Scandalicious

Away with Aerosol Foam Sprays...and Racists

2006-01-04T21:56:00.000+09:00

It's ridiculous how apologists for Wendy can insist that she isn't racist. Just thought I'd quote from her entry to prove she is (in case she exercise her "editorial integrity" by changing her words again):

"For example, would you like to party with foreign workers?

*shudders* (I heard Orchard road was full of them, molesting and spraying our girls!! Grr! Why are we sharing Orchard road with them?! Another entry)

See, you get my point."

Again, molestation is a criminal matter, and race/nationality should NEVER be dragged in. But anyway, looking at the bit in bold, I was just wondering what sort of sign we might see if Wendy gets her way. Maybe the following:

"NO DOGS AND BANGLAS ALLOWED." =)

Whatever happened to Singapore being a world-class cosmopolitan city?

PS: A friend of mine was in Orchard Road that evening. She too got sprayed, but by a young bunch of locals....

The colour of pink....

2006-01-04T02:50:00.000+09:00

Mention pink, and Japanese, and I immediately think of pornography (hey, don't they call them "pink pornography"?). I know I'm generalising things, but from my experience that's probably the case.

Of course, Hello Kitty is also pink and Japanese, but who cares?

Not sure what I'm getting at? Well, some blogger stated on her blog as a fact that "a lot of foreign [Bangladeshi] workers in Orchard are molesters"--based her her own personal experience.

"I so need to cool down. I am very, very pissed off by people who are deluding themselves that molestation by these foreign workers are not happening, JUST BECAUSE IT IS SUPPOSEDLY "RACIST".

And not to mention, we must not attack these FWs for no reason (like hitting them), just because we are angry at some of them. That, obviously, is racism.

But stating that a lot of the foreign workers in Orchard are molesters IS NOT RACISM, IT IS FACT.

Facts that cannot be denied just because you are scared of being labelled a racist."

Yep, Wendy's at it again.

I'm currently still up to my neck with work (yes, I celebrated the festive by working my socks off *sob*) so I'll make this short.

Does Wendy know what makes something a FACT? Well, it certainly isn't one's "personal experience", since that only makes it an OPINION. Where's the figures? Where's the research, the reports, the surveys? She claims to have gotten over 500 comments supporting her case--can I assume that there are enough foreign workers hauled in for molestation to create a little diplomatic crisis then? =)

I'm being cynical, but if Wendy's going to accuse a majority of foreign workers of something as serious as molestation, she better have solid proof to back her words up.

Obviously she doesn't. So she should just keep her gob shut.

"Realise that we practice discrimination every single day.

We discriminate looks, education, intellect, dressing, and a lot more.Modelling agencies do not employ the ugly (superifical); Mensa does not welcome people with low IQ (elitism), Platinum card owners do not allow the poor to join their ranks (elitism), SIA does not employ short girls (don't know what this is called) but Ikea alone is wrong in not employing blacks in France to do deliveries?

Is it really ok to discriminate these other things and not race?

Food for thought.

I do not condone racism, but racism, in my opinion, means not doing anything to harm a person just because he is a certain race."

Discrimination exists, we all know that (of course, there are laws to discourage certain forms of discrimination, be it gender or race). But let's stick to the more sticky issue of race. And precisely because it's touchy, it should be tackled with a greater deal of sensitivity. Tokenism is itself a form of discrimination, that is true.

But so is making sweeping statements and baseless accusations about a certain race/nationality based on your own opinions--even if it's just MOST of them and not all. If Wendy wants to sound so "concerned" she should start by doing what most matured people do: engage in a thoughtful discussion like how educated, matured 21-year-old adults ought to know, rather than ranting and raving, and stirring up public emotions. I know this sounds cliched by now, but we all know the link between Islamic extremism and global terrorism. So, does that mean we go around making irresponsible statements about Muslims and their religion? No.

"Open your eyes: IT IS HAPPENING. "

Well, you can prise your eyes wide open, but what's the point if you're perpetually myopic by choice? I'm not saying incidents like these didn't happen, nor am I trivialising the issue. But it's about molestation, and Wendy should keep the issue of race and nationality out of this--regardless of how good a little controversy may be for her hits.

Food for thought, aye, Wendy? =)

*Yawn* Time for bed....

Oh her god!

2005-11-16T15:10:00.000+09:00

"Maddox is my god. He gives me strength."

Wendy calls him her "god", her inspiration.

But who is this Maddox guy? Thought I'd write a little about this famous and famously notorious "pirate" who roams the information super highway.

George Ouzounian Maddox, born in 1978, is an American of Armenian descent. Living in Utah (which he loathes), he majored in Mathematics in the University of Utah, and has worked as a programmer.

A hugely popular "online journalist" known for his controversial views, he runs one of the most notorious (and popular) personal websites out there--the unassumingly titled "The Best Page In The Universe".

It's a satirical weblog littered with his offensive and politically-incorrect opinions. Maddox isn't just equally ruthless when dealing with politicians (be them Democrats or Republicans), but also anyone and anything he deems beneath his contempt--that includes old people, animal lovers, feminists, and even whales.

Or what he states on his own fan-site (sounds familiar?) as "kicking babies, setting shit on fire, teasing the disabled/unfortunate, eating twice your bodyweight in (preferably endangered) meat and making dumbarses the world over, cry themselves to sleep for the rest of their days".

When not dissing people and things, he writes about movies, music, celebrities, and just about anything.

His entries are usually short, egoist, and in bad taste. He doesn't try much to justify his skewed opinions, and occasionally, throws in an illustration or two to highlight his points. Like his posts, some of these illustrations are in bad taste too: his recent one on whales shows a sperm whale munching on sailors, his previous ones include old folks being fried in the sun.

He's also known for the following:

i) Earlier this year, he tried inviting some videogame programmers over to work on a game which he describes as a "game with pirates in it that doesn't suck. He put up a Flash preview of the game, and it has a pirate running over old folks, a poodle getting kicked over the fence, zombies, and lesbian sex. In his entry, "The Best Game in the Universe", he writes: "Is it too much to ask for a game where the main character murders feminists with his giant boner, lesbian centaurs get their backs broken with sledge hammers, elderly people get body slammed into cactuses, and emo dumbasses get prostate examinations with the business end of my shoe."

ii) Maddox claims his site reached 100,000,000 hits in March 2005. He has a huge legion of fans, but he has his critics too who argue that all Maddox does is insult and make profane remarks about things without any conscious efforts to reason. He also refuses to address any criticism on his "hatemail" pages, but chooses to diss his detractors instead.

iii) His enormous popularity and influence has led to his website being blacklisted not just in the US but elsewhere in the world. On January 8, 2004, Etisalat, the United Arab Emirates' sole telecommunications carrier, banned his website; Saudi Arabia and Qatar followed suit on September 11, 2005. But the one that really got to Maddox was when the popular web filtering company, Websense, placed his website on their banned list (citing it as "tasteless"), making it inaccessible from schools, offices, and public libraries. Maddox wasn't amused. In retaliation, he blocked Websense from this site (citing them as "fascists")

iv) Maddox's following, which includes youngsters, has led to the forming of Mothers Against Maddox by Beth Robbins, a housewife--her slogan being "Help us fight and finally shut down the most hateful site on the Internet". When the website ran a petition against Maddox, legions of Maddox supporters rip it apart by flooding it with vulgar comments; the petition was eventually called off. What's interesting though is that there are unsubstantiated rumours that Maddox himself is behind Mothers Against Maddox (sounds familiar, again?).

v) Maddox has his own online store selling T-shirts and stickers with messages like "Littering Kicks Ass". As he puts it, "You're not doing me a favor by buying this stuff. I'm doing you a favor by selling it." He did, however, recently contribute 50% of his profits from his store to Katrina victims, donating $3,068.

vi) Currently, he's writing a book which is due to be out in March 2006. He's also planning to work on an adventure comic book based on his pirate alter-ego.

Like him or loathe him, Maddox is so big among the young that some analysts even think he has political influence over the new generation. But America has always been liberal when it comes to Maddox's form of expression. Mind you, were Maddox a Singaporean, not only would his website be banned, he would probably be hauled to court for some of the stuff he writes.

But having said that, the Internet is global, and it's pretty evident that he has found himself ardent followers like Wendy, who may be trying to imitate his controversial style of writing and attention-seeking gimmicks. Kinda like localising Maddox's brand of blogging for fans in this region, no?

In any case, couldn't help but notice one post Wendy's almighty made about the whole naming business in the blogging world. Apparently, Maddox doesn't like his website to be referred to as a blog, and worse, himself as a blogger.

His definition of a blog:
The word "blog" is literally shorthand for "boring;" a vulgar, overused word that strikes your ear with the dull thud of a cudgel to the soft spot of a child. It's an abbreviation used by journalism drop outs to give legitimacy to their shallow opinions and amateur photography that seems to be permanently stuck in first draft hell.

His definition of a blogger:
Term used to describe anyone with enough time or narcissism to document every tedious bit of minutia filling their uneventful lives. Possibly the most annoying thing about bloggers is the sense of self-importance they get after even the most modest of publicity. Sometimes it takes as little as a referral on a more popular blogger's website to set the lesser blogger's ego into orbit.

His definition of the blogging community:
Losers, goths, bedwetters, and journalism dropouts.

And his definition of blogebrity:
Wow, guess what this one stands for? Too easy. Hey, anyone can do it: take a blogger who's a chef, and you get: BLEF. A blogger who's a dentist? BENTIST. A female blogger with an itch? You guessed it: a BITCH.

I still think the guy's an ar*ehole, but at least he got THAT right. =)

Dr. Loolittle

2005-11-15T22:27:00.000+09:00

For someone who barks a lot from her blog, we now know that Wendy isn't too fond of animals (unless, according to her, they're "cute").

While the rest of blogsphere is busy clobbering Dawn Yeo/Yang, Wendy's little comment on animal rights has gone somewhat unnoticed. Maybe because the entry was supposed to be about her trip to Thailand.

