No more shark’s fin at NTUC

From ‘Don’t curb our taste for shark’s fin soup’, 7 Jan 2012, ST Forum

(Colin Loh):…While I understand that the inhumane way in which sharks are culled for their fins may be a major concern to many, I still enjoy my shark’s fin soup and hope that the farming of sharks happens soon. As long as an animal is not unduly subjected to unnecessary suffering, all meat is, pardon the pun, game.

After all, pigs at abattoirs are herded through rings where they are either stunned by electricity or gassed before they are slaughtered. While it is one thing for restaurants to discourage diners from ordering shark’s fin soup and substitute it with similarly tasty concoctions, it is another to loudly proclaim during a wedding dinner that fellow diners should be ashamed of consuming the dish.

The ‘healing properties’ of exotic animal parts are not ‘alleged’ but anecdotal. Similarly, should we ban traditional Chinese medicine, which is experiential rather than scientific?

I wish for reasonableness to prevail this year.

While this shark’s fin soup lover was preparing this letter in response to the Vegetarian Society for complaining about stir-fried snake, NTUC decided to pull all shark’s fin products off their shelves come April. This was followed by Carrefour in a string of copycat proclamations of ‘social responsibility’ in light of the ethical, and politically charged, issue of shark finning. But what’s absurd about this sudden surge of empathy is that these major chains did not submit to any concerted, well argued call to ban the sale from environmentalist groups. No, this wasn’t a decision made in light of facts and figures of declining shark populations, contaminated mercury or new studies showing that sharks die a slow, painful death with their fins lopped off. This came from an exaggerated outrage to a Facebook post by a Thern Da Seafood employee about ‘screwing the divers’. It was reported that Facebook flamers and trolls threatened to boycott Fairprice for manager Chris Lee’s indiscretion, who has since been fired and unwittingly become a shark saviour and martyr,  whose thoughtlessly profane comment accomplished within 24 hours what the anti-shark’s fin camp with all their marine research, catchy slogans, emotive sob-stories and pie-charts have been trying to do for more than a decade.

Anti-shark's fin ad campaign in 2001

The inhumanity of finning has been argued as somewhat of an exaggeration or ‘urban legend’ if you will. According to animal expert Giam Choo Hoo, most fins are taken after death, and shark MEAT itself is still consumed in many parts of the world (In fact, if you want to feel good about yourself ‘not wasting the poor shark’, you can check out Hwee Kee in Hong Lim Complex, Chinatown). Nonetheless, it’s not the scientists and activists that purveyors of the delicacy are worried about, but rather their Facebook-savvy potential customers. In 2009, Meritus Mandarin pulled out a bizarre concoction of ‘sharks’ fin mooncake’ in response to online vehemence. Posts include:

“Hello, it’s a terrible shame that your restaurant owners are publicly displaying a total lack of intelligence by selling shark fins. You should be ashamed of yourselves.”

“…This barbaric act of promoting overpriced shark’s fin mooncake reflects badly on the hotel, Chinese people and Singapore in the eyes of the world! We are all standing united to boycott Meritus Mandarin and Pine Court Restaurant!”

Again, the use of the ‘B’ word. It’s likely that such crusaders spew diatribes against the shark’s fin industry and how it’s a disgrace to CHINESE culture on one hand, yet slurp up drunken prawns and suckling pig with gusto on the other. I personally wouldn’t miss the taste, or rather lack of taste, of shark’s fin (in broth or mooncake form), a food that I suspect could be chemically synthesised to perfect mimicry if there wasn’t a fear of incurring the wrath of the global conglomerate of shark’s fin suppliers. The only reason for shark’s fin soup’s appeal is not so much for its gustatory pleasures, but rather that it’s expensive, and anything expensive and scarce must be good stuff.  It’s like mediocre wine packaged in a grand bottle with a hefty price tag and we wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. Food journalists and chefs used to wax lyrical over this revered piece of cartilage, calling it a ‘measure of sophistication’ and ‘luxurious’.  In the 50′s foodies were already proudly publishing recipes like shark’s fin in BROWN sauce, and feeding this to royal guests like Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh.  Today, anyone swooning over shark’s fin or even suggesting how they should be cooked would be treated with the same contempt as one who feasts on aborted  foetuses.

