with the different context. But because no one could ever question why something was done in a certain way, the new and better ways will never be utilized despite the different context. Now that’s what we would call “an outdated method”.

There was also a great amount of HORIZONTAL COMMUNICATION involved. At all levels, it is required. As a junior, we were taught the notion of “one for all, & all for one”. This meant that we had to identify ourselves not as individuals, but as one unified group. Prompted by many reminders (in the form of punishment and scolding), we got to know each other within the same level better. When we moved on to becoming the leaders and being part of a Leaders Committee, we also required a fair bit of horizontal communication. With each of us playing our individual roles (i.e. treasurer, logistics, admin, training, quartermaster etc.), we had to have connections with each other in order for things to run smoothly. It was the whole idea of synergy and doing things collectively.

Currently I am a Venture holding the position of vice-chairperson. Being Ventures, we are no longer bound under a rigid system and have greater autonomy in doing things. However, this has led me to realize the bureaucracy involved when conducting an activity. While we were not as controlled (in terms of a prescribed set of activities set by adult leaders and teachers), we still had to go through many levels approval. From the adult leaders to the teachers-in-charge all the way to the school principal, nearly all plans have to go through the many levels before they can executed. Is it necessary? Technically yes, especially when dealing with the issue of safety. But then again, if safety is emphasized too much, the element of adventure will be removed. Scouting without the adventurous spirit; that just doesn’t seem right.

Just in case you do not know, for my unit, Ventures and Scouts are 2 sub-units under one name. Despite being run by separate executive committees and having different activities, the 2 sub-units actually are closely tied together. The Ventures will provide help and expertise to the Scouts in times of competition, and also plan special activities for the younger ones. On the reverse, the Scouts provide the Ventures with equipment and other forms of logistical support.

Well, that’s about all I have to say.
Bye!

Coming Of Age On The Internet

ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2009) — In the mid-90s, the Internet seemed like a dark place. Indeed, scientific studies from that time were documenting some real risks for teenagers, including fewer close friendships and more tenuous connections with family. It appeared that teens were sacrificing real relationships for superficial cyber-relationships with total strangers.

Is this still true? Social scientists are revisiting those early concerns, and some are coming to believe that the psychological benefits may now outweigh the detrimental effects. In a new report in Current Directions in Psychological Science psychologists Patti Valkenburg and Jochen Peter of the University of Amsterdam took a look at a decade of research on these questions, and they believe two important historical changes have altered the psychological landscape.

First, the sheer number of teenagers now using the Internet has transformed the technology into a true social networking tool. Even in the late 90s, only about one in ten adolescents were online, which meant that kids actually had to choose between online relationships and real relationships. There was very little overlap, so it was very difficult to maintain flesh-and-blood relations while exploring cyberspace. Today, Valkenburg and Peter say, the vast majority of teenagers in Western countries have access to the Internet, and most appear to use the technology to nurture their existing relationships rather than to forge new ones.

Second, the newer communication tools also encourage building on existing relationships rather than isolating. In the 90s, the few teens who did spend time on the Internet tended to hang out with strangers in public chat rooms and so-called MUDS, multi-user dungeons. The appearance of instant messaging and social networks like Facebook has changed all that, according to the psychologists. Today, more than eight in ten teenagers use IM to connect with the same friends they see at school and work.

Recent studies document the positive effects of these technological changes. But what exactly is going on in the minds of the teenagers to produce this greater sense of well-being? Valkenburg and Peter believe that the 21st century Internet encourages honest talking about very personal issues - feelings, worries, vulnerabilities - that are difficult for many self-conscious teens to talk about. When they communicate through the Internet, they have fewer sounds and sights and social cues to distract them, so they become less concerned with how others perceive them. This in turn reduces inhibition, leading to unusually intimate talk.

The psychologists have also shown that "hyperpersonal" Internet talk leads to higher quality friendships, and that these quality friendships buffer teenagers against stress and lead to greater happiness. However, solitary "surfing" of the Internet has no positive effects on connectedness or well-being, and hanging around public chat rooms - though much rarer - still appears psychologically risky.

Indeed, with the Internet being so common and easily accessible, it has become a true social networking tool. Just like the article puts it, people can use this technology to nurture existing relationships (through instant messaging and facebook). The absence of visual and audio distractions gives youngsters the opportunity to be more personal. Moreover, the lack of eye-to-eye contact removes the possible awkwardness that may exist when being personal during a face-to-face conversation. With such reasons, people will then be able to forge closer and stronger ties amongst one another.

But have you ever thought about how the “ease” of expression can actually spiral into the situation of “dual personality”? Consider a really self-conscious person who isn’t really comfortable with face-to-face social interactions. When he/she goes online, he/she feels a lot more at ease, and hence assumes an energetic and enthusiastic personality. As such, his personality in virtual space contradicts his real-life personality. Well I’m not saying that everyone will be like that, and neither am I saying that it’s a bad thing, but this is simply just some food for thought.

