Filed under: Comment
I have written many posts about the patriarchal nature of Singapore and how it ‘rules’ rather than governs.
I’ve pointed out that there are many good things about this place but some [like putting in machines to ‘sanitise your hands prior to opening a door’ – see pic below] are going to the extreme.
However the one thing I found quite amazing is that this weekend, when I went to see James Bond, there were loads of people in the cinema with children around the age of 5 with them.
Now I haven’t got any kids – and I appreciate how hard it must be to see films with ‘mature content’ when you have them … but this was ridiculous and most of the film was spent hearing the sobbing of scared little kids!
OK, so it is really the responsibility of the parents, but in a country where the Government tell you to ‘smile at foreign dignitaries, ‘be nice to others on the road’ and ‘honour intellectual property’ … I am just shocked they haven’t ordered cinemas to stop adults taking kids to see movies of ‘questionable infant content’.
If an adult was found showing porn movies to a kid, they would be arrested for ‘child abuse’ and improper conduct’ … and yet in cinemas all around the land, this sort-of thing goes on and on and on – another example of money first, values second … and it is making me sick.
People are so quick to jump on the youth-brands-corrupting-youth bandwagon … but the reality is that many of the so-called ‘family brands’ [from cinemas to Macca’s] are doing far more damage to society than Grand Theft Auto or James Bond ever could do and yet they are rarely questioned on a political level.
Hell, if Macca’s did an ad like the one below [“The Most Useless Photo In The World?”] … rather than be seen as re-iterating firmly established racist/prejudice views … they’d probably be congratulated by the Singaporean Government for representing a multi-cultural life.
One rule for one … another rule for the other – often decided on your ‘brand character’, ‘hypothetical values’ or ‘money you pay in tax to the Government’.
9 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Where the hell did you get that photo of the photo? I shouldn’t laugh because it proves your point about emphasising prejudices, but it’s totally bonkers.
You should have a go at how the pharmacutical industries have bullied, bribed and bought Congress/Doctors to reduce the number of symptoms needed before one of their expensive drugs can be prescribed. It’s outrageous and was the single biggest factor in creating the Prozac Nation. Advertising is nothing when you have the distribution.
Comment by Pete November 27, 2006 @ 4:08 pmUnsuprisingly, the photo was a ‘gift’ from Andy – so expect a fatwah [is that how you spell it]placed on him any day now.
As for the drug companies and their relentless pursuit to reduce the number of symptoms before one of their [as you put it] expensive products can be prescribed – that’s a great idea and I’ll try and find out more of what’s happening – though I do know ‘anti-depression’ medication can now be prescribed based on literally 2 illness characteristics when previously [before Prozac and focused Drug company lobbying] it needed about 12!!!
Sure we live hectic, pressured lives … but 2 depression characteristics? Even babies probably have them! [Mind you, in Singapore, drugs are handed out like sweets – parents can even get sedatives for their kids if they tell the DR they are going on holiday and don’t want the baby to be troublsome during the flight!]
As for advertising not being a match for distribution – yep, totally – which is probably why so many of the multinational brands produce such shite advertising.
Comment by Rob November 27, 2006 @ 4:18 pmGames and films are easy targets. But that said, we shouldnt be selling Grand Theft Auto to 5 year olds.
I am always amazed by the drug ads in the US. Its almost shocking. Theres a good song about that, ill try and find it…
Comment by Rob Mortimer November 27, 2006 @ 5:38 pmVery true … but then we shouldn’t be selling food via toys to 5 year olds either, ha!
Comment by Rob November 27, 2006 @ 6:18 pmWell maybe not.
But in both cases there should be sufficient parental responsibility to say “No” to the kids!
I thought BK and KFC got some good PR by saying they would stop advertising to kids the day before a ban was officially announced (which they probably knew about)!
Comment by Rob Mortimer November 27, 2006 @ 6:25 pmAs the old adage goes … you need a licence for a dog but not a baby. Maybe changing that would actually force certain parents to take their responsibilities seriously.
Comment by Rob November 27, 2006 @ 6:48 pmThe problem is you don’t have to go to a shop to buy a baby… Would solve so many problems in this country if we did.
“Id like to buy a fish licence for my pet fish Eric”
Comment by Rob Mortimer November 27, 2006 @ 6:51 pm‘You’re a looney’
“I AM NOT A LOONEY!”
I don’t know – didn’t Madonna shop for a baby? Ha
Comment by Rob November 27, 2006 @ 7:50 pmVery true…
Comment by Rob Mortimer November 27, 2006 @ 7:58 pm