Still, NTUC’s reaction to Facebook postings may be counterproductive to the Cause, as shark’s fin lovers may rush to stockpile the delicacy before the ban in April. Traditionally regarded as a prize dish to woo guests as a display of pomp and generosity, the ethics of shark’s fin soup has emerged as a fiery polemic short of making its way into Parliamentary debate over the past decade. To date it has been banned from Cold Storage (2011) and RWS in 2008, though one has to be skeptical if these big-time players were genuinely jolted by a sense of duty and moral conscience rather than merely pulling off a publicity stunt on account of sustainable fishing. In fact, RWS was caught out serving the supposedly banned dish only to high rollers, which makes its ‘moral’ position somewhat dubious. Shark, of course, isn’t the only depleting marine resource in the oceans, and no one is going to pull TIGER PRAWNS off the shelves since, well,  prawns presumably don’t suffer as much as sharks.

In June last year a British woman suspended herself with fish hooks in protest against the violation of shark rights. And all that’s needed here was a Facebook ruckus. Now, if only Finding Nemo had been about a lost baby shark instead of a clownfish…

About these ads

Seng Han Thong’s nightmare before Christmas

From ‘MP Seng not racist, says Shanmugam’, 25 Dec 2011, article by Teo Wan Gek, Sunday Times

…During a Channel NewsAsia programme Blog TV, which aired on Monday, Mr Seng made a comment which some found to be racist. He was asked about the lack of communication with passengers during the evening peak-hour breakdown of MRT trains last Thursday.

In his response, he misquoted an SMRT officer, who had earlier said: ‘Our staff at the stations and in the trains may not be making sufficient announcements and also good enough announcements. And that’s because our staff of different races, it could be Malay, Chinese, or Indians or any other race, they sometimes find it difficult to speak in English.’

But Mr Seng, when rebutting the officer’s comments, mentioned only Malay and Indian train drivers. He later clarified that he misheard the SMRT officer’s remarks, which he had heard over radio while driving.

…Mr Seng has since apologised for his remarks.

It’s Christmas Day, and instead of government officials sending well wishes or attending to holiday ‘ponding’, they’re spending time on damage control over an MP’s blooper, or Freudian slip, whatever critics want to call it. A driver who’s unable to calm passengers in the midst of an emergency breakdown is a victim of inadequate training, drills and SOPs. As an organisation with a rigid mastery over templates, surely there should be some standard announcements in place to aid anxious train drivers during disruptions.  This is all just one finger-pointing and tactless blame-shifting after another between various MPs, an SMRT vice president named Goh Chee Kong, and train drivers . If this incident and Desmond Choo’s backfired sexist anecdote tells us anything, it’s that politicians need to stop paraphrasing totally, or learn how to use the disclaimer ‘I quote’ or read excerpts out loud from pieces of paper instead.

In Seng’s defence, he seems to suggest that ‘broken English’ is OK when desperate times call for it, which runs counter to the efforts of our Speak Good English campaign, that lapsing into sub-par English is our ‘default’ setting in stressful situations, while putting on Good English politeness for mundane things such as telling someone that you need to ‘excuse yourself’ for the washroom is expected of us.  In fact, broken English/Singlish, by doing away with time-wasting grammatical formalities, would be ideal in a situation where every second counts and sounding professional should be the least of your worries. The problem is speaking English of any sort, whether broken or of the pristine BBC standard, isn’t very useful when one considers elderly passengers who would be more prone to fainting spells or injuries in the event of a disruption, in which you would have to depend on good Samaritans to do the necessary translation, provided of course that the driver is relaying the right instructions, and that passengers are not busy smashing windows for air in panic. You can bet SMRT will not be happily celebrating their annual Xmas dinner, despite earning the title of the year’s biggest turkey. Even if there was some form of celebration, you can bet no one wants to be caught pants down being treated like a pharaoh like CEO Saw Phaik Hwa in a previous DnD. You probably wouldn’t see the Dim Sum Dollies providing the night’s entertainment as well.

Seng Han Thong’s faux pas is mild compared to the remark on Indians by ex-MP and soon to be convict (twice) Choo Wee Khiang, whose atrocious joke on skin colour qualifies as true racism.  But being labelled a racist and trolled online isn’t the worst that this man has suffered. In Jan 2009, MP Seng was literally FLAMED by an assailant whilst attending a community event as Yio Chu Kang GRC MP. He was inflicted with burns on 15% of his body and his attacker was determined to be a 70 year old retired taxi driver who was subsequently admitted to IMH. Even then, not everyone was sympathetic, with some forum users adopting a ‘let this be a lesson to MPs for bullying the elderly‘ tone, adding ‘fuel to the fire’. The MP torcher was even lauded as a ‘courageous hero’ by others.

It appears that MP Seng has a history of drawing the ire of crazy old taxi drivers. Earlier in July 2006, he was punched in the face, again by a 70-plus former cab driver during a Meet the People session. The attacker was reportedly unhappy that his contract was terminated by ComfortDelgro and demanded an answer from his MP. Despite being boxed in the face and suffering the trauma of being burnt alive, this man continues to serve, though he  might be wearing asbestos underwear wherever he goes and have a phobia of blowing birthday candles for the rest of his life.