Can't she blog about any trip without throwing in a bit of controversy? Granted this isn't as serious as her last one to KL, but if you're an animal lover (or proud pet owner), you might not like her following comments:

"The Thai animal vendors at Chatuchak has taught me one thing: Animals do not need to be pampered like how stupid Singaporeans pamper them.

It irks me when I see people mollycoddling their pets, getting angry at you if you dare to as much as scold/insult the pet, which is ridiculous coz obviously the pet doesn't understand what you are saying. Yes loud voices might startle them, but they aren't hurt, just are just having a biological reaction (1).

As Kelvin will explain in exasperation, it is ludicrous to throw a human being in jail for torturing animals because animals are not capable for self-conscious thoughts. They do not possess the ability to be self-aware, and therefore are not bestowed with the knowledge of their very existance.

It is fairly certain that they cannot feel jealousy (2), they cannot understand claustrophobia, nor will they get the magnitude of depression (3) a normal human being might get, being in jail.
Well before I digressed, I was saying that animals do not need to be pampered. I do not proclaim to be a frantic animal lover (only like them if they are cute; animal lovers, do you love cockroaches? (4) Don't gimme bullshit, if you are an "animal lover" then you love all animals, else you are just a CUTE-LOVER), and nor do I have anything against people who are infatuated with animals...

Oh wait I do.

I hate it when people treat animals better than they treat humans! Of course, some high-moral soul will now say that animals are better coz won't backstab you, they will never betray your love, etc etc, let's not eat them.

Yeah right kiddo, he only loves you coz he knows you will give him food. Why not test his love by sending him to your neighbour, who gives him tastier food from now on, and see if he returns? If he does, it is possibly coz your neighbour doesn't masturbate him and you do (out of love, you proclaim). Conditioned responses, all conditioned responses. (5)

And number 2, a tasty jellyfish dish is also incapable of backstabbing you, that kind benign plate of delicacy! So why not you treat the jellyfish dish better than you treat your mom? How about a rusty doorknob? Also will never sleep with your best friend!
Humans are so weird.

As our society progresses and we don't have to bother about our own survival, we start to bother ourselves with other people's survival, like they want it in the first place. Like whales. Or or foie gras. (6).

Anyway, once again, before I digressed, I was saying that the Thais have made me realise that there is NO NEED WHATSOEVER TO PAMPER ANIMALS. "

I'm beginning to wonder if she deliberately acts dumb, or is it a primal instinct of hers to enjoy getting verbally flogged in cyberspace:

(1) Pets like dogs can be trained to understand sound patterns, or should we say, commands. Yes, it's conditioning, but you may as well as say the same about the way we teach kids to speak. They are also capable of picking up nuances and various signals from us (like our tone and expressions) to understand our emotions.

(2) A cousin of mine has a pet dog which she treats as family (she and her husband raised the little pup). Whenever her niece drops by and she dotes on the little girl, the dog will go up to her and compete for attention as well. For your info, Wendy, it's a known fact that pets like dogs are very much capable of showing jealousy, whether towards a human or a new dog in the house (canine rivalry).

(3) Animals do suffer from depression too. A zoo in Toledo even administered Prozac to its depressed gorilla. And as for animals not understanding claustrophobia, maybe you should read up on this article [nb: PDF Acrobat document] from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). It's aptly titled, "Claustrophobia: what happens, why, and what you can do about it".

(4) In this case, I'd rather call a cockroach an insect. We're talking about animal lovers, not writing in a science journal. Besides, technically that makes Wendy an "animal" (and primate) too, doesn't it? =)

(5) It depends on what animal you're referring to. Some animals (like dogs and even war horses) have been know to risk (or even giving up) their lives to save their masters. Maybe they're just not as "self-aware" as humans who think only about themselves? =)

(6) I didn't know whales are people. Not sure if they'd want us to save them, but they certainly won't want us to slaughter them. Anyway, there are many reasons why people call for the protection of various animals as well as other living species. It is about maintaining the balance in our ecosystem as it is about animal rights. Of course, based on Wendy's opinions, I really doubt she has any inkling what all these things are.

Of course, Wendy can kick the next (ugly-looking) cat she sees on the road, that's up to her. I'm just curious that she's written the following only just recently:

"Everything has a tipping point, and you make your decisions everyday: Your love for eating meat, AGAINST the pain animals feel when you bloody kill them.
Let's say you choose to save the pain: Maddox (Read the article, it is seriously good) now explains that if you buy vegetables, you are knowingly assisting the accidental killing of many innocent farm animals."

In any case, I'll end this post with something from an article by Clive Wynne, "Do Animals Think", that appeared in the Nov/Dec 1999 issue of Psychology Today:

The fact is that we lack adequate methods to identify conclusively what behavior is "conscious." But scientific study of consciousness is undergoing a renaissance as reflected in recent books, conferences and journals. And these investigations have begun to include nonhuman consciousness. In particular, Alan Cowey of Oxford University and Petra Stoerig of the Institute of Medical Psychology at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Germany have developed procedures by which a monkey can signal whether or not it is consciously aware of a particular visual stimulus.

This and other recent developments provide empirical and objective support for the conclusion reached by Stephen Walker at the University of London in his !983 book Animal Thought (Routledge): "Our organ of thought may be superior, and we may play it better, but is surely vain to believe that other possessors of similar instruments leave them quite untouched."

Which thus makes Wendy's following observations totally sick:

"It is obvious the animals were kept in bad conditions, very bad conditions. The snakes were in mineral water bottles, the squirrels swung around via a string tied to their necks, and the puppies pushed around and allowed to lick every tourists' filthy hand.

The mere sight of the place will kill your average, superficial animal lover. Even Maddox might cringe a little. Or maybe not.

And yes, it is cruel, and I didn't like it too.

But curiously enough, you will realise something.

The animals propogate.

And we all know that animals only give birth in captive breeding when they are comfortable in their environment. We have all forgotten that animals have survial instincts too, and they don't need us to wipe their anus for them after they shit."

So Wendy spends a few days touring Thailand (and less at the animal market) and she can confidently conclude that these animals are propogating, and are comfortable in the horrid conditions they're kept in? Animals that are constantly under stress are more susceptible to diseases, and even if they do "adapt" to these conditions, it's still inhumane.

For your own sake, hope you don't believe in karma.

* For those still wondering if a cockroach is an animal, scientifically-speaking, it is. The class Insecta (or insects) belong to a animal phylum known as Arthropoda (or arthropods); of course, arthropods also include Crustacea (hope I spelt that correctly) like lobsters, prawns, crabs etc. Arachnida (spiders, scorpions), and dozens other class which I can't remember off-hand. Yes, insects are a subgroup of animals, but this (and Wendy's entry) is hardly a science journal. =)

When some people you just term as “bloggers”

2005-11-12T13:09:00.000+09:00

The official definition of a blog or weblog (according to the Oxford Dictionary of Slang) is "an internet website containing an eclectic and frequently updated assortment of items of interest to its author". A blogger is, therefore, someone who keeps a weblog of this sort.

Wendy, however, disagrees. And after being quoted out of context by The New Paper, she is determined to give her own definition of the term "blogger":

"And what is with this bullshit about "she has a blog and thus she is a blogger"?

ARE YOU STUPID OR WHAT? YOU THINK I DON'T KNOW PEOPLE WHO HAVE BLOGS ARE BLOGGERS? Stop quoting my panasonic entry about me saying she is a blogger, asswipe, like you are so clever. Are you ugly? You must be. Now my blog entries feel disgustingly raped by your rampant perusal.

Everyone who blogs is a blogger? If you are so clever, then answer me... But first tell me your name. Is it Lumpy? So Lumpy, if you can manage to swim half a lap without dying, is it right for me to call you "Lumpy the swimmer"?

No, because calling you Lumpy the Guy-Who-Fucked-His-Cabbage-Patch-Kid-Doll would be a little more appropriate as a the defining title for you...

Lumpy, of course, since you are so mediocre (by mediocre I mean scum of society), if you blog, I suppose we can also call you a "Blogger". But of course, your turd of a blog has a grand readership of half a person a day, because someone once told you (the biggest of the soccer kids) that how much of a person you are is measured by your penis size. (By virtue of the wise soccer kid, girls are measured by boobies)"

Typical of Wendy--she just can't seem to state a simple point without hurling abuses and sounding like a complete turd. But what she's trying to say is this: just because you "blog", that doesn't immediately make you a "blogger". Rather, it all depends on how good or "famous" you are in the blogsphere.

In short, it runs along the lines of "I'm the old bird around here, so don't play play with me." =)

I agree she has a valid point about what defines a swimmer, especially if you consider swimming on a professional level, with the same applying to footballers and people in almost every professional trade. You don't call someone a doctor or engineer unless he's qualified.

But then, let's consider the following:

If John plays games a lot, that makes John a "gamer". Likewise, if someone loves to surf, you might call him a "surfer dude". These people take their hobbies seriously, but they're not "professionals" in these areas. And they may not be famous--or even an expert--but so what?

When you pursue a hobby, it's how passionate you are that matters, not how successful. And since blogging falls under this category, anyone who owns a weblog and faithful updates it is very much a blogger. Yes, you can try to make a living out of it, but that only makes you a "professional blogger"; it doesn't make others anything less.

So what if no one reads Lumpy's blog even though he tries to update it everyday. He's still "Lumpy the blogger"--he just isn't "Lumpy that famous blogger.

Oh, if Zoe Tay decides to start her own blog, that'll make her a blogger too. And just because she's already a famous TCS artiste doesn't mean she can't make a good one too. =)

Imagine the irony: you have your very own blog, hosted on a service known as BLOGGER, yet--according to Wendy--you're not a blogger because, unlike her, you're not famous/infamous. You're just another loser who happens to have a blog, that's all....

Wendy thinks blogging is a God given talent that only she and a few others have. The way I see it, I hardly even call it a skill, let alone a talent, especially when even an Internet novice can have his or her own blog set up in a matter of minutes. Besides, how talented can a certain "famous blogger" be if she can't manage HTML well, can't do her own design, can't set up her own weblog engine, and can't argue rationally both on TV and on her own blog.

