Earth Hour, what is it good for?

Earth Hour just went by and quite alot of people have been rather excited about, organising movements, observance ceremonies, even picnics to observe Earth Hour in their own way. The CBD area was largely dimmed out during the Earth Hour period.

What did I do? I did absolutely nothing. Rather I didn’t turn off my lights. I continued to watch cable TV and surf the net. Why? Cuz I think Earth Hour is bullshit. Here’s why:

1) Alot of people were seen burning candles during Earth Hour. Read this. A parafin wax candle (traditional white wax candle) emits 10 times more CO2 than a 40W bulb. Did you light a candle?

2) National Geographic and Discovery, two proponents of Earth Hour, continued their runs during Earth Hour. I can only laugh at the irony.

3) Alot of local establishments, in their bid to appear socially responsible, or to gain grassroots brownie points, organised Earth Hour observance ceremonies. Quite alot of CCs and schools there, some attended by PAP MPs and grassroots leaders. Laughably, the site’s shoutbox continued to be active during the period, meaning people who thought they were supporting Earth Hour, continued to use electrical devices to post into the shoutbox. Events were scheduled from 7pm to 10pm, where diesel generators and spotlights were used to ensure the running of the events; event venues which would have been left off, were turned on for the events; events which were ultimately superfluous, 4 hours of fluff to be exact.

I guess somewhere along the line, amidst the hubbub of organising and proselytising Earth Hour, these people forgot the purpose of Earh Hour. For so many, the notion of “switching off their lights” is sufficiently green.

What IS the purpose of Earth Hour?

Philip Jeyaretnam: Following Dad’s footsteps?

WSJ deputy editor fined $10,000
Friday • March 20, 2009
Leong Wee Keat
weekeat@mediacorp.com.sg

AS A features editor of The Asian Wall Street Journal, she was fined $4,000 for contempt of court in 1985.

Twenty-four years on, Ms Melanie Kirkpatrick — now a deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page — was fined $10,000 yesterday after she was found guilty of the same offence again.

Ms Kirkpatrick took editorial responsibility for three articles published in The Wall Street Journal Asia (WSJ Asia) between June 26and July 15 last year.

Last November, the Journal’s publisher, Dow Jones Publishing Company (Asia), was found to be guilty of contempt of court and was ordered to pay a $25,000 fine.

At yesterday’s hearing, Ms Kirkpatrick did not contest against the High Court’s application of the meanings accorded to the three articles. Principal Senior State Counsel David Chong, who represented the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), argued that Ms Kirkpatrick was a repeat offender who played “a significant part” in last year’s contempt case.

But Ms Kirkpatrick’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Philip Jeyaretnam, argued that his client “had no intention or desire to undermine any institution in Singapore, including the Singapore judiciary and its individual judges”.

Senior Counsel Chong countered that Ms Kirkpatrick “has not apologised nor stated explicitly that she accepts that the courts of Singapore apply the law of Singapore without fear or favour”. She should be fined $25,000, he argued.

While he noted that she did not offer an apology, Justice Tay Yong Kwang said there were two differences between Ms Kirkpatrick and Dow Jones Publishing Company cases: First, she was a second-time offender while the publisher was a third-time offender. Second, she did not contest the articles were in contempt of court, unlike the publisher.

Ms Kirkpatrick, who is now based at the Journal’s head office in New York, was also ordered to pay $10,000 for legal costs.

Mr Chong informed the Court that the AGC would discontinue contempt proceedings against two other WSJA’s Hong Kong-based editors, Mr Daniel Hertzberg and Ms Christine Glancey.

PAP suing WSJ for contempt of court and other assorted crimes is old hat. What caught my eye was that Philip Jeyaretnam was the lawyer for WSJ. Forgive my ignorance but this is the first time I’ve ever read about Philip fight a legal case of this sort.

Until recently, Philip was the president of the Singapore Law Society until stepping down honourably. Thus far he has never been embroiled in his father’s (the late JB Jeyaretnam) affairs and kept his dad’s political affairs at arm’s length.

Going up against the AGC is a bold move. Is this a step in his dad’s footsteps? We shall see, but I’m definitely keeping watch with interest.

Done in by its own reputation

In recent news, a report surfaced of an American couple that was ‘fleeced’ at Newton Circus, alleging that the seafood stall Tanglin Best was overcharging its Tiger prawns and that the final bill of nearly $500 was way too much. Despite protests by the stallowners that their Tiger Prawns were indeed very large and the pricing by weight was fair, common and justified, initial reactions on the ground were biased towards the tourists.

Following news reports on the matter, the NEA stepped in and slapped a ban of a few months on the stall; the stall is unable to run for that ban period. I have no info on whether the NEA and STB refunded any money to the American couple.

However, new reports followed with two tidbits. The first is that a single floating rotten apple caused overall business in Newton Circus to drop significantly. The other tidbit is that Newton Circus seafood stalls do indeed serve Tiger Prawns and those prawns can weigh from 200g to 400g and that if such prawns were indeed served, the bill would have been right and proper.

The tourists alleged that “the prawns weren’t that big”. Well, “big” is relative. So, who’s right and who’s wrong? Frankly it’s all up to speculation but also a moot point, and the damage has been done.

Like how most savvy locals know to avoid places like Sim Lim Square’s 1st floor and Lucky Plaza for electronic goods, the stall was done in by its own (bad) reputation of bullying, touting, thuggish behaviour and overcharging tourists. Newton Circus needs to shape up or continue to suffer such fates.

But did we as a community also give the tourists the benefit of the doubt? I suspect in this case, the customer isn’t always right.

I leave you with these two vignettes from a likeable webcomic:

Old vs New: Providing alternatives or power-grab?

Old net horse Mr Tan Tarn How recently chaired a seminar on New Media Development at the Institute of Policy Studies Seminar titled “Getting Their Hands Ready: Recent Developments in Singapore Political Blogosphere.” I didn’t attend but I’m sure the session must have been enlightening and insightful judging from the slides published online.

What got me thinking tho, was this particular slide:

Most interestingly, the slide mentions specifically Yawningbread, TOC and Wayang Party Club. In the following slides members of TOC and Yawningbread could be seen; I have no idea who runs WPC. I cannot speculate the rationale behind Mr Tan’s choices of these 3 sites as representative of the blogosphere, but it would have been empowering indeed for these three sites to be chosen to represent the blogosphere in this forum.

I admittedly have heard of Yawningbread and TOC but to my knowledge I’ve never heard of WPC. If it is a new-comer, it must have powerful or influential friends to have been picked from the crop. Why not Singapore Daily? Or The Void Deck? Or New Sintercom (tho admittedly the Old Sintercom was mentioned)?

As bigger and bigger sites compete for eyeballs, it does appear as if the various heavyhitters are now not only vying for eyeballs, but also for credibility and reputation, exactly what any mainstream media seeks. One could soon liken these sites to alternative mainstream media. Instead of settling for being A voice, these sites want to be THE voice. Even if the community would begin to accept such AMM as credible vis-a-vis traditional mainstream media, I feel one must always question the motives of alternative mediums seeking statuses of more than just that. Otherwise readers will again fall into the trap of nation-building.