Merry Christmas everyone.

One man’s breakdown is another’s income opportunity

From ‘SMRT says sorry for its message to cabbies’, 16 Dec 2011, article by Daryl Chin, ST

SMRT has apologised for a message it broadcast to its fleet of taxis yesterday amid the chaos on the subway system. The message, which flashed on its drivers’ screens at about 8pm, read: ‘Income opportunity. Dear partners, there is a breakdown in our MRT train services from Bishan MRT to Marina Bay MRT stretch of stations.’

A photo of the screen – presumably taken by a passenger – soon appeared on social networking site Twitter and spread online, drawing sharp criticism.

‘Bad enough they are raising taxi fares, now they want to cash in on an event that is their fault to begin with,’ said sales assistant Candice Tan, 24, one of the many who tweeted about it.

Attempts to contact the photographer were unsuccessful. The message, presumably sent by SMRT call centrestaff, would have reached all 3,100 taxis in its fleet. An SMRT spokesman said last night: ‘We are sorry for the oversight. Our staff were using a template message, and we have since corrected it.’

Some More Revenue, Taxis!

The second breakdown in a week came after a Circle Line delay the day before. News of the trauma of passengers stuck in tunnels went live before SMRT could even recover from the backlash of its ‘official statement’ fiasco yesterday. Train windows were smashed out of desperation, passengers plunged into darkness and sent on a pitch-black tunnel march between City Hall and Dhoby Ghaut, images which anyone who’s seen the 90′s Sylvester Stallone disaster movie Daylight would find hauntingly familiar. I exaggerated in a previous post that SMRT was keeping silent because of zombie carnage in the train and on platforms, and looking at the state of chaos and the contorted faces of victims in agony, it appears that I wasn’t too far off the mark.

SMRT: Tunnel vision

Seems like SMRT is running out of ‘I’m sorry’ templates too. Here it’s ‘We are sorry for the oversight‘, last night it was:

We sincerely apologise for the inconvenience caused…Preliminary investigation shows that around 40m of the power rail had been damaged between the City Hall and Dhoby Ghaut stations.

Inconvenience, of course, is a gross understatement, especially if you have passengers gasping for air, resorting to sacrificing fire extinguishers to smash windows to stay alive. One can only guess at the kind of mixed feelings that cabbies would have capitalising on stranded, desperate commuters only too eager to head home after a hard day’s work, although the cruel coincidence of the two incendiary events (MRT breakdown, taxi fare hike) reeks of a backdoor cost-recovery conspiracy on the part of SMRT, which not only has to deal with ticket refunds and whatever damages sustained because of angry, oxygen-deprived mobs, but foreigners sueing them for negligence after having their legs pulverised by trains. Or perhaps so much attention was given to ‘security breaches’ that there were simply not enough people to inspect cables every once in a while. Give me a graffitti-strewn train that gets me to work and home on the dot rather than a squeaky clean one that disgorges passengers into tunnels smack  in the middle of nowhere.

SMRT isn’t the only body exploiting the misfortune of others. Just after the Japanese tsunami in March this year, Mediacorp sent out an email soliciting for advertisers who might be interested in ‘breaking news’ coverage, each 30-second commercial costing $5000. Edwin Koh, Senior Vice President, stepped up to ‘apologise unreservedly if we had been seen to be insensitive to the gravity of the situation’. Note that it could have been either Mediacorp or SMRT who wanted to hush up DJ Hossan Leong for tweeting about the Circle Line fault yesterday as well. But it’s only the amoral nature of business after all, and corporations like these two have been ‘cashing’ in way before the advent of social media, whether we like it or not. Pharmaceutical giants ‘cash in’ whenever there’s an outbreak of disease, weapon manufacturers in the event of war, and likewise a swarm of passengers with nowhere to go is prime catch for cabbies.  Whether you call it ‘good business’ or ‘income opportunity’, the fact of the matter, as it is everywhere else, is that there is always a market for misfortune. It’s just unfortunate that an ‘oversight’ exposed the unfeeling machine that SMRT really was all along. So much for ‘MOVING people, ENHANCING lives’ as its motto boasts, when it has done the exact opposite these past few days.

