Blog 3

From this article, we see that celebrities are starting to resort to certain measures, in order to keep their privacy. The most obvious case we see here is Brangelina’s case, where they got US$14M (S$19) from the pictures of their new-born twins. This money eventually went towards charity. From this, we can see that the celebrity is changing for the better because many made the right choice.

Constant scrutiny is the price of the fame that celebrities get, such that “every move they make, every step they take – royals, actors, musicians, to a smaller extent politicians – is documented and paparazzied for our feeding”. Although their private lives are possibly a trade-off in such an industry, celebrities can clearly still make the choices to draw the boundaries. Take for example, Johnny Depp and Britney Spears. Johnny Depp does not appear on the news as often as Britney Spears, why? Johnny Depp is one of the world’s most famous actors, but he hardly appears on the tabloids. In the case of Britney Spears, she is on the news all the time, with the recent case where she fights for the custody of her children and her on drugs and going into rehabilitation. What is the cause for this difference between these 2 famous celebrities? What kind of fame/publicity are they receiving?

What we are emphasizing is that it is choice on the celebrity’s part is crucial. The reason I say that it is a choice as because as you can see from just two simple examples of two celebrities, not from the article, Johnny Depp and Britney Spears, their lives are totally different.

Johnny Depp manages to keep a low profile as a celebrity yet he is still famous for his acting skill. His performances have wowed his audience. Johnny Depp is one of the most famous actors in the world, but we don't constantly see stories on him posted in the tabloids. It's not that he doesn't have any drama going on in his life; everyone does right? It just seems like he refrains from speaking about his home life when being interviewed and he doesn't allow the cameras to catch him in any embarrassing public displays. Even though he lives in London (a far cry from celeb-packed LA) he probably gets his share of photographers following him around, but other than taking pictures they really have nothing more to report on him. I mean, what's so interesting about a celebrity dropping their kid off at school or walking down the street pushing a stroller?

Britney Spears has always embraced the media and publicity throughout her career, offering juicy secrets on her relationships and personal life. As a result the media has turned against her, exploiting her personal life as a source of controversy…… She tends to end up in the tabloids more because of the things that they allow the public to see, yet they cry invasion of privacy when everyone knows their business. The whole world only knows their business because they put it out there. It is not very hard to keep yourself from being photographed with no underwear on or vomiting on a public street after leaving a club. I understand that it's very easy for famous people to crack under pressure and start to spiral out of control, but allowing the public to see their breakdown is only more embarrassing for them and entertaining for us.

Look at some of the celebrities that I’ll be talking about next. In an effort to defuse unwanted media interest or devalue paparazzi shots, some celebs sell photos of their newborn babies or their weddings, with the proceeds often going to charity. That's what the Courteney Cox Arquettes did with Coco's, her newborn child, photo back in 2004, and what model mom Heidi Klum chose to do after giving birth to daughter Leni in May and finding the press camped out on her Manhattan doorstep. These were the choices that these celebrities have made and it seems to be working. Why can’t others like Britney Spears do the same to avoid trouble? Just that she should provide the appropriate photos to avoid the troubles that they are facing now.

Many celebrities actively seek media exposure in order to advance their careers, revealing many aspects of their personal lives; once success has been bought in such a fashion it is hypocritical to complain of “press intrusion” into those few aspects the star would prefer to remain hidden.

There are also other celebrities all too happy to talk about their private lives when everything is going well, but the minute things start to sour, you hear, ‘My private life is sacred.” Why is that so? More and more people pay attention to actors’ private lives and that makes it difficult to suspend disbelief when you are going to watch their movie because really what you are thinking about is whatever you have read about them in a magazine rather than the performance they are giving. This can also be called hypocrisy. It could just be one single time and everyone has a totally different opinion about this certain celebrity than before. So, one important point that we should note is how these people get all these information. Certainly, we know that people get all these information as the mindsets of people are slanted towards the dark side of one’s character. One thing for sure is that it is hard to change the thinking of these people, but what celebrities can do is to keep all these things that they are doing to themselves and not in public. This is basically a choice that they can make, and they should make. It is their choice.

In fact, when you think about it, celebrities chose to go this path even though they knew about the risks that they would be taking. This is not an assumption, this is a fact. But why would people like Paris Hilton and Co. continue to do what they are doing? There must be a reason, but we might never understand. They can choose to stop, or choose to continue. Should they decide to choose the latter, they ultimately have to suffer the consequences and not start a blame game. Hence, it all boils down to the word ‘choice’.