There's no such thing as a talent for blogging. There's only a talent for writing and using weblog technologies to maximise that potential. Maybe Wendy had a bit of that when she first started (again, a huge maybe), but apparently she's now lost it. Not to mention she's lost the plot as well.

"At first glance my opinion seems to be arrogant; bitchy even. I seem to be thinking that she is not worthy to be termed as a "blogger", just as I am often termed.

No offence to all famous bloggers, including myself, but without your blog, you will be possibly be nobody (famous). And that's why you are known as "that famous blogger". "

Well, some of the world's most famous bloggers have distinguished themselves in other areas, by the way. Cory Doctorow, who was here for the Singapore Writers Festival, is also a sci-fi writer and journalist (besides being a famous blogger himself). Others who run popular blogs don't enjoy celebrity status in real life, but they have successful careers and enjoy high standing in their professional circles (college professors, tech industry veterans).

Wendy might be nothing without her blog, but just because it's true for her doesn't mean it's true for "all famous bloggers".

If you ask me, Wendy clearly has every right to be upset at being misquoted by The New Paper, but why get so defensive and worked up over what a blogger is and isn't? Unless her detractors are right--that she's not happy that a fellow blogger has upstaged the self-proclaimed queen of blogsphere, and worry that this is just the start?

Hmm... If you ask me, it's kind of like those journalists who lash out at bloggers simply because they feel threatened by this new crop of "amateur" writers. =)

nb: What's Wendy's obesssion with numbers anyway? She can't seem to stop reminding people that she aced her PSLE with 269 and has a high IQ of over 148.... When will she get the point that a PSLE score of 269 means diddly-squat to a 21-year-old; an IQ of over 148 matters little if she can't even show an ounce of intelligence to save her butt; and 20,000 hits per day is nothing to boast about when she can't gauge the quality of her readers (a porn site can easily surpass that figure, but that doesn't say much about its content).

Straits Times update

2005-11-06T12:35:00.000+09:00

Following the Sunday Times' story last week, Jeremy Au Yong has followed up with an update on the story--this time to reflect the opinions of Wendy's critics, as well as the stand taken by the Society for the Physically Disabled as well as the Handicaps Welfare Aossciation.

As expected, indignant readers--including filmaker Bertrand Lee, who sadly lost his left leg while filming in Mumbai-- wrote to the paper and the charities, prompting the two charities to respond (read article).

The SPD's stand was also echoed by Handicaps Welfare Association president Tam Ah Hock: "The bottom line is that due consideration and priority be given to the disabled users whenever they need to use it. These toilets should not be used simply because they are bigger and better equipped."

A part of Wendy's entry was also quoted in the article (the one about disabled people's bladders), as well as her written reply to Bertrand Lee.

In reply to Bertrand Lee's five-page letter to her, Wendy apparently shrugged him off with a one-liner: "Eh, I disagree".

So, both sides of the argument have now been presented by the press, Jeremy Au Yong and the Straits Times has redeemed themselves by doing a follow-up, the two charitable organisations have clarified their stand, and the public now have a clearer picture of what sort of person Wendy is.

Now, maybe we can finally get closure on this toilet issue and move on?

And perhaps, Wendy will learn something from this fallout and start behaving more responsibly. Little old cynical me, but that's a very big perhaps. =)

Misrepresented

2005-11-05T17:12:00.000+09:00

Following Straits Times reporter Jeremy Au Yong's article on Wendy's "toiletgate" (or Waterloo, if you prefer), the two charities which reportedly showed their "support" for Wendy in Au Yong's article have indicated that they were misrepresented.

It now appears that the organisations have responded to numerous complaints that they were, as a matter of fact, quoted out of context. They have also written to the Straits Times to clarify their stand.

This, from an e-mail I received from the Society for the Physically Disabled (other bloggers have received a similar reply, I believe):

We refer to the article “All flushed over toilet blog” (Sunday Times, 30 Oct). We wish to clarify that The Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD) was responding specifically to the reporter’s query on how it views non disabled using toilets designated for disabled people. SPD was not responding to the blog content or to the blogger of website xiaxue.blog-spot.com. Hence, the quote attributed to SPD in the article was used out of context.

Our specific response to the reporter Jeremy Au Yong’s query, as conveyed in an email reads:
“Accessible toilets are equipped with features that are not only useful for wheelchair users. Expectant mothers as well as the elderly will also find the grab bars and other features useful. In that sense accessible toilets should not be confined for use for wheelchair users only. We should work towards having public toilets that are universally designed, so that it would be of benefit to everyone without discrimination.”

Mr Au Yong however did not use this view and requested again specifically on how SPD felt about non-disabled using the disabled toilet. Our response to his subsequent request via email is:

“Accessible toilets are made for people who need special considerations for their limitations, and should be available for their use at all times. However, reserving them for use by people with physical disabilities without exception can also be impractical, like in situations when there's a queue of people waiting to use the toilet or when someone has an urgent need to use one. In such instances, it makes more practical sense to simply use any available toilet. That said, the priority for the use of accessible toilets should first be given to people with physical disabilities as some have poor or no control over their bowels and bladders.”

Our view remains that accessible toilets should be made available at all times to people who have special needs whether they are the elderly or wheelchair users. SPD strongly advocates an inclusive society where all users, regardless of abilities are able to access universally designed facilities and amenities equally.

Dr Ow Chee Chung
Executive Director

Compare the above reply to what Au Yong wrote: "On the latest furore, she has supporters from an unlikely source. The Society for the Physically Disabled as well as the Handicaps Welfare Association see nothing wrong with sharing the loos as long as the able-bodied give priority to the disabled."

The organisations agree with Wendy that disabled toilets aren't exclusive to people with disabilities. But that's their opinion on the issue; they were not giving official approval for the things Wendy say.

They neither condone what she wrote nor her superficial reasons for using disabled toilets. And they're most certainly not her "supporters".

The Straits Times has yet to respond to this until now. And ironically, with Straits Times foreign editor Warren Fernandez's commentary, "To be responsible, media must first be credible", appearing in today's papers, I really think Singapore's most respected broadsheet (and Jeremy Au Yong) owe these two organisations and its readers an explanation--if not an apology--for a sloppy piece of journalism.

Editorial Integrity?

2005-10-30T16:33:00.000+09:00

Wendy Cheng and her "trophy"....

It was the Straits Times; it was on page four; it was supposed to be the next blogging controversy--this time involving a high-profile blogger.

In the end, what was published in the Sunday Times was a lame, one-sided affair seemingly written by a Xiaxue apologist.

No disrespect intended for the reporter Jeremy Au Yong, but having read his article on the "controversy", I really wonder what do they mean by objective journalism.

To add insult to injury, two local charitable organisations even gave their support for Wendy: "Blogger Wendy Cheng found support from two unlikely groups. The Society for the Physically Disabled as well as the Handicaps Welfare Aossciation see nothing wrong with sharing toilets meant for the handicapped, as long as the able-bodied give priority to the disabled."

I really like to know if Mr Au Yong faxed these two societies Wendy's blog entry in its entirety; if he did, whether they actually read it. For to lend their support to Wendy--after what she's written--is bad publicity for them. I for one am not going to donate to an organisation that can't tell the difference between right and wrong.

Jeremy wrote: "Her critics argued taht the toilets should not be dirtied by the abled-bodied who had many more cubicles from which to pick and use."

However, the only critic quoted in the article? Peter Tan, the 39-year-old Malaysian blogger (and a disabled himself), who wrote to Wendy's sponsors complaining about her article. Yes, a Malaysian, as noted by the Straits Times.

What about the local critics? There were more locals who spoke against Wendy than Malaysians, so why not ask at least one of them for their opinions? Also, Netizens turned against Wendy not because she thought it's fine to share disabled toilets.

It's the disdain and contempt she showed for the disabled when she wrote her blog entry that riled people. Why not quote excerpts from her blog entry and let readers decide who's right or wrong?

Not a single word Wendy wrote was published; and Peter Tan was the lone voice speaking out against Wendy in the article. In mitigation, Wendy not only had the two local societies offering their support, but also LocalBrand founder Turodrique Fuad, who told the Straits Times that the issue "has been blown out of proportion" and "there was noting intentionally malicious about her post". They also got Wendy for a her comment, who said: "I don't think I have projected something that is extreme and I will write exactly the way I've always done."

Even the facts that Mr Au Yong brought up in his article don't give the full picture. I'm not questionnig Mr Au Yong's professional integrity, but there are certain points in the article that needs to be addressed:

Mr Au Yong wrote: "Ms Cheng is known for speaking her mind. She has written about measuring penises and evangelising, and poked fun at the nude pictures posted by a blogger writing as Sarong Party Girl."

Wendy can ramble on about measuring penises, she can make fun of Sarong Party Girl and even Furong Jie; fact is, we don't care. But she has written expletive-laden entries on far more senstive issues than a toilet cubicle--and the Straits Times didn't even mention one of them.

What about Wendy's recent entry on students who blog about their teachers--she openly encouraged wayward behaviour in students by telling them to go against their educators, and even taught them how to do it under a cloak of anonymity. And what about her racist remarks about Arabs and Malays which she later edited despite all her talk of editorial integrity?

Did Mr Au Yong read these entries before he wrote his article? Did he speak to Wendy's critics, who would've pointed them out to him? And if he did, why didn't he mention them, when they can give a truer picture of the sort of person Wendy is, and why people are so upset over this whole incident.

"While none would reveal the amount paid, the two endorsements are worth a three-figure sum to Ms. Cheng," he wrote.

Yes, it's a small sum, but before people start questioning why her critics are trying to deny her even this amount, they NEED to know why she doesn't deserve anything in the first place.

Maybe it's me, but the Sunday Times article has done a great disservice to its readers by painting Wendy as a victim when she's not.

Hats off to the Straits Times for a job well done, and for giving us such an objective view (sarcasm intended).

I'm sure Wendy will thank you for that. We won't.