Tsunami=Income opportunity

Let’s not forget another player in the grand scheme of things; ComfortDelgro for raising fees in the first place, after which we’ve seen wave after wave of sociopathic behavior occurring, from old men vandalising taxis, to graffitti on taxi panels about how we’re like ‘donkeys’ and always ‘Pay and Pay’, and the most ‘Grand Theft Auto’ of them all, a Trans cab taxi going on a hit-and-run rampage across town. Police blamed it on DRUGS, naturally. Maybe it’s the same drug that the SMRT spokespeople have been taking these couple of days, one that depletes every ounce of empathy in your body. Then again, according to writer/film-maker/lawyer Joel Bakan, corporations  are inherently self-interested psychopaths, with one of the traits being a ‘callous unconcern for the feelings of others’. A big, fat ‘Check’.

Nobody died during the shutdown last night (though it was reported that one fainted), but if there’s anybody that should be ‘apologising unreservedly’ it should be an actual PERSON, not the epitome of insincerity  in the form of the collective ‘WE’, crafting a response with the cut-and-paste dexterity as one garbles swill from random leftovers for pigs. The only trait that separates a chief mafioso from a company head in the context of exploiting tragedies for personal profit is that the gangster never needs to apologise.  This is how conspiracy theorists would view this situation: If you’re stuck with a cure (fare hikes to alleviate cabbies’ miserable takings) which nobody wants to take, then you have to create the disease (train failures). The truth is ‘shit happens’, but adding to the stink with a ‘template oversight’ is just ‘full of it’.

We want to see a sorry face, not a sorry excuse for an answer.

Postscript: And here’s SMRT CEO Saw Phaik Hwa’s ‘very, very sorry face’ during a press conference later in the day. Isabella Loh must be thanking the heavens she never got into a seat as hot as this.

CEOs can resign, it is whether they choose to

Occupy Raffles Place is a joke

From ‘Only a handful turn up for planned protest in Singapore’, 16 Oct 2011, article by Amanda Tan, Sunday Times

The bravado for a planned protest at Raffles Place on Saturday afternoon fizzled out after fewer than 20 people turned up over several hours at the spot where it was supposed to have taken place. Occupy Raffles Place, a protest modelled after its Wall Street counterpart, was intended to be a ‘peaceful movement’ to demand accountability and change, said its unidentified organisers, who launched the campaign on social networking site Facebook earlier this month.

They argued that the ‘wealth of 99 per cent’ of Singaporeans is in the hands of ’1 per cent’ – Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation. Organisers said they planned to march towards SGX Centre after meeting fellow protesters at the open space outside Raffles Place MRT Station. But the police warned the public last week against taking part in the protest, as it is considered unlawful.

…Despite the online chatter, only curious onlookers – most of them foreigners and armed with cameras – had gathered by 2pm on Saturday, the time when the event was to start. Members of the media made up more than half of those present. No placards or banners could be seen. Nor did anyone step out to identify themselves.

Instead, the organisers hid behind their Facebook and Twitter accounts, posting messages such as ‘We should try this again on Monday morning?’ and ‘Where is everyone right now?’ At about 3.30pm, they declared it a ‘no-show’ and said that they were ‘heading to #OccupyOrchardRoad’.

Eventually, as netizens labelled the event a ‘joke’, they posted a note in the evening saying: ‘Those who have come out today to show your support for the occupation, you were heroes. It means an awful lot to be courageous men and women.’

Everyone is occupied

There are a few reasons why OccupySG turned out to be a failure, not least because the police were keeping an eye on this (it applies everywhere else in the world where people gather to make some noise), but for what I propose to be the following:

1. Who are the 99% exactly? 99% is a bold statistic but what does this really mean? Do Temasek and GIC really hold 99% of the wealth of all Singaporeans? Or did it fail because a sizeable portion of us are already relatively well-off (according to Bloomberg, 15.5% of Singaporean households draw ‘millionaire’ incomes) and lack the motivation to protest about wealth distribution?99% of what? According to the we are the 99% blog,

They are the 1 percent. They are the banks, the mortgage industry, the insurance industry. They are the important ones. They need help and get bailed out and are praised as job creators. We need help and get nothing and are called entitled. We live in a society made for them, not for us. It’s their world, not ours. If we’re lucky, they’ll let us work in it so long as we don’t question the extent of their charity.

We are the 99 percent. We are everyone else.

It appears that EVERYONE else is either jobless, has no money to pay hospital bills, can’t afford a university education or the monthly mortgage, i.e 99% of us are discontent. And therein lies the problem of this movement. 99% is just one of those catchy, easy to remember, mantras plucked out of thin air which you can’t apply any scientific rigour to, coined to create a bloated sense of us-vs-them solidarity. The actual percentage of victims (if that can even be defined) is more likely to include at least 2 decimal points.  It’s like perspiration when one talks about what  ‘Genius’ consists of (99% perspiration, 1% inspiration according to Thomas Edison).  In fact there’s a correlation between the two; maybe ’99%’ 0f us work our butts off to just get by, while the ’1%’ are the privileged ultra-rich who rely on a mixture of cunning and speculation.  99% is also a popular figure thrown about by biologists to convince us that we’re only 1% different from chimpanzees (We’re not). But seriously, income disparity? Mega-rich running the world? Tell me something I don’t already know. Would the Occupy folks be happy with, say, 50-50?