Want my picture? Pay first

Section:	News
By:	SYLVIA TOH PAIK CHOO
Publication:	The New Paper 07/08/2008
Page:	19
No. of words:	580

SHOW

Celebs should follow Brangelina's cue and donate money to charity

COMMENT

By Sylvia Toh Paik Choo

paikchoo@sph.com.sg

ACTOR Morgan Freeman, seriously hurt in a car crash this week, managed to say to someone who attempted to take his picture at the scene, "No freebies, no freebies."

Seriously, you think he was joking?

Uh-uh, I don't think so.

He was being money-honey-savvy, and it showed even while the Oscar-winning thesp, broken-limbed, was being prised free of the mangled wreck.

His quick reflex – if a picture paints a thousand words, why, Hello, it may yet pay hundreds of thousands of dollars – echoes the rest of the celebrity community's. It's all hardwired to the big bucks, toots.

Doll-face, will you shut up and grow up already?

It has always been about the greenbacks, only ever more so since, well since it got greedier and grabbier when celebrity hit on the red-hot idea of sell-ibrity. That's Hollywood Evolution 101 for you.

Births, funerals, weddings, divorces (anyone snap Heather Mills dousing Macca's lawyer with a glass of water in court, that'd be worth a stonking wad of dosh, with enough left over for when she sues).

NOTHING SACRED

Is nothing sacred? Duh. There is, until you name the right fee.

Fort Knox-type security celebrity marriages, Maddie and Guy Ritchie, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas, Posh and Becks, first baby pictures from Spears and K-Fed, J-Lo and Mark-A. (What's with the like-crossword-

puzzle-clue names, huh? A-Rod etc?)

The outrageousness of it all – having your guests checked for hidden phone cameras because you've signed a million-dollar deal with some tittle-tattle weekly to have first bite. Is this the happiest day of your life or a commercial transaction?

And fastest fingers too, to sue anyone taking an unauthorised souvenir shot. (You know why Americans are ever ready to sue? Because the country once belonged to the Sioux!)

Far as I can make out, the last time I looked, the above-named are no different from you and me. In fact, they are exactly like other people, only with more collagen, shoes and handbags, and a private jet. So they got lucky – no, make that they got agent.

Take Freeman again. Besides a distinctive voice, no special talent, other than to coast through films delivering lines like "I am God". Say that often enough – in two films – and you start to believe your own script; there can be no such thing as a freebie ever after.

Here's the cruncher. You and I. We are to blame. Because we place so much value on these characters and the celluloids they play.

Every move they make, every step they take – royals, actors, musicians, to a smaller extent politicians – is documented and paparazzied for our feeding, it has to cost. Why give it for free?

We're eager to buy. They're owl-eyed to charge. Why shouldn't they? We need these personalities, we need famous people to look up to, or look down upon. And they come with a price tag, and thus far it's been ka-ching!

In Brangelina's case, Hollywood's hottest couple got US$14m ($19m) for pictures of their twins. But at least they donated the money to charity. Other celebs, take note.

Imagine, if they'd had triplets, the cause they support would've benefited by $20m! Brangelina could still hit that figure. By selling the twins' first collective word to radio coast-to-coast.

And let's just halt there, no one needs to see Roon's Colleen breastfeeding in a footie rag.

Democracy creates stability in a society

To me, stability in a society means that everything is in a balance. When I say in balance, I mean there are minimal problems in the social, political and economical sense. Social being there is minimal crime, mutual understanding between people from different races and religions. From the political point of view, I think that it means that the government and its people have a understanding between each other, that the people will feel that what the government does is right for the welfare of the nation and that the government will know what the people want and try their best to go according to the wishes of the people. Economically, employment rates will be high, the income of the people will be reasonable and there is minimal inflation.

As for democracy, there are many forms of democracy. However, all of them have something in common. What they have in common is the rights that the people have. Most importantly, the people of the country or nation can exercise their own political power, in the sense that they are given the power to choose who should lead them, who they think can help to bring benefits to them and improve the standard of living. That should be what democracy, in my point of view, is supposed to be.