Down the Toilet...

2005-10-25T19:19:00.001+09:00

Not the best looking banner around, but expect to see this more often now....

"So what if one, two, or three companies are afraid of endorsing a REAL human, someone with flaws? Someone with opinions?There are so many companies out there... I'm ok. :) "
-- Xiaxue

Some of you may have noticed the hoo-hah over at Xiaxue's blog. It appears that several individuals have started a campaign to get companies to pull their endorsements, and to say Wendy isn't happy is an understatement. She's just lost Voxy, and is terribly upset about what she sees as a smear campaign against her by people with personal agendas.

"I don't blame Voxy, because as Turodrique told me, in this politically correct world, no company will ever want to be seen as being politically incorrect. (With the exception of Guess endorsing Paris Hilton perhaps; sex tapes and all) "

First of all, with regards to Paris Hilton, being the heiress of an hotelier empire (and a better looking one) has its perks. But I digress.... *grin*

Ok, for the benefit of all, I'll make this simple:

ADVERSTING = USING YOUR WEB SPACE TO REACH OUT TO TARGET AUDIENCE

ENDORSEMENT = USING YOUR PUBLIC IMAGE TO REACH OUT TO TARGET AUDIENCE

Companies want Wendy to endorse their products because of her blogging fame; she's their spokesperson, so to speak. They don't care much about what she writes but only about her image in public, and if that takes a battering, these companies will want out. It's that simple.

Wendy still doesn't believe that her being politically incorrect (not once, but a zillion times) has gotten her into a fix. She blames it on her critics for trying to bring her down out of malice and JEALOUSY.

"I blame, however, the malicious people who have been bombarding my companies for a personal grudge you might have against me.

There can be only two motives why people would write to my endorsers:

1) They sincerely care for the company.
2) They want to attack my income, and subsequently, me.

Anyone votes for option one? I doubt it. "

I'd prefer option 3: "They feel that I'm abusing my privilege as an agenda-setter and want to set things straight".

It's a worrying sign when the young are so preoccupied with self-worshipping on the net; it's even more troubling when they are rewarded for it. I can't speak for the others, but for me, I certainly think it's not right for companies--run by educated adults who should know better--to get these wayward individuals to be their spokesperson. I mean, endorsements work both ways in this case--by offering Wendy endorsements, these companies are effectively condoning her bad social behaviour, making her think what she's doing is fine.

I also feel that the general public has every right to criticse when someone in the public's eye has disgraced the company/organisation he or she represents. It was public opinion that led to Mrs. Goh stepping down as NKF patron, following her now-infamous "$600000 a year is peanuts" remark; why should Wendy think she's above public scrutiny when even someone like Mrs.Goh isn't?

Because she feels she's got more integrity than others?

"I will never compromise my editorial integrity for commercial deals.
I AM WHO I AM, SO TAKE ME AS I AM.
I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOU DON'T, BECAUSE NOBODY IS ASKING YOU TO READ ME. "

Then why harp on commercialising her blog? She'd be better off having a real job and blogging freely whenever she feels like it (that is, if she can refrain from blogging about her company as well....)

And while we're on "editorial integrity", thought I point out something Wendy wrote a while back--some incident involving her, a photo website, and the Today newspaper.

When Wendy was 19, she was supposedly approached by a businessman who wanted to feature her on his photo website. Wendy agreed to it after she was promised "photoshop rights" and $300. She was a poly intern with Today newspaper then, and so she approached her editor to do a story on websites like these:

"Because there are other websites also like his, and because these other websites were not trying to be less sleazy, I actually wanted to interview him and put him in a neutral light, whilst the other websites, of course, in the bad light they deserved to be put in."

Wendy insists that she was sincere about doing the story. But then, things began to fall apart. First, Wendy finds out that the guy was ripping her off and wanted out. The guy said he'd sue her, so she countered by threatening to write an unflattering article about his business--something which she regretted:

"THAT WAS SO FUCKING STUPID OF ME. Yes, I KNOW! Editorial integrity should never be compromised, and even if it is, you NEVER, as a reporter, SAY IT OUT LOUD. Ever."

Editorial integrity is something that should never be compromised--whether you say it out loud or otherwise. In any case, Wendy got an earful from the assistant-editor for dragging the paper into her personal mess, and the whole thing was eventually settled with an apology (which Wendy found humiliating). She still thinks she didn't do any wrong by playing hardball:

"I wasn't blackmailing him, I was just informing him about the FACTS that I was going to write on my article have changed. And certainly, threatening to contact my school, and also write to ST about this whole story, IS blackmail.)"

By one's mere association to a party that you're writing about, you can easily be accused of having "vested interest"; whether it's true or not is irrelevant.

If I'm an editor and a Democrat, and I write a stinging editorial blasting George Bush's policies, have I compromised my integrity? I may have put forth a most-convincing argument, but my political leanings immediate put me in an untenable position. Or let's say I'm a reporter and I heap praise on a particular company which I share an undisclosed relationship with--won't I get accused of editorial bias?

What the guy reportedly did was unscrupulous (you'd expect that from someone who runs a "sleazy website" for profit). Wendy might've been naïve then to think that she wasn't compromising her professional role as a journalist (even if she's an intern), but three years after that incident, she should at least be wiser for it.

Talk of integrity? As an agenda-setter and owner of a blog read by many young people out there, she needs to show "moral integrity" by not encouraging wayward behaviour. As a blogger supposedly making a living out of her blog, she needs to show "journalistic and editorial integrity" by not dragging her personal vendettas into the public's eye. As a spokesperson for the brands she endorses, she needs to show "professional integrity" by being mindful of the things she says so as not to harm their image.

Saying things like "So what if one, two, or three companies are afraid of endorsing a REAL human, someone with flaws? Someone with opinions? There are so many companies out there... I'm ok. :)" is terribly childish.

Wendy should just stop using "editorial integrity" to defend herself because she's shown very little of it until now.

"Whilst I might have stood up and proclaimed that I think there is nothing wrong with using a handicapped toilet when there is no handicapped person around (and I still stand on that opinion; more about it later), keep in mind:

I am also an ambassador for non-smoking in Singapore.
I love Singapore, and I am strongly against drugs.
I have influenced innumerous teens/females to learn to stand up for themselves.
I have inspired many to start blogging and opening themselves to the world bravely.

Many tell me thank you, daily, for being the voice they never had...

AND ETC. "

It doesn't matter if she's an ambassador for the non-smoking campaign in Singapore or she's against drugs. Most people are against these things anyway. It matters little if she's taught teens/females to stand up for themselves--the media has been championing their cause for a long time. It's pointless to say she have inspired others to blog when besides "vanity" blogs (and blogs like this one which exists due of a lack of free speech on her end) I can't really see how she has contributed to the net community in general.

And as for being the "voice they never had", I'm sure she has enough critics out there to qualify her as the "voice they never wanted" too. Would be interesting to know how many of her devoted fans are responsible adults rather than youngsters who deserve a better role model to guide and inspire them.

"And who is to gauge where morality lies? Despite all the good I do or represent, is one opinion I have, enough to say I am a bad influence, overall? "

Let me give you a scenario, a fictional example--IF you receive this letter:

"Dear Wendy, My daughter is an invalid. She is 21, like you, and she has been reading your blog since 2 years ago. However, recently, she has begun to slip into depression. She begin to cry every night, and when I ask her why, she says it is because the very blogger whom she looks up to has written something nasty about invalids like herself.

Reading your blog has depressed her, because while you say you're critical of only two individuals, my daughter still can't help but feel hurt too because she can relate to their plight...."

How would Wendy respond to this? Not another teary podcast, I hope.

I can give you countless other examples too: how about an angry parent whose little girl has just been suspended by her school for taking Wendy's advice--that is, to write nasty things about her teachers and principal on the net? She followed Wendy's instructions--setting up an anonymous blog and then act innocent when her teachers confront her. Problem is, she didn't realise that her friends weren't good at keeping secrets....

So, how is Wendy going to respond to that? Act as though nothing happened? Insist she's done no wrong and that it was the girl's fault for having friends with loose lips?

We're all familiar with the phrase "the straw that broke the camel's back". Wendy's problem with others (and vice versa) didn't start with "Toiletgate"--it started long ago, with her controversial entries, her condescending attitude towards people, and of course, her over-the-top ego trips.

"Teens who are free to read my blog possibly also can surf porn - why not go campaign against those websites? Surely beastiality is a worse influence than Xiaxue?!] "

Because porn doesn't have a face; Wendy does. Why do you think organisations have famous faces campaigning against all sorts of social ills like poverty, anti-racisim etc. Wendy, as an ambassador herself, should know how important it is to uphold her public image. The fact that she doesn't is an insult to the people who picked her.

"I come from a single-parent family, and money is something not easy to come by for us. My mom works very hard, and my brother is only 12. He doesn't have his own room, and I want to move to a bigger house so that he can get himself a room of his own.

I am not asking for sympathy, shove it up your smelly ass if you have any - I don't need it. I am just wondering how come people can derive happiness from others' misery. How much lower can the human race go, I sometimes wonder.

Thinking, perhaps, that you have taught me a moral lesson? "Be more careful with your words next time Xiaxue"?
FUCK YOU. "

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, but given her financial situation, I do wonder how she can consider "blogging" as her first job when people out there are hunting high and low for security and a stable income.

Sheer entrepreneurship, naivety, or just plain laziness? Only she knows.

"Will making me not have food to eat make you any happier?"

Well, Wendy can always eat brioche if she can't afford bread.... No, just kidding. *grin*

Someone who can afford a life of clubbing and shopping shouldn't be worrying about something as trivial as this, no? My advice to Wendy? Get a real job, and oh, try not to get too infamous--wouldn't want to scare off your future employers, would you? =)

So what can Wendy do about endorsements going down the toilet? This is clearly a no-win situation for her. If she sticks to her guns, she's likely to lose future endorsements; if she changes, her "brat" appeal will go and she'll lose her audience. It's that "brat image" she builds around herself that sells her (and sadly, her blog's only selling point). But that's a double-edge sword to companies that have to worry about their public image as well. Should be interesting to see how this develops.