Another concern arises when I read thru the article. While it is a good thing that we gain better friendships because of the internet, are we overlooking the point that we are sacrificing something else at the same time? We should know that it is nearly always in life that a gain is matched with a loss (regardless of the size). Seldom are the situations where we reap benefits without paying a price. In this case, we gain better quality in our friendships, but at the same time we are losing the tight family bonds. As you see, with a more “valid” reason to go online (i.e. to nurture friendships), teens are spending a lot more time instant messaging, facebook’ing and twitter’ing. As a result, time for the family is reduced, family ties are weakened, and family slowly loses its importance. So much so that if things carry on this way, family will soon have to take a backseat to friendship. Seriously, there are already some families caught in such a situation, and it’s a sad thing.

Are friendships really that important?
Even to the extent that family can take a backseat?
Will you exchange family for friends?

I do have to acknowledge that this greater emphasis on friendships has its advantage too. Just like what the article says, quality friendships keeps stress away and makes one a happier person. Also, with such healthy friendships, lesser teens will seek comfort thru strangers on the web, preventing many from falling prey to cyber cheats.

Politics and the Internet

Exposed to it nearly everywhere and all the time, our lives are not only influenced, but to some extent controlled by it.

So what is it? It’s MASS MEDIA.

Mass Media – channels/technologies, that serve as a means of transmission/transfer, having the capacity to convey messages/information to large numbers of people

Over the years, with the Industrial Revolution and other technological advancements, more and more forms of media are being included under the huge umbrella of mass media. From its simple beginnings of print media (i.e. newspapers & books), mass media slowly started to include other forms such as the radio and broadcast television. And to date, with complex telecommunication systems and comprehensive broadband networks, cell phones and the internet (together with other new media) are also joining the pack.

YOU ARE READING A FORM OF MASS MEDIA RIGHT NOW! =O

Today, I would like to refer you to an article in the forum of The Straits Times (Saturday, February 28 2009):

Govt must pick its battles on the Net
More than a decade after the internet has entered our lives, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is talking up the “new media” for the next General Election.
“New media” has long been staple media, so much so that today’s “traditional media” would probably collapse if its journalist did not have the Internet.
The PM’s recent interview with Channel NewsAsia displayed his awareness of the Internet factor in the United States and Malaysia elections last year.
US President Barack Obama harnessed the technology to raise funds. He romanced a tech-savvy generation by being clued into a platform intimate to them.
In Malaysia, opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s coalition used the Net as an alternative news source, delivering the United Malays Nation Organisation (Umno) its worst electoral blow since independence.
By acknowledging the internet as an election fighting ground, PM Lee has changed the political paradigm and will have to accept that at least one glove will be off in online debates.
It is a move borne out of the necessity of the changing times. It is the move of a leader in touch with trends and readying his troops for reality.
Any attempt to silence of persecute the alternative voices online will undermine the Government’s sincerity to engage on this platform.
Yes, there are fools online. There are also many posters with considered opinions, as well as a whole spectrum in between.
The last thing the Government needs to do is to attempt to draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not.
It can do that on other hunting grounds but not the internet if it wants to stay credible.
That is the nature of the beast.
The strategy should be to pick its fights with posters who make sense – even if highly critical – and offer the fools dignified silence.
Responses must be comprehensive and not patronising.
The willingness to engage and respond will determine if the Government’s Internet electoral campaign is a success.
That the People’s Action Party will continue as the Government beyond the next election is almost a given.
But how it performs in the impossibly lawless extremes of the Internet will indicate how much the Government has changed in dealing with the alternative public discourse.
Young and capable Singaporeans – exposed to a global village brought about largely by the “new media” – are sophisticated and opinionated.
Only when they can see that politics is tolerant of different views, will more people step up to serve.
Chan Tau Chou

The Internet is definitely an interesting form of media. Unlike the traditional properties of mass media, the internet has introduced many alterations:

1. Sources in mass media are no longer exclusively large, complex organizations, or some entity or part of such an organization. There is media abundance in today’s media environment due to the available capacity, and there are minimal barriers of entry in producing mass media content.

2. There is a much greater degree of interactivity with the media. One can easily provide direct feedback to producers of mass media content via portals like message boards and forums.

3. Audience segmentation is possible, with direct feedback and relevant monitoring systems in place.

4. There is a greater level of difficulty in using technology than ever before. From easy-to-operate gadgets like the radio and television, we now have to deal with the complex computer system together with all the programs and features.

These are changes that are occurring and cannot be avoided. We have got to acknowledge and adapt to the changes, just like how the article puts it. Yes, there are going to be many challenges to deal with when it comes to the internet (e.g. flaming, fisking, etc.), but it’s the only way to keep up with the growing trends. Moreover, this may be a way to spark an interest in politics among the young ones. Engaging local youths through platforms which are relevant to them, like Facebook perhaps? We do need to understand that these youths are going to be the leaders in the not-so-far future…

Well of course, there are also many other factors which come into play, but utilizing the internet is possibly one of the best ways to get our youngsters talking about politics.

What do you think?