2. It is over-ambitious. According to the ‘mission’ taken off the OccupySG Facebook page,

Our purpose is to engage the public in this dialogue and make the voices of the people heard. We want national leaders to hear our concerns about ways to remedy the economic injustice and unfair influence the wealthy have over the political system.

We are a peaceful, non-violent resistance movement that aims to encourage people to participate in democracy and use their voices to influence positive change. We are the 99% and our voice will be heard.

Nowhere in the site does it explain how 99% in the Singaporean context was derived.  Is 99% a global figure or exclusive to the US? The mission also appears distorted to suit the organisers’ own political agenda. They continue to lament about bad investment choices by the accused bodies, and boast about ‘creating a new democracy’. Through a FACEBOOK page. If you’re serious about change, you set up a proper website with links to references for your claims,  not whine on social media about why nobody turns up at your event on a Saturday afternoon. You also have to be specific with your demands and pitch the benefit of sacrificing a precious weekend to the ’99%’, which, in this case, there was none. Where is the HOPE in this? What’s in it for ME? What’s the point of all this really? There’s not even curry to make up for the eventual futility of it. ”OCCUPY’ also has an aggressive, war-like, territorial ring to it, as in ‘Japanese OCCUPATION’, which contradicts the organisers’ claims of being a ‘peaceful’ movement. It’s more like OBSTRUCT really, though it’s not so much Raffles Place being barricaded here, but common sense.

3. Nobody takes anonymous activists seriously. Local organisers should take a look at the original OWS website. Creating a Facebook page and a Twitter account without enquiry channels or an actual living person taking charge casts doubt on the dedication of this ‘movement’, and resembles more like flippant bandwagon-jumping similar to other  internet trends like planking, parkour or flash mobs. You can also bet on a higher attendance if someone organised a ‘Save the RWS Dolphins ‘ day, because the result of a successful protest, no matter how unlikely, is clear (No dolphins at RWS). For Occupy, there isn’t a clear objective to fight for, and it seems like protesting just for the sake of it, capitalising on the recent curry saga which, in spite of the national enthusiasm, really achieved little other than serving as a transient reminder to tolerate one another.  In short, you don’t want to risk getting put in jail when the instigators themselves refuse to stand up and lead by example, especially if nobody has the faintest idea of what they expect to see changed from doing this.

4. Targetting the wrong audience. The REAL ’99%’ of downtrodden people who can’t afford three meals a day wouldn’t have a basic internet connection, not to mention have the luxury to maintain a Facebook/Twitter account. Occupy seems to be obsessed with the divide between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’, without a clue as to how to handle the ‘just-have-enoughs’, which probably applies to the majority of us, people who live in HDB flats, perhaps own a car if lucky, but can’t afford to risk our livelihoods over the Seinfeld equivalent of a protest i.e a show about nothing.

5. It’s easier to boycott than be an active voice for change. Or to put it another way, short of voting, Singaporeans are mostly passive agents of change. It’s easier (and maybe more effective) to turn down a wedding dinner if the host serves shark’s fin soup than march onto a shark-fishing boat and try to toss finning knifes overboard. It’s easier to cook, or eat from, a pot of curry than to seek permit to organise a forum bringing ethnic groups under one roof to  preach tolerance (in two or more languages). It’s easier to save your money on RWS and stay at home if you think training dolphins for entertainment is cruel. Sometimes, non-action works just as well, if not better, than so called ‘non-violent’ movements. It also has the added benefit of being legal, so if you want to be part of the ‘resistance’ and ‘stick it to the Man’, don’t consume Coke, McDonald’s or buy branded goods, patronise a minimart instead of a hypermart,  and avoid the casinos or even recommending them to your friends from overseas. Collectively, for certain cases of corporate greed at least, we can make a difference from doing nothing rather than holding hands around the Supreme Court  or KFC threatening to light ourselves on fire like crazy martryrs.

Overall, it’s not so much being cowed into submission that Singaporeans are less than enthusiastic about the Occupy movement, in case critics label our lacklustre response as a symptom of oppression or apathy.  Rather, it’s because we have better things to do with our time than ape our Western counterparts by customising the OWS to suit our own selfish agendas. We also do not subscribe to an activist herd mentality and organise  viral ‘movements’ only when ‘everyone else is doing it’, yet keeping silent and minding our business like obedient citizens the rest of the time. And here’s a fun fact: Tin Pei Ling has more followers on Twitter than OccupySG.