Wendy asked her readers to remember her name, 'cos she thinks she'll be a case study in the future. Never mind the future, she's fast becoming a case study now, but for all the wrong reasons.

Nb: Wendy wrote later: "Voxy wants to clarify that our endorsement (as is Kimage) was for 3 months and not a year... "

Oh well, they had the option of extending it if they wanted to, I sure. =)

Ego Tripper

2005-10-19T13:16:00.000+09:00

"She is an ego tripper, one-way traffic yeah. Didn't take me so long to find out, and I found out." (with apologies to the late John Lennon *grin*)

"It's also a huge ego trip. A blogger in Norway made a button that says "I love Wendy's Blog" and a number of my fellow bloggers have displayed that on their sites. I can't begin to tell you how immensely flattering that is! I don't think I'll ever stop being amazed at how 'famous' I've become."

Not to be confused with Singapore's own enfant terrible blogger, Wendy Cheng (Xiaxue), it was Wendy Johnson of Alexandria, Washington--a knitting enthusiast and owner of the hobby blog/website http://www.wendyknits.net/ (since 1996)--who said that. Her blog has received over 3.5 million hits since April 2002, and she has sponsored numerous “knit-alongs” for fellow hobbyists.

Johnson made those comments in a newsletter of the Society for Technical Communication (STC) a few years back, when asked about her online journals.

"A sense of community, for one thing. I'm a solitary knitter, don't go to guild meetings, don't shop in [local yarn stores], don't hang out with other knitters in person. Since I started my knitting blog, I've made a lot of new friends."

In all honesty, ego trips have been around on the Internet, long before personal blogs turned them into a popular pastime. People were sharing their own thoughts and putting up personal photos onto their homepages in the net's Jurassic period; a few friends of mine even uploaded their wedding videos onto their personal website (registered with their own domain names). Justin Hall, considered the “founding father of personal blogging”, was already penning his online journal way back in 1994.

For me, it's fairly easy to relate to how Johnson feels about her online fame. After all, I've been running my own hobby websites since 1994, and like her, it feel good when strangers give you a pat for the back for all the hard work you've put in; it's even more flattering (kind of embarrassing, though) when fellow enthusiasts recognise you on the street.

However, you won't find Johnson rambling on about herself and her achievements, nor will you spot too many photo on herself on her blog, since most of them are devoted to her knitting projects and pet cat.

I don't put my photos up on my websites either, and the only time I didn't use a pseudonym was during an online interview with a US webzine.

Everyone likes to be appreciated for a job well done. You don't just feel good about yourself, but more importantly, about what you've achieved. It's about pride, since your work's an extension of your ego.

Like they say, you can insult the artist, but never his work. =)

So, yeah, we all had our occasional ego trips. But few ever got carried away with over-personifying their egos.

How things have changed with vanity blogs. And now Wendy intends to take her online narcissism to new heights/depths by commercialising it.

I don't like picking on people, I really don't. But I've never seen someone so conceited as to spend her waking hours building an altar for herself so she can sit on it. And if that's not bad enough, she even intends to make a living out of it.

Wendy has just revamped her blog—what she professes to be “possibly the most beautiful blog in the WORLD”—and with it, added new claims to greatness.

Here the pick of the crop:

I am Xiaxue, and I am your mother.

I am Xiaxue, and I'm a great spirit because Einstein once said that great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

I am Xiaxue. Thus behold the best blogger in the world.
(yeah right, tell that to Cory Doctorow and a lot of other bloggers out there)

The "world" in American sports is usually confined to North America (the World Series in Major League Baseball, for instance); the "world" in Wendy's dictionary must be a hell lot smaller even, perhaps something like a red dot....

However, the one that irked me most was this: "I also give talks about blogging, because someone killed the oldest blogger and made me the ultimate expert."

If Wendy thinks she's the "oldest blogger" and "ultimate expert" around, then what does that make professionals who have been in this industry even before she discovered her first webpage?

For all the hype surrounding blogs being a "new phenomenon", let's not forget that weblogs--like websites and community portals etc--are part of an ongoing Internet "evolution" that began years ago.

As John Grohol, a psychologist who writes about weblogs, observes: "The content and purpose of a blog is no different than a Web page, a Usenet discussion group, a mailing list or anything else adapted to a specific purpose."

A few years of frivolous blogging don't instantly make you an expert. Neither do a few weblog awards (we used get inundated with website awards too until we all got sick of them). It takes years of accumulated knowledge and experience to make someone an "expert" in his or her field--and Wendy has neither.

Oldest blogger, ultimate expert? What arrogance!

A lot of people have achieved far more than her--IT professionals, marketing people, designers, editorial staff etc who worked their butts off getting the online community to be where it is today--and they don't even openly make such claims.

You really have to ask yourself, how can someone's ego possibly grow so big for achieving so little? At 21 she's got little (if any) working/life experience under her belt; she's hardly a qualified webmaster, and has others to do her blog design and graphics; her articles are condescending, and hold water like a broken sieve; her looks are average, her personality worse.

And yet, she has a legion of groveling fans who can see no wrong in whatever she does, while the media and brand names are contented just to keep a symbiotic relationship with her.

Whether it's the media attention she gets, our youth's obsession with hype, or a deadly concoction of both, things are working out fine for Wendy. Also, credit where credit's due--she does seem to understand what makes the brat culture tick, and knows how to use the medium to work the crowds.

However, given her "success", it's only a matter of time before dozens of Xiaxue-wannabes start jumping on the bandwagon and imitating her.

Now that's worrying.

Yes, it's worrying when flaunting one's ego on the net can be considered a professional career--let alone an achievement. It's worrying when youngsters are encouraged to value show over substance, moreover by adults who should know better.

And it borders on the absurd when I can get accused of jealousy (and all sorts of silly things) simply for voicing my concerns.

Global village, global community, my foot! The Internet has devolved into one monstrous and expensive ego trip.

Welcome to the grave new world.

Dude, Where's My Toilet Cubicle?

2005-10-18T03:23:00.000+09:00

Woah, woah! HOLD ON DUDE. You mean only handicapped people can use handicapped toilets?

Ex-cons, educators, and now the disabled are the latest victims of Wendy/Xiaxue's poison tongue, and even though she claims her scathing remarks are reserved for two individuals, her tone seems to betray a more general disdain for these unfortunate folks.

It all started with her supposed conversation with her brother. Apparently, her brother saw someone getting an earful from a disabled man after he was caught trying to use a disabled cubicle. To his credit, Wendy's brother thought the guy got what he deserved, but Wendy (being Wendy) had to be controversial, as usual.

The man stopped at the handicapped toilet instead of the normal male toilet, because well...
1) it is nearer afterall
2) maybe he shares my love for handicapped toilets because they are so freaking spacious and usually has your own mirror and wash basin! Coolness!

I don't know what the fuck is this person's problem, but he shouted at the innocent man who opened his door:

"You come inside here for what, you are not even handicapped!" and etc scoldings.

Woah, woah! HOLD ON DUDE. You mean only handicapped people can use handicapped toilets?

You mean, the handicapped can use the other cubicles then?

She was equally unhappy that a male friend of hers got the same blow dryer treatment for using a disabled cubicle in the cinema.

Another one was my friend who was using a cineleisure handicapped toilet... When he walked out, he was severely lectured by a man who was wheel-chair bound, the latter chiding him for making him (latter) wait.

I don't know if it is the same grumpy, crazy person who did these two scoldings, but if it is not, then it seems a little too much of a coincidence.
How come people have this notion that only the disabled can use facilities for the disabled?

*Roll eyes*

So tell me ... our government spent millions of taxpayers' money to build so many facilities for the physically disabled, and only they are allowed to use it?

Oh, excuse me for going down the slope instead of the stairs, will you? I shouldn't have. MRT lifts - don't use it, cannot use it. Use the escalator instead.

WTF is this?

I don't know how much the government spent on such facilities (don't care either, 'cos I'm not writing a thesis here), but if Wendy really thinks they spent millions, then maybe she can direct me to her source? And by the way, MRT lifts can be used by others, including old folks who may have difficulty making their way up the stairs or escalators. As a matter of fact, until recently, most of the MRT stations aren't exactly accessible to people requiring wheelchairs; many public places (including tourist attractions) still aren't.

Sure, if I SEE that you are physically disabled, and you need to use the handicapped toilet, then yes, obviously I will let you use it and go use a normal toilet.

Of course, it wouldn't look good if she didn't. But what if she's already inside? Can she see through the cubicle walls to know that someone's waiting to use it. And even so, is she really going to move her butt (literally), apologise, and let the person use it instead?

Don't even go near the issue of handicapped parking lots. That is different, because waiting for a parking lot is not a matter of 2 minutes.

They're not. It's not a matter of waiting time; it's a matter of princple.

As far as I am concerned, you have a physical disability - and that is where you have a disadvantage. Your bladder is working fine isn't it? So you wait, just like normal people do, when there is a queue for the toilet. The rest of us queue up to use a toilet - I don't see why the disabled should be any different.

So a person's disabled, but his bladder must still be working fine, right?

Diabetes can damage the nerves controlling bladder function; it can also lead to limb amputations. I'm no expert in this area (okay, I suck *grin*), but you don't need to be a doctor to know that not everyone who's physically disabled is free of other illnesses. And even if it isn't the case, she didn't have to make such callous remarks.

And finally:

Pissed with unreasonable people. What pisses me off more is when the society at large condones bad behavior when it comes from supposedly piteous people. So what, handicapped have the rights to be unreasonable meh? If I ever break my leg (choy!) I think I shall use my crutch to anyhow whack anyone who comes near my MRT lift.

Between inconveniencing a disabled person (and still insist you've done no wrong) and getting chided for doing so, which is more unreasonable? The answer's pretty obvious, unless you're Wendy. Also, did she have to belittle the issue (and these people's plight) with her lame joke about breaking a leg?