It is hard to tell whether democracy can really create stability in a society. Basically, when democracy is put in a society, it means that people have the freedom to do what they want, but only to a certain extent. Moreover, it means that people are allowed to choose who they want to represent their interest, to choose make smart decisions so that they can benefit from the decision made, be short-term or in the long run. So the question is whether democracy is the answer to stability in a society.

Part of this question lie on the definition of society. From what I know, a society is group of people with common interests and they live together in mutual understanding. They also live together to achieve a common goal, be it in a religious, social or any other sense. Singapore itself is a very good example of a society. Even though we are a multi-cultural and multi-racial nation, we are still able to live together in harmony despite our differences. The common goal we have is to achieve total acceptance of the various races and religions within the nation. However, all these were not caused by democracy. It might be true that the Singapore Government has chosen to take its stand as a democratic government, however, the cause of the mutual understanding that people with different backgrounds have with each other is the policies that had been implemented since Singapore became independent. These policies are basically that we should not discriminate other races or else we would be jailed.

However, it is again not true that democracy cannot create stability. Using Singapore as an example again, democracy has given the minority races the same standing as those from majority races. It is unlike in the conflict between the Sri Lankan Sinhalese and Tamils. In their case, they have used democracy to turn against the minority. The Tamils, who were once the ones with the upper hand in Sri Lanka, were somehow overturned by the Sinhalese, only due to their population number. The Sinhalese made use of their numbers to overthrow the Tamils and unmistakably, put everything in their advantage. They also created a government which did not have any Tamils, reason being so that there will be nobody to bring up the issues of the Tamils.

However, in this case, we are looking at a whole new platform. A new platform meaning that democracy has been misused to benefit oneself and to put others, or the minority, at a disadvantage.

Hence, democracy will be able to create a stable society. As stated in the first paragraph about stability in a society, democracy can help to solve lots of problems. With democracy, people will have equal placing in society. This gives them the same opportunities to get jobs, to get scholarships and so on, regardless of their background. This will minimise the amount of crimes committed. The people have their say in the affairs of the country and how the government is handling the nation.

In conclusion, I agree that democracy is able to create stability in a society. That is if it is used in the correct way, and not tweaked to benefit a certain group of people and put others at a disadvantage.

A Teenager's Rebellion - Right or Wrong?

Section: Mind Your Body
Publication: The Straits Times 13/02/2008
Page: 18
No. of words: 676

Rebellion of a teenager
In the article of Rebellious Teenage Brother, it says that it is normal for teenagers to rebel. That will make a lot of teenagers jump for joy and a lot more parents worry more. However, is it really okay for teenagers these days to go astray and cause trouble in their neighbourhood?

For me, I’m also a rebellious kid myself. However, I don’t smoke, don't have a tattoo and don't go out till the wee hours of the night. So, I should still be one that does not rebel to that extent. But there is one thing that I feel is common amongst the youngsters of today – wanting to be with their friends more than anyone else. I’m the same here. My mother will nag at me if I don’t reach home at the designated time allocated and will question me till something is squeezed out of me. Most of the time, I would lie, “A lot of project to do. Have to stay back and finish up.” But the fact is I am either hanging around in school with my friend, talking about work and life. I feel bad sometimes when I lie about it. But if I don’t lie, I will die from my mother’s nagging. When I come to think of it, what’s wrong with hanging out with your friends?

Coming back to the point, is it alright to rebel? Rebelling might be something that most teenagers might do to get their way, but ultimately it all comes back to the person who is in charge. In most cases, the person in charge of the situation at hand would be someone of higher authority. Let’s call this person Mr A. This is when things start to turn worse. The teenagers would group together to plan the fall of the Mr A. That is when a gang is formed. This is not the kind of rebellion that I would like to see. It is not rebellion anymore. It is plain law-breaking.

So, some might ask, “When is the time to stop the rebellion of a child?” According to Kenny Toh, a life coach and founder of The Coaching Academy and International Network for Parents as Coaches, it is better to let the teenager express his feelings and let him know that his feelings are accepted. It can be better if someone else shows him the right way to control his feelings towards certain situations and make him feel that he is loved. Trying to stop the thoughts that the teenager has might cause oneself even more problems and it will become harder to overcome it.

Overall, I feel that being rebellious is just nature. But there should be guidance to show the young people the right way and make them feel that they have a part in the world, that there is someone out there who cares for them.(479 words)