But I think the real reason is that 15,000 Singaporeans were ‘occupied’ with something of far greater importance on that very day: The Ben and Jerry’s annual Chunkfest.

#OccupyChunkFest

Subway sues nonya kueh chain

From ‘Sandwich chain Subway sues S’porean company Subway niche’, 5 oct 2011, article by Selina Lum, ST

The American owner of the Subway chain of sandwich shops has sued the boss of local nonya kueh chain Subway Niche for trademark infringement. A two-day hearing into the case began in the High Court on Tuesday.

Subway, owned by Florida-based Doctor’s Associates, has been selling sandwiches since 1967 and has become the world’s largest fastfood chain with 34,891 stores in 98 countries. The American company started legal action after it became aware that Subway Niche has begun selling sandwiches. It contends that there is a real likelihood that the public will be confused by the similar marks.

But Subway Niche sole proprietor Lim Eng Wah says ‘subway’ is a common English word. He also asserts that there is no conceptual similarity. As his first outlet was at the basement of Wisma Atria (in 1987) near the Orchard MRT station, the idea behind his business name was to attract MRT commuters. On the other hand, Subway’s name has its roots in the submarine sandwiches that they sell.

Subway Nicked

As hard as it is to believe that Subway, with its fattening cookies-and-chips sides and high-calorie soda beverages, was founded by an American DOCTOR in the late sixties, the fact remains that the ‘little guy’ Subway niche was here first, while Subway the fast-food-disguised-as-healthy-alternative-deli  launched its first Singapore store in Lau Pa Sat almost 10 years later in 1996 according to the company website. If Subway niche had appeared after the emergence of the American sandwich giant, I probably wouldn’t fault the latter for thinking Niche was trying to pass off as a Subway ‘Lite’. or ‘Express’. Even if both ‘subways’ referred to the same type of submarine sandwich (Niche maintains that their SUBWAY refers to actual location), one may apply the same logic to ‘branded’ everyday words like ‘pizza’ or ‘fried chicken’ and wonder why PIZZA Hut isn’t sueing California Pizza, KFC Texas Fried Chicken, or Delifrance Sushi DELI,  for ‘confusing’ fast food fans. Incidentally, Niche’s sandwiches are triangle-cut and reminiscent of what Mommy packs for her kid’s lunchbox, while Subway’s are 6 to 10 inch sloppy schlongs, symbolic of the hostile, domineering manner in which they’re ramming this lawsuit down their opponent’s throat.

Fast food giant bullying is nothing new, though the chief instigator of lawsuits McDonald’s hasn’t had much success beating down small businesses for adding a Scottish twist to their brand, like the locally produced instant ‘MacTea/MacNoodles’ trademark battle in 2004, or the McCurry embarrassment in KL, 2009. The same argument applied then, that usurping a brand name would cause ‘deceit or confusion’, as if grocery shoppers in a supermarket or teh-tarik drinkers would think of ‘upsizing their Happy Meals’ every time they see an item starting with Mc or Mac, though the prefix ‘Mc’ has been applied not just to actual products but as a journalistic device to describe anything that reeks of the same time-cutting, capitalist mass-production ethos of the fast food chain, like McChurch, McJob and McPhone (McWords according to wikipedia). More recently a beverage paying homage to a beloved hazelnut spread got coffee chain TCC into a McSUIT for bearing the name Nutello.

It would be a sad day for local enterprise and nonya kueh if the B.M.T (Big McTyrant) wins this case. For the price you pay for a standard sub you could watch a movie on a weekday, or feed two stomachs at a hawker centre. Subway, you’ve already conquered the world with SUB-satisfactory light-bite excuses for lunch, beating even McDonald’s who can’t sell salad dressing the way you do. Go pick on someone your own size already.

Postscript: The sandwich giant lost the suit, with the judge citing ‘very little evidence of confusion among consumers’.

Singaporeans are less peeved at work than Indians

From ‘S’pore No. 2 in peeves tally’, 30 Sept 2011, article by Jennani Durai, ST

…Singapore has come in second in a survey of 16 countries tallying the number of pet peeves in the office. In the No. 1 spot was India, according to the findings released yesterday by professional networking site LinkedIn.

The 17,000 survey participants – nearly 1,000 were from Singapore – were given a list of 38 possible pet peeves in the office and told to select all that applied to them. Only one peeve listed – overachievers pandering to the boss – had to do with management.