Come to think of it, maybe she should just go ahead and break a leg after all. It might help her appreciate better the sort of difficulties these "supposedly piteous people" go through everyday in their lives.

Wendy obviously thinks that the disabled are too "privileged"--especially when she asks "why the disabled should be any different". What she doesn't realise (intentionally or otherwise) is that these people are very much "under-privileged" in most things people like herself take for granted. They have difficulties landing jobs available to normal people; they have problems getting around; those with families to take care of have to shoulder the psychological and emotional burdens; most already feel ostracised by their own society even without people like Wendy making them feel even smaller.

What may be "expensive" facilities to Wendy are, to these people, the simple things that make their lives more normal.

And while we're at toilet cubicles, there's only one cubicle reserved for them in every toilet, so why deny them even of that? It's disgrace that Wendy thinks they should just keep quiet and wait their turn.

Oh well, it's nice to know our government's call for a more caring society is heeded; and it's even more heartening to know that Singapore's "oldest blogger" and "ultimate expert" has done her part to support the cause by writing such a mentally-challenged piece of social commentary... Now if only it were "mentally challenging" instead. =)

nb: Really, I should stop blogging at ungodly hours... -_-

Go Back to School, Xiaxue!

2005-09-29T19:05:00.000+09:00

('cos it looks like your education has taught you nothing)

"Childish. I look down on you, you fucking loser school. Get a freaking life, wimp. Wooo you cannot insult me! You say I fat! I cry! I commit suicide! Abusing your fucking power, isn't it? Oh, I speak some opinion about you, you go suspend me. Just because you have the fucking power to. What kind of reasoning is that?"

Great way to get your point across, girl. Now that our readers have an idea how this enfant terrible writes, I'll move on.

For those who aren't sure what the fuss is about, it involves a recent incident whereby five junior college students got suspended for posting derogatory remarks about their teachers and vice-principal on their blogs.

Empowered by new technologies--and the false sense of invulnerability the Internet offers--young bloggers are posting just about anything and everything, including the said remarks about their educators (one teacher was labelled a "frustrated old spinster").

Call it the exuberance of youth, but these young people could very well be blogging their way into a libel suit--even if the teachers aren't named.

"As long as someone is able to identify the teacher, and it is an untrue statement that affects his reputation or livelihood, then the student is liable," lawyer Doris Chia of Harry Elias and Partners said in The Straits Times.

So, where does Wendy come in?

Well, rather than using her influence to talk some sense into these youngsters--or at least, try not to throw more sh*t at the fan--Wendy took it upon herself to speak on behalf of our aggrieved young, and in an expletive-laden diatribe that sounded every bit like an angsty and "frustrated old teenager", she launched a verbal assault on Singapore's oppressive school system.

She even invited students to blog/flog freely on HER site:

"What have your school done to students who blogged bad stuff about them? Say it loudly here, because we all want to know. Though, please do not mention school names - I also don't wanna get sued, for something I cannot even verify."

Nice disclaimer there, Wendy, but please refer to Ms Doris Chia's comment above.

Not that Wendy herself bother to leave names out of her own nasty experience back in school:

"Get this: Back in RV, Mrs Look even warned my classmates not to get close to me, because she told them I was a bad influence. Wow, targetting my friends and my social circle in school? Under the fucking white RV school belt, that is. If you want to get me to change, you don't threaten me with my friends, ok? (In case you are interested my friends hack-cared her)"

I've no idea who Mrs Look from RV is (but I sure know what RV is, with that "fucking white RV school belt"). However, someone who left a comment on her blog certainly did, so there you have it. And as if that wasn't enough, Wendy has to throw in a snapshot of her "diary" from her school days--and hence dragging innocent third-parties into the picture (including an "ex-boyfriend" who must already rue the day he met her).

Wendy then offers her two-cents on what teachers should do instead:

"Wanna fight back? You fucking fight like a man, and go set up your own blog and defend yourself."

In a language you, Wendy, will understand: "si beh bo liao".

Teachers are up to their neck with work; they don't need to degrade themselves and resort to such childish behaviour to get their views across. It's students themselves who should know that life doesn't revolve around a blog.

"What is with this "suspending" and commanding people to close down their blogs? What gives you the rights to threaten people like that? It is clearly an abuse of the power you have...
Don't you crazy-ass people know that the fucking studying environment is very stifling?
You close down this little outlet of venting for our teens, and may they, because they didn't siphon out their pains in the form of writing a harmless blog entry, burn your fucking school down in a fit of anger. Ha. How worth it."

And why can't schools punish THEIR students for breaking THEIR rules? What's next? Parents don't have the right to punish their kids for posting nasty stuff about their own family members? People are put in authority for a purpose, and while I don't condone anyone abusing their power, students too have to learn what respect and discipline mean, lest it's a "demobracy" not a democracy you want to live in.

Sure, our education system is stifling, school life sucks, and no one's going to stop them from writing about it if it's really that cathartic. So long as you don't make your thoughts public, like on an open blog.

"You are a principal. You are older, wiser, more mature, and more rational then your feather-brained students. Why abuse your power to attack these kids? Lowering yourself to their positions, isn't it? Aren't you supposed to be just a tad more magnanimous?
If you don't like what they wrote, you bloody go confront them, and clear things up - like what normal people do.

Don't fucking abuse your position and power.

Sure, students shouldn't write defamatory (by defamatory I mean untrue) things about schools. That surely is wrong. It is a civil case, so go sue the student! Why are you ruining his whole education by taking away his chance to study? He paid for your fucking teachers to fucking teach him, ok? If he fails his As because he missed that few weeks of lessons, who is going to compensate him, and his future? Who?"

By "lowering yourself to their positions", I take it as setting up their own blogs and defending themselves. Tit-for-tat. So, I don't think the principals have done anything that insults their profession. In any case, I'm sure they've already "confronted the students".

It's called "taking action". =)

Read. Defamatory -- doing harm by writing bad or false things about people. Anyway, if someone calls you a " flabby, cross-eyed midget", how would you feel? Based on how you appear to him or her, that may not be entirely baseless, even if it's spiteful and uncalled for. And why get so worked up about the school taking away the students' "chance to study", about them failing their 'A's when they're suspended for, what? Three days??

Yes, teachers are paid to "fucking" teach students, and that doesn't mean just providing them with knowledge, but also instilling in them the right attitudes in life. If an education system has no right to do that, then who does? Parents? Heck, didn't they pay the school (and the government) to do that?

"(Just a tip to students. When your school ask you to close your blog, you set up another blog account [with a new, anonymous email of course], and you copy the entire contents inside. Email the blog link to the school's biggest gossiper. When the school asks you why your blog is still around, you say bua bodoh and say, I dunno leh, I delete already, someone copied the contents and put it in that website, and I cannot remove it coz I am not the author mah!)"

Bravo! All the Xiaxue fans out there flaming us for slagging her behind a cloak of anonymity, and lo and behold, their goddess tries to encourage students to fight back under *gasp* a cloak of anonymity....not to mention throwing accountability out of the window....

"I don't wonder why our kids are all aiming for an overseas education. Can you imagine Harvard threatening to sue a student because he said "Frustrated old spinster. Can't stand to see attractive girls"?"

No, because most Harvard undergrads are matured enough not to make these sort of remarks. But it does make me wonder what's wrong with our education system here, when our JC students still don't know better.

"About this blog entry, it is not about whether students should, or should not blog about their schools. That's their freedom of choice, and it has also been discussed to DEATH. My point is simply that schools should not ABUSE their position of authority to punish students for something personal. ABUSE OF POWER. THAT IS NOT FAIR PLAY. Geddit?"

For the last time, how "personal" is a blog that can be read by just about anyone on Earth with Internet connection? If you want personal, stick to your good old diary, or password protect your blog. It's ridiculous to expect others to come in and read your web log and still claim that it's "personal".

The way I see it, why stir up a storm in a little teacup? If you want examples of teachers really abusing their positions, go read up on what goes on in some rural schools in China. And if you--or anyone--still think that we are being too hard on our kids, here's some food for thought, from another Asian country:

In Japan, teachers have noted that they'd get in trouble with the administration if they send too many students out of the classroom for disciplinary reasons; suspension and expulsions are also "taboo" which makes things worse when there are students with serious behaviourial problems in class. Corporal punishment, however mild, is frowned upon, and kids grow up not fearing authority. So what do we get? Headlines like these:

"GRADE-SCHOOL VIOLENCE UP IN 2004 - Educators are alarmed at a surge in violence toward teachers by children as young as 6 and no older than 12. Violence against teachers in publicly run elementary schools has become endemic, according to a government survey that shows a 33 percent increase in such behavior in the 2004 academic year over the year before. " -- Asahi Shimbun

Mind you, the things I hear from Japanese teachers I know or have spoken to don't paint a rosier picture either.

"It annoys me that people don't get my point all of the freaking time! "

Wendy, try to open your eyes before you open your mouth, and maybe, just maybe, people will start to take you more seriously. =)

Gloves are off!

2005-09-29T18:34:00.000+09:00

Okay, that's it. The gloves are off!

Why can't Wendy just be happy being a vanity blogger like the rest? Sandralicious, SPG, Daphne--they're all irritating and snotty in their own self-absorbed way, but never as obnoxious as this attention-seeker who styles herself as the "voice of the young".

If this were politics she'd be called a demagogue, but I doubt she even has half the brain to qualify being one.

What is it about her that gets on my nerves? It's something to do with her being thick, or worse, intentionally being so just to get more attention by strring up one controversy after another? Wendy may not like the analogy, but she's doing to the blogsphere what the yellow press has done to modern journalism.

She knows she's got many young readers; she knows she's a public figure, having gone on radio and TV; she knows she's endorsing product and brands, and is a "role-model" for public campaigns. And she damn well knows she has to be careful with the things she says because of that.

Or does she?

Christian-bashing? I can take that. Hurling veiled racist remarks at Muslims? Fine, be the bigoted "pig" (you're favourite word, Wendy) that you are. But an expletive-laden tirade urging younsters to rebel against their educators? Now, wait a minute!

