Singapore: A Paparazzi Free Zone

Singapore is a paparazzi free zone. Keep it that way.

It may seem strange to my readers in other developed nations to speak of a paparazzi free nation - but Singapore is one. Here, there are no hordes of aggressive photographers chasing celebrities everywhere they go. Here there are no eager snappers waiting outside expensive restaurants and nightclubs to catch a shot of a star. Here there are no long-lensed privacy breakers, taking pictures on the beaches of underdressed superstars. No. In Singapore there is such a thing as privacy for the famous. I suggest that Singapore keeps it that way.

As I write, there is outrage in the Chinese world at paparazzi photographs of actress Zhang Ziyi, sunbathing topless on a private beach in St. Bart's with her partner, Vivo Nevo, an Israeli investor. Now, firstly, I must object to these photographs for one good reason: the private beach is actually OWNED by Vivo Nevo - so what were the paparazzi doing taking shots of someone, at home, on their own property? It really strikes me as invasive.

It was clear from the way that the famous couple behaved in the photographs that neither was aware that they were being observed. In some sense, therefore, a private moment with a loved one has been stolen from them, commercialized and used to make money for some soul-less paparazzi with no respect for the lives of others.

In Singapore, such things don't happen. I have never heard of a paparazzi style "stolen photograph" appearing in the media here, or elsewhere. Since 1999 when I moved here, I have never heard of such a photographer being active or such photographs being taken. There is, in fact, an almost total media silence regarding celebrities in Singapore. The only times celebrities appear in the news here is when they want to be - ie. they are promoting an album, book, film etc. This is a good thing. Just because someone is famous that should not mean that they are forever denied the pleasures of a private life. A life is a life - and everyone of us should have the right to spend whatever portion of it we wish, in privacy.

Alarmingly, however, I have heard, that someone in the Singapore media toyed with the idea of starting a paparazzi culture here. There was talk of setting up an official database of "targets", who could rightfully be pursued and photographed. Fortunately, the project never took off. I really hope it stays that way, for the last thing Singapore needs is to succumb to the lowest of the low aspects of other cultures. The habitual and unwanted invasion of privacy that paparazzis represent is the worst aspect of Western media culture. No "star", of any kind, could ever want such a thing. It most certainly does not enhance their lives to be subject to such ongoing random scrutiny. Indeed, it takes a very valuable thing away from such famous people: the right to be alone, the right to be unobserved, the right to peace and quiet. I don't think that any mature culture should penalize famous people in this way, just because they have done something to distinguish themselves. Being distinctive, is not something that should be punished with being forever under observation.

One of the things I like about Singapore is that it does NOT have a paparazzi "culture". There is something refreshing about a place that doesn't place the famous under permanent scrutiny. There is also something about it, that the rest of the world should learn from. In this respect, the WHOLE WORLD should be like Singapore. There should be no paparazzi photographers anywhere in the world. Indeed, to behave like a paparazzi and steal private moments, should be an offence punishable by very large fines (millions of dollars are sometimes made from such photographs, so the fines should be in the millions) and long prison sentences. This should be the norm around the world. No-one should be subjected to unwelcome intrusion upon their lives, famous or not.

Well done, Singapore, on getting something right. Please keep it that way. Singapore should remain an island where the famous and the anonymous have the same right to privacy, in public.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Odex, Pacific Net, Singapore: a quote

I have received a number of comments some of which are published in the post below, regarding the Odex, Pacific Net case.

I have only published a few of the comments because many of them appear to be from people angry at the case - and, you can just guess what the tone of them is like.

It would help those commenters to note the words of a Pacific Net spokesman, published yesterday in the Straits Times, concerning the case:

"Pacific Net respects the rights of intellectual property owners and at the same time, also believes in protecting the privacy of all our subscribers."

This is an indication, contrary to what some commenters thought, that part of Pacific Net's argument would have been the protection of privacy. The full details of the argument are, however, protected by the Court, here, in Singapore.

Beyond privacy issues, however, Judge Lau was also concerned that Odex should not be the one to file the suit. He would have preferred a direct suit from the Japanese anime studio itself. This is a bit strange, however, since Odex own the rights to these Japanese anime cartoons, here - and the Japanese studio gave Odex permission to pursue the case - on their behalf. It seems, to me, like a case of a Judge finding a way to ensure that his own viewpoint prevails, by discovering a technicality he can use to support his view. The fact is, copyright was infringed on numerous occasions. The fact is Odex own the local rights. The fact is Odex are pursuing the case on behalf of the Japanese anime studio. It would seem, therefore, a straightforward matter, for me, anyway, to accept their proxy action - and find in favour of the holder of the local rights. Yet, the law is a strange realm - and often does strange things. Perhaps this is one of them.

It will be interesting to see how this copyright case is eventually resolved. Will Odex actually sue downloaders? Will the downloaders pay? Will this action reduce copyright violations here, in Singapore? I will report if anything interesting happens, ultimately.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, and his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, and Tiarnan, eighteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, genetics, left-handedness, College, University, Chemistry, Science, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)