The peeves ranged from the general, such as loud typing and office pranks, to the specific, from hitting ‘reply all’ on mass office e-mail messages to not reloading a printer when it ran out of paper. Singaporeans’ top annoyance: people not taking ownership for their actions. It was also the No. 1 annoyance picked by 78 per cent of the 17,000 respondents.

Rounding up Singaporeans’ top three gripes were dirty common areas – such as shared microwave ovens or refrigerators – and constant complainers.

…There were also gender differences in the findings. For example, 57 per cent of Singaporean women were bothered by ‘clothing that’s too revealing for the workplace’. But only 29 per cent of Singaporean men surveyed found that to be a problem.

Japanese offices don't celebrate April Fool's

Despite the ubiquitousness of office nuisances, a few interesting  cross-cultural observations can be inferred here: Swedish males have the best office jobs in the world, Americans really make themselves at home in office pantries, Indian workers don’t set their mobile phones on silent mode and you can get demoted in Japan for so much as spamming your boss with email jokes.

‘Taking ownership’ is a relatively recent form of corporate-speak which, in the local context at least, usually refers to the act of taking charge of a certain project or task, people who are the ‘go-to’ guys, or in local parlance ‘champions’, for a specific set of skills or experience, but constantly fail to live up to the position entrusted upon them, either shirking responsibility, delegating others to perform odious tasks, or making excuses to dilly-dally. This, to me, isn’t merely a PEEVE, rather a PESTILENCE. These are toxic colleagues who bring down the morale of the whole team, and are often a hot topic of discussion among culprits of the no 2. pet peeve: Constant complainers. Lazy or irresponsible workers/leaders are a social and occupational hazard in any office, not a trifling annoyance along the line of loud typers or mothers who mollycoddle their kids over the phone. The worst sort of colleagues are really those who are an insufferable combination of the two major peeves of ‘laziness’ and ‘sycophant i.e bosses’ favourite’.

Here’s my own list of office peeves:

1. People who print hundreds of copies of documents while you’re waiting in queue just to print one.

2. People who short-form Best Regards to BR in email

3. Complicated phone handling instructions (call forwarding, recording voice message, retrieving voice mail)

4. Having to change passwords every 60 days

5. Having to correct your bosses’ horrible grammar

6. People who interrupt when you’re having a face to face conversation

7. Track changes in Word documents

8. People who use FYAP, FYIA, or any ‘For Your’ acronyms extending beyond four letters. FYIWTFS (FYI, WTF, seriously)

9. People who ask you to resend them emails because they can’t be bothered to archive their inbox or even think of  search tags

10. Horrible laughter

11. Email trails longer than a script for a short film.

12. A birthday card from the CEO with your name spelled wrong

A similar survey was conducted 4 years ago by Mediacorp’s Media Research Consultants in 2007.

The street poll, conducted at office hotspots Raffles Place, Suntec City and the Orchard Road belt, netted responses from 306 people: 150 comprised males, 113 were below 30 years old and 156 were aged 30 to 49.

Apart from loud talkers, another two top pet peeves were gossiping and people trying to avoid work. In fourth and fifth positions were people peering over one’s shoulder to read what was on one’s monitor, and public reprimands at work, respectively.

Perhaps the advent of instant messaging led to the decline of loud talking or gossiping as pet peeves, with most bitching happening online, though at the risk of not just background surveillance, but people ‘peering over your shoulder’. Such busybody-ness was common even in the desktop-less late eighties when people actually WROTE. Using a PEN. On PAPER.  And people faxed proper acknowledgment forms, signed and dated instead of replying ‘OK’ or ‘Approved’ through email. Lazy workers or bosses rank among the top scourges till this day,  a bane of any results-driven office culture, and HR departments everywhere need to take a long hard look at the survey results because of the number of genuine workers suffering under endorsed incompetence. Someone also needs to conduct a study on how sexy clothing affects work productivity (in particular absentee rate among men) before being judged by envious women as a peeve when it’s really, in light of all other disruptive peeves and provided it’s done in a tasteful manner, more of a pleasant distraction, some might even say motivation, than anything else.

Discrimination works on ladies’ night

From ‘Disturbed by ‘discrimination’ ad’, 28 Dec 2010, ST Forum online

(Ms Choo Ai Zhia)I WAS taking the MRT when I saw the Great Eastern Life Assurance Company’s campaign, titled “It’s great to be a woman”, on the train. The headline read “Discrimination works. Especially on Ladies’ Nite”.

I was greatly disturbed by this. While many women are fighting discrimination in society and the workplace, Great Eastern seems to be acknowledging discrimination by saying discrimination works. There are many reasons why it’s great to be a woman, but I strongly believe that women should never use their gender to gain advantages.