I've got friends who are/were hardworking teachers; I've worked, during the course of my employment, on educational projects; I've got young relatives whose age profile fits those of her readers' (and *gasp* they could be her readers too).

So why shouldn't I worry?

And I'm sure I'm no alone here. Many have lambasted her for her latest entry on the "school vs student bloggers" controversy (including me), but most have since been banned and had their comments removed, even those targetting the issue rather than the writer herself.

To quote her: "ABUSE OF POWER. THAT IS NOT FAIR PLAY". Well, she runs a blog, makes contentious remarks at others. And when someone's comment runs foul of her political incorrectness, she removes it.

Yes, she's got the power--she's the owner of the blog--and every right to kick these people out. She just doesn't think that schools have the same right to kick THEIR students out of THEIR premises for supposedly doing the same thing....

Wendy can blog all she wants, while I'm free to give her a verbal flogging for every piece of rubbish she puts up. Tit-for-tat? Yes, sounds childish, but given her high profile among the young these days, her irresponsible blogging isn't child's play anymore.

Lest We Forget.

2005-09-13T19:23:00.000+09:00

So Wendy Cheng's back. So she and her fans STILL think it's not fair for others to criticise her for blogging her own honest, uncensored opinions.

Well, I'm just curious if her fans even bother reading her stuff, because the following is from the horse's mouth--yes, words from the so-called text goddess herself...

"1) Why do you write about Fiona? She never did anything to you.
Let's go beyond the petty issue of her having bigger tits and a wispier voice then me. The issue here is not "Why?", but "Why not?".Why do writers write? To express an opinion. "Oh," but you exclaim. "When your opinion might hurt others, you should think twice Xiaxue!"Bullshit. Let me repeat that in a larger font: BULLSHIT. First off, as I mentioned, writing anything can hurt anyone....

My fault?

I don't think so. With this logic of "not harming" others in writing, no one can be objective in their writings anymore.Have you ever trashed a movie? Ever thought of the director's feelings if he hears you? What if .. oh no! ... he decides to close down his blog after what you said about his movie and never direct again?

Can I roll my eyes now in a completely rude manner? I think I shall. *roll eyes*

It is not about Fiona Xie never doing anything to me. It's about her doing something I disagree with. So I comment. If she didn't want anyone to comment, then don't write anything in the blogosphere! You have a right to love her literary works; and I have a right not to. Simple as that."

A case of double-standards, perhaps? =)

The writing was on the wall...or so we thought.

2005-09-13T02:51:00.000+09:00

In another dramatic act of resurrection that would make Lazarus envious, Wendy Cheng has returned when it seemed all but certain that she had blogged her last entry (well, to her fans, at least).

This time, she has emerged from her hiatus--havng declared it only six days ago....

So, the next time we get hit by an economic hiatus, I suppose we can all look to Wendy Cheng for inspiration, and bound out of the doldrums in an even shorter period of time. =)

Just last month, French footballer Zinédine Zidane came out of retirement from international football after he claimed that a voice told him to do so; Wendy might just go one up by claiming that hundreds of voices (her fan-mail) convinced her to return from her self-imposed exile.

But this time, she says she's a born-again blogger ("I will go back to blogging about my life like when I first started blogging") who is open to comments ("And from now on, EVERYONE can leave comments"). She'll even turn a deaf ear to any unwanted noise on her blog ("I highly doubt I will read the comments myself, so feel free to troll, as I know many low-lives will. From today onwards, I shall be oblivious to the blogging world.")

The last I checked, comments have been deleted and IPs of "low-lives" banned and banished to oblivion.

Yup, the woman's definitely back. =)

The writing was on the wall...

2005-09-11T13:25:00.000+09:00

There was this sign along Orchard Road, during the recent Singapore Writers' Festival. And a certain Wendy Cheng was obviously thrilled to it on the walls along the underpass, as she gloated on her blog:

"Promotion pics for my participation in the Singapore Writers' Festival! Who was the fucker who said people like Nick Liu are "real writers" and I am not? Huh? Again? What do you say? STOP WHIMPERING! Oh yes, I got invited to the festival, and sorry to say ... the "real writers" are not...

Maybe boring, serious writing does not necessarily equal to good writing afterall. =)"

Then, less than a month later, this happens:

"Sometimes I wonder, why am I taking this shit? I think I will be much happier without blogging - except, of course, I won't have an income. Ha.

For all these, I am going to take a hiatus from blogging."

SO, is this the end of the illustrious "writing" career of Wendy Cheng (aka Xiaxue)? Well, not if you believe in the legend of hydras and such, but we'll just leave it at that. But how did it come down to this--Singapore's supposedly most "famous and popular" female blogger (with her awards to prove it, no doubt) now the nation's most hated cyber-personality?

I know Wendy's fans will cry foul for me making this remark, but ask around the online community here--especially older, more mature individuals--and you realise she isn't going to win a popularity contest, not by a mile.

Of course, Wendy Cheng the person may be all sugar, spice, and everything nice, but her online alter-ego doesn't seem that nice a person, to be honest.

"Petulant" would be a more apropriate word for her.

Wendy can gloat all she wants, that the "real writers" weren't invited to the Writers' Festival while she was. She doesn't seem to realise, though, that it wasn't her writing that got her this far, but the sort of popularity she's gained--it's pretty much like why Xu Chun Mei gets to show her face and talents (or the lackof) on talkshows and even concerts. And of course, this being Singapore, tangible credentials (like meaningless weblog awards, press coverage etc) can get you a long way too.

Real writers win literal awards, I suppose; celebrity bloggers contend themselves with their few minutes of fame. And Wendy no doubt got hers at the workshop. One only wonders how much she's learnt from it, but if this is anything to go by, not much:

"Cory Doctorow, founder of the top blog, boingboing.net...is really ridiculously smart and knowledgable, except I can't give any examples because half the time he was talking about tech/political stuff I didn't fully comprehend... I chose to hide behind my facade of dyed hair and unnatural lashes while pretending to not understand and therefore was spared the embarrassment of giving my unsubstantial opinions. Sometimes, it is good to be female. Don't know politics? Never mind that, I can cook."

Ouch! Now THAT hurts...

Why did Ms. Wendy "I was at the Writers' Festival, where were you?" Cheng end up throwing in the towel (allegedly) just weeks after the high point of her blogging career? Well, it's very much about what "serious writers" do and Wendy Chengs don't.

You see, one's experience in life (or 'worldliness', I guess) matters when he or she writes. Someone once remarked that the best teenage literature is written by adults, and that's not an overstatement. Good writing requires not just linguistic skills but also a maturity in mind--more so when its personal writings aimed at a mass audience. You know, memoirs, autobiographies, and the like.

If you have a lot of things to say about life, make sure you know enough about it before you start writing. More importantly, make sure you're humble enough too to recognise that your views don't necessarily equate to others--so when you write, write tactfully. It's okay to be funny. It's even okay to be cynical and sarcastic. But there's a fine line between been witty and downright obnoxious.

Unfortunately, Wendy crossed that line with her blog, and coupled with her new air of arrogance and hunger for publicity, it was only a matter of time before things backfired on her.

And they did. Her recent article on her trip to Kuala Lumpur broke the camel's back. Irate readers bombarded her with nasty comments (some of which, I've to admit are rather uncalled for) and Wendy--who has a nasty habit of deleting unflattering comments--simply caved in under the amount of criticism she got.

Wendy and her fans didn't think it was fair for others to criticise her just for blogging her bad experience in Kuala Lumpur, and I agree. But if Wendy had meant no malice, her wordings certain came across otherwise.

I've read a number of travel literature. My favourite is still "Looking for the Lost", by the late author Alan Booth. It was his own travel memoirs across the backwaters of Japan--a very insightful look into the land and its people, as well as a very personal work for the author himself.

In the chapter "Local Heroes", the author had a rather bad experience with the locals at a village liquor store. He had just walked in having braved the typhoon, and was miffed with the sort of brusque service he got from the lady owner. While he didn't hide his displeasure in the book, he wasn't downright condescending either. He didn't have to get nasty, and never did once insult the lady or his readers' intelligence by getting personal. Moreoever, Booth was mindful enough to explain why Japanese behave the way they do whenever he encountered behaviour that wasn't compatible with cultures outside Japan.

Wendy, this is what "real writers" do. It's less in-your-face, maybe slightly more boring writing, but it's an art of communication.

"Entertaining numerous partners simultaneously earned her a reputation as a text goddess"

Not so much a "text goddess" but the "enfant terrible" of the local blogsphere, but all isn't lost: while Wendy goes into a hiatus, and retreats into her world of shopping and dining (despite being "without an income"), the rest of the local blogging world can now turn their attention to what they've been neglecting for so long--real writing. =)

Photoshop Beauty: Some thoughts on Xia Xue

2005-08-19T13:16:00.000+09:00

Xia Xue is Wendy Cheng, a 21-year-old event coordinator who runs the blog http://xiaxue.blogspot.com. The blog won the Best Asian Weblog Award for 2004 and 2005. Her weblog attracts up to 2,000 readers daily and she is one of the editors for http://tomorrow.sg. She is currently Singapore's youngest columnist on The New Paper as well as the men's magazine Maxim.

That's the profile for a certain Wendy Cheng--better known as Xia Xue--on the Singapore Writers' Festival 2005 website.

At first glance, this female blogger seems to be what this nation, eager to showcase its young talents to the world, needs.

Unfortunately, Singapore also happens to be a country that equates "talent" to the tangibles--that is, the things you can boast about on your resume. Xia Xue is an award winner blogger, she has thousands of adoring fans, and she's marketable. She's already appeared on magazines and radio, and is even made one of the ambassadors of an anti-smoking campaign.

In short, she's a celebrity. So what if her writing is as inspiring and interesting as the graffiti you read in toilet cubicles? Right?

Meet what is possibly Singapore's most famous/infamous female blogger. On her own admission, she's short, plumb, and small-breasted, but that's not the Xia Xue you'll normally see on her own blog because, on her own admission again, she doctors her pictures to make herself more glamourous.

The wonders that Photoshop can do for your image.

SO WHAT'S THIS XIA XUE THING?

Simply put, we're talking about this:

Wendy Cheng, or Xia Xue, has been blogging since April 2003, and is, to quote her, "the one winning several blogging awards". General opinion is that her frank entries about her life as a typical young Singaporean girl initially won her a following, which then led to her receiving the Asian Weblog Awards. But alas, fame soon got to her head, and as she began to sound more conceited on her blog, the number of her haters grew.

The fact that there are now Xia Xue hate blogs (like Xialanxue, for instance) is proof of her new-found infamy.

BIG BAD MOUTH OF THE SOUTH

Trite, self-indulgent writing is bad enough; having them smeared with profanities--English or Hokkien--is worse. Yes, she is very liberal with her use of expletives.

An irate Wendy on readers criticising her writing:

"SO MANY FUCKING STUPID PEOPLE READING MY BLOG AH? I cannot take it - if you are the serious sort who gets angry over STUPID THINGS, then please fuck off. Now stupid and serious people, please fuck off. Go on. Don't add to my readership now, for that will only make me more arrogant, no?"

In one of her entries about jogging to lose weight:

"I saw a bus ad, AND IT IS MOCKING ME! It is bioessence's SLIMMING GEL AND AILEEN TAN SHOWING ME HER FAB BODY! Kaninahia! Limpeh jogging like a pig you tell me to take shortcut, how can?! As if these are not enough reasons for me to stop jogging, every five minutes a taxi drives pass REALLY SLOWLY, BECKONING ME TO HOP IN. LAO NIANG IS FAT, LET ME JOG IN PEACE CAN?! But cannot. These taxi drivers and cheebye slimming ads have to do this to me."

And on the competence of our army personnel:

"Another army guy said it is only five minutes to the MRT if we WALK SLOWLY.
IF YOU ARE THAT CB KIA YOU DON'T LET ME SEE YOUR FUCKING FACE AGAIN I SWEAR I WILL SLAP YOU WITH A PIECE OF HOT CHARSIEW YOU CB.

It was a FORTY MINUTES WALK AT BEST OK! AND MY FEET HAD ON HEELS AND BLISTERS (had to go to Zouk later)! !! How DARE that fucker lie to us to make us leave the bus stop? At least 15 minutes is not that bad a lie, but 5 minutes? HE GOT SPEEDBOOTS AH, or is he SONIC?"

Even some bengs and lians I know have reservations about speaking like that. It reflects badly on one's upbringing.

Personally, I've got nothing against expletives--they give one's writing the emotional intensity that polite language lacks. But there's only so much you can use before it amounts to abuse. SO, please, Wendy, please, stop abusing the abusive language....

And to think our Prime Minister fretted over Singaporeans learning Singlish from Phua Chu Kang. =)

Besides language, Wendy also complements her atrocious writing style with appalling insensitivity:

From her "thoughts" for National Day:

"Sang Nila Utama saw a singa and named us Singapura. If he saw a pig, then we are babipura? Ba bi po!"

First of all, Sang Nila Utama thought he saw a lion, but it was actually a tiger. In any case, whether Sang Nila Utama was Muslim or not is beside the point (history is hardly my forte). There's no denying that the country's history is very much linked to the Malays, the national anthem is in Malay, and as a multicultural soceity, a sizeable percentage of Singaporeans are Malays. And most people know what Malays/Muslims think of pigs--most, except for Wendy, of course. She had a go at Christianity too, but I'm not going to quote from that particular entry because the above pales in comparison to it.

And here, on news of her blog being hacked, in The Straits Times:

"Alas. London got bombed, so the article got pushed to page 16 instead of cover. My condolences to those affected, but that's another entry altogether."

She's as thick as her make-up... Nice try at being funny, Wendy, but humour can often backfire you know.

I ME MINE!
In July 2005, she dropped the bomb--her blog's been hacked! Well, websites around the world get hacked on a regular basis; even mine's been hacked before. When it happens, you usually let the hosting company know, and if you're lucky enough to trace the culprit, you send him a nasty email (if it makes you feel better). You then dig out your backup, reinstall your site, and get on with life. The same goes for blogs.

Of course, being Wendy, that wouldn't suffice. Not only did she--according to her entry--kick up a huge fuss by contacting Blogger's administrators, she even went down to the local police station to make a police report. And then, the story of the hacking appeared in the papers, but Xia Xue wasn't satisfied with the way The Straits Times covered her news:

"I think ST is out to sabo me. Throughout the article, I don't see the link to my webpage. I don't know if this is delibrate, but WHAT IS THE POINT OF TELLING PEOPLE ABOUT A SITE IF YOU DON'T LINK THE SITE? A bit stupid right?"

Then, she has a go at the none-too-flattering photo of her and the flab around her waist:

"A bit of photoshop would have salvaged the photo, but did they bother? NO. Jerks!"

Wendy claims to have gotten help from Biz Stone (Gmail / Blogger admin) two hours after she emailed him; she also claims to have received hundreds of fan mails in support of her. Her critics insist that she made the whole thing up because her popularity was wanning. What's the real story behind this, we'll never know.

The only thing that's certain is that her bloated ego had just gotten even bigger.

Wendy has also created her very own Xia Xue Fan Site, and got a friend to set up an "official" Xia Xue hate site. And like every decent publicity-hungry blogger, she's taken on other female "celebrity" bloggers like SPG and China's Furong Jie Jie--whom she referred to as a fat auntie and then proceeded to give a photo of the Chinese blogger a makeover. It was only later, after her critics had pointed out, that Wendy acknowledged that the English Furong Jie Jie blog may have been a fake...

SHUT THE F*UCK UP

In the presence of greatness (or, in this case, public figures), Wendy is all humble and nice:

"EUNICE OLSON AND JAMIE YEO COULDN'T COME, but there, standing beside my seat making small talk with someone, is MISS CLAIRE CHIANG! People is the founder and Executive Director of Banyan Tree! I am not worthy to sit beside her!!!!"

In the presence of her critics, she sings a different tune:

"I used to always convince myself that...guys in forums who diss me, are FUCKING LOSERS THEMSELVES. Fat, smelly, pimply teens who do gaming all day long. They know a girl like me will never like them, they will never be able to get a girl like me, and thus, to "save face", they first claim they will never date me.

Smart huh? Who are you, losers? It it like me saying I will never date someone like George Clooney. Hello, he wants to date me first then I have the right to sprout such atrocity, ok? You won't want to date me? BET YOU WILL, IF I AGREE TO IT. But of course, I won't. =D I don't date LOSERS."

And while she gleefully diss her unadoring readers, the latter won't get to defend themselves since--like so many other "celebrity" bloggers--Wendy routinely removes the comments they leave on her blog, especially the ones that make too much sense. It's a PR thing, I suppose.

So what do we make of this egocentric blogger? A "talent"? A "goddess of text"? Or just a girl who happened to get lucky, and then got too big-headed for her own good?

Forget the so-called Weblog awards she won. I won't debate over how they're awarded, but I'm sure it wasn't for her writing. Indeed, Wendy typifies a worrying trend of online "spontaneous writing" that is shallow, self-serving, and crass, and which relies more on cheap "gimmicks" to sell.

More worrying still is the kind of attention the media, her sponsors, and even local organisations give her. What message are we sending to impressionable teenagers by endorsing her bumptious behaviour? That Wendy is a prime example of being young, trendy, and outspoken?

Forget about sounding intelligent; it pays better to be a snotty, obnoxious bimbo. After all, vainty sells.

If this is the "talent" Singapore needs, then God help us all....

Herzlich Willkommen!

2005-08-16T11:22:00.000+09:00

Well, here I am, blogging at last.

Never thought I'd do it, but now felt more compelled to than ever, with a growing number of "celebrity" bloggers clogging up the Internet bandwidth. Bloggers like, you know, Xiaxue, Sandralicious, SPG, and *gasp* even Steven Lim who have become somewhat famous from glamourising their vanity.

Most of them flaunt their lifestyles, tell the world how gorgeous they look, and bitch about everything and everyone; SPG even goes as far as posing nude of her blog.

You might call them smart, media-savvy. Maybe, but sometimes I wonder if it has more to do with their readers (especially their adoring fans) missing a few brain cells than them have a few more. But then again, this is the age of Reality TV. It's hip to watch guys and girls cheating on each other, contestants bitching about and backstabbing one another. Heck, it's even cool (never mind okay) to act like a complete moron while auditioning for a "talent" contest.

Tell people that your favourite programming includes BBC, CNN, and the National Geographic, and they look at you like you're from Mars; tell them you don't blog--that blogging (among young Singaporeans, at least) is for people with too much time and too big an ego, and they stare at you like they've just seen a cavewoman. Sheesh...

Normally, I wouldn't care less with these attention-seekers--nothing wrong with them having their own ego-trips--but unlike personal diaries, these blogs are public. Anyone can surf in and read their stuff, including youngsters who are easily influenced. It's hardly surprising that many of these "fans" are teenagers who aspire to be as famous and "glamourous" as their "idols".

To compound matters, while these blogs are public, the same can't be said of the comments readers post there. These bloggers have a nasty tendency to remove anything critical of them--from tasteless insults to well-argued points. Some even go as far as banning the person's IP. It's all about packaging, I guess, to make their blogs look good to potential advertisers.

Media interest in these bloggers hasn't helped matters either. Rather than highlighting what's so wrong with the blogging community here, they've only managed to sensationalise it. Worse still, how someone like Xiaxue managed to become an ambassador for the local Anti-Smoking campaign is a joke. Her website won her the 2005 Best Asian Weblog award, no doubt, but that was before her ego got too big, and too much air got to her head. She still has her fans (her critics are, sadly, deleted from her blog) but the sort of presumptious things she writes hardly makes her a role-model for your own kid sister, never mind a nation of youngsters!

I might not be updating this often (there are more important things in life than this), but rest assured that I'll still be keeping my crosshair on these bloggers. Someone has to.