Great Eastern should seriously reconsider their reasons why it’s great to be a woman and remove the superficial views. If not, this campaign will be perpetuating sexual discrimination.

The woman just don't get it

I guess one can’t blame Ms Choo for taking the word ‘discrimination’ in the inflammatory gender context, the only possible reason being she hasn’t the faintest idea what ladies’ night is and hence taking the first sentence way too seriously. Why stop there? Hasn’t she something to say about the stereotypically candy pink background and curvaceous 70′s porn movie title fonts? As for Great Eastern’s bra-burning, man-snubbing call for female empowerment, we men are so past the Sex and the City sequels and overall Y chromosome bashing that we’d rather pass our time glued to the football channel or fixing our car engines than listen to women stoking their own egos while offering prayers to the shrines of Oprah, Margaret Thatcher and Darryl Hannah ‘s man-squashing giantess from Attack of the 50 Ft Woman.

In any case, perhaps a poor choice of words here by Great Eastern. In order to qualify as discrimination, one sex needs to be have a preferential, unfair advantage over the other. In this instance, the cost incurred by men paying more for drinks on ‘Ladies night’ is pittance compared to the gain of increased female presence. So ladies night as most of us who are not busy bearing the flag of gender equality would know by now, is more of a ladies-first  ‘entitlement’ rather than ‘discrimination’, one that in fact pays off for both sexes with neither party at an unwilling disadvantage. Discrimination doesn’t ‘work’, and that’s simply because Ladies’ Night isn’t discrimination in the conventional sense at all. It’s an entitlement like how ladies get doors held open for them or have a convenient excuse every month to be difficult and cranky, just like how it’s an entitlement (or curse, which way you look at it) for us men to pee standing, or to serve the country bearing arms once barely out of puberty.

There is irony here too, in the sense that on certain ladies’ nights, it’s in fact women themselves who are discriminated against for not dressing well or wearing lipstick. Still, it’s rare for a woman like Ms Choo here, hell hath no fury and all, to actually speak up for us men, even if the attempt here is hopelessly misguided.  Likewise, men on occasion have also fought, with irrational gusto, for female representation, in SUTD posters for example. Sure, we men just don’t get it, but honestly, we don’t give a damn either.

 

Bear mascot a public nuisance

From ‘Bear sighting publicity stunt now a public nuisance case’, 14 Oct 2010, article by Ng Jing Yng in Today online.

…The blurry video clip of a purported “bear” rummaging through a dustbin at a bus stop had been making the rounds on the Internet.

In a statement yesterday, through public relations agency Fleishman-Hillard, Philips Electronics Singapore clarified that the bear was a mascot for a guerilla marketing campaign for a shaver undertaken by social media agency, The Secret Little Agency.

…The police, as well as tens of men and women from Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres) and Wildlife Reserves Singapore who scoured the area for hours yesterday, were not amused.

Late last night, a police spokesman said: “In response to media queries on the sighting of a ‘bear’ in Ulu Pandan, Police confirm that we’re investigating an offence of Public Nuisance under Section 268 of the Penal Code.”

…”This is irresponsible and it is a waste of resources … publicity by all means, but this has gone way too far,” said Acres founder and executive director Louis Ng, whose group also conducted an hour long search on Tuesday.

…(Lee Xiu Hua): It is hilarious that this bear mascot got on the news … but imagine the stress and work they have caused the police and zoo over this silly mistaken identity.

The Bear Witch Project

A classic case of ‘viral marketing’ gone wrong, a bear ‘mascot’ loses its purpose once it mimics too closely the features of an actual bear, which then makes it a ‘bear costume’. If you don’t want to put pants and a fruitbasket hat on your bear, at least have it in all-white for God’s sake, so that the implausibility of a polar bear happily rummaging for a snack at a bus stop on a humid night in Singapore would slowly register in people’s heads. Add some ambiguity in a  stylishly composed clip and you have zookeepers pushing the panic button and reaching for their tranquiliser guns. Halloween junkies, be warned in case you’re thinking of hitting the streets in a Godzilla outfit. You’ll probably incur the wrath not just of the police and ACREs, but probably the entire nation’s artillery units as well. OK, bear, hairy, needs shave. We get it, Phillips. Now stop being a cheapskate and make advertisements proper. Other than selling shavers, guerilla marketing overkill has been used to promote Good English as well. Funny how donning a bear costume has become an outrage worthy of a ‘public’ nuisance charge (considering that only a few parties were inconvenienced. Did any member of the public actually call the zoo or SPCA going ‘Yikes!Bear!’? Did the mascot break into people’s homes to steal honey?No?), but sticking ugly notes on public property is not.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 173 other followers