The "Spirit" of Community Service

Tonight I spotted my younger sister asking my dad for an assortment of coins – tiny plastic bags of them. Curious I asked her why she was packing coins as though she was about to run a coin exchange business. Her answer? “I got flag selling tomorrow, which I have to go for to clock up my community service hours. I’m thinking of cheating.”

My sister had reached a stage in her life where she was put off by community service. It was a chore to her – a burden and hurdle in life that she had to navigate her way through. What I witnessed tonight was fast becoming a commonality. The education system in Singapore is such that community service is ‘compulsory’ up to a certain number of hours, and ‘voluntary’ to a maximum number of hours to secure a minimal advantage, if not equal, with other students in the cohort.

Later that night, she happily declared to me that she didn’t have to go for flag selling tomorrow anymore – because she had already done an event that gave her 15 hours of community service. Whoopee-do for her.

What has the world come to? Have Singaporeans lost all heart for community service? Is it because of our education system or is it because a majority of us are selfish individuals who seek to “mind our own business”?

I personally think the government has gone about spreading Community Service in the wrong manner. Since young, we have been forced to go to Old Folk’s Homes to interact with the elderly, even if we do not understand a word of dialect, nor speak it. I cannot understand why we have to interact with the elderly before it counts as us serving the community. Can’t we clean the homes instead? I, unfortunately, had developed an aversion for Old Folk’s Homes in secondary school, like many I know, because of the fear of communication. Having been “encouraged” to talk to the elderly was a harrowing experience for me. I had no idea how to communicate with them in a way they could understand, and even when they tried to communicate with me, I would be lost in the sea of foreign words. I even know of someone who began to fear the elderly! How I used to dread trips organized by the school to Old Folk’s Homes.

In Junior College however, I got over my aversion. While a trip to the Old Folk’s Home was mandatory, we were free to perform whatever service we could offer. Some of us would clean the homes, whilst others would converse in fluent dialect with the elderly. When lunch time came, some of us would feed the elderly who had difficulty managing on their own, whilst others would simply clean up. There was no more fear of awkward moments when the conversation could not progress past a “hello”. There was no more frustration on part of the elderly to be attached to someone who couldn’t converse with them to save their lives! There would be no more jostling for the elderly who could speak and understand English, and neglecting those who could only do so in dialect. It was, a much more enjoyable experience, and it no longer put me off future visitations.

How many countless people have shared the same experience as I? I was lucky enough to be able to overcome my aversion, but till today, I know of some who haven’t.

As I thought back to the events that transpired in the afternoon, I revisited another thought: What of our spirit for service? Every Saturday is unofficially deemed “flag selling day”. Everyone knows that when you go out on a Saturday, you will have to either buy ‘insurance’ to protect yourself from the mobs of student ‘volunteers’ or reject someone every time they ask you if you want to donate to the charity on their can. The latter, from experience, is performed in two ways: ignoring you completely by turning into a stone-cold-emotionless-faced idiot, or by politely turning the offer to donate down.

Having been through countless flag selling days, I can honestly, and sadly, say that the best part of the whole experience is the end of it. It has long become an age old practice to simply “change five dollars into coins, dump it into your tin, and treat yourself to a/an morning/afternoon of fun and leisure with your friends. In my entire life, I have seen countless of people do it. I myself have succumbed to the temptation once. Where is the spirit of flag selling?

I think the attitude of Singaporeans put most people off flag selling, as well as the lack of a purpose. Most students perform their flag selling routines as simply that – a routine. After repeated flag selling incidents, they fail to see the purpose of performing such a deed anymore, especially with the reception of Singaporeans. I have been in such a rut before, especially upon hearing rumors that not all the money goes to the charity of choice, but only a percentage of it.

I think if Singaporeans were a tad nicer in general, to flag sellers, maybe the flag sellers would cultivate their deflated spirit for volunteerism again. (This is excluding the true blue altruistic humanitarians amongst us.) From experience, flag sellers usually get a kick out of their ‘shift’ when people on the street voluntarily come up to them to donate, or when the amount donated far exceeds expectations. The whole experience then does not seem meaningless.

Perhaps the aversion on a pedestrian point of view comes from the all-too-frequent flag selling activities. Almost every Saturday I see flag selling activities in commencement. Not counting weekday nor Sunday efforts, I feel a sense of dread going out, only to be approached by yet another flag seller. I admit there is no easy way to solve this problem. There are gazillion charities out there that need help, and frequency may be needed. However, I think there are better ways at going about doing things. A mass (collective) collection on behalf of groups of charities every now and then would be more pleasing to the eye for instance. No doubt there is then the possibility that someone who has just donated would not donate again for a while. Yet think about it, isn’t this feeling worse with frequent flag selling?

The approach of the flag sellers may also need some attention. How many of us out there have been bombarded by flag sellers the minute we step out of the MRT station, or a shopping centre? To all flag sellers out there, please spend a moment to think: would it be more likely that someone would donate if you asked nicely and not shove the tin can in their faces ordering “please donate” or proclaiming in broken English “want to donate?” It would also help if you speak up sometimes for muffled sounds do not travel far. Smiling instead of looking like you’re the most utterly miserable person alive helps a bit too.

Reluctant volunteers should also stick with the guidelines set up by the charities/organizations in charge of the collection. I know for a fact that collecting money on public transport, especially the MRT, is a huge taboo. So is collecting money in a shopping centre. Yet, I find that some volunteers are still doing so! Please respect the guidelines. They are there for a reason.

Naturally, I find everything in a cycle which makes change ineffectual, unless everybody changes at the same time, which will not likely happen. I feel that sometimes flag sellers cannot be blamed behaving in such a manner, especially if they see that politeness is not getting them anything but cold stares or shouts of “donated already lah!” I cannot blame them for feeling bored and miserable after some of the most appalling attitudes of Singaporeans surface. At the same time, I cannot blame pedestrians for behaving in such manners sometimes, especially after being bombarded so frequently by a minority of rude flag sellers. I cannot blame flag sellers for lacking the sense of purpose, or cheating on their duties, especially if the chosen charity actually sets a minimum weight upon return of the tin can. Yes, it is true. I have been told in one of my flag selling events that I was not to return unless the can was half filled – and being half-filled it should weigh like so. What kind of an attitude are we cultivating?

Nowadays, some charities have even brought flag selling up a notch by selling “tickets”, which are no more than “receipts” most of the time, for a lucky draw. These tickets range from $2 to $10, depending on the booklet denominations. Now I’m skeptical when it comes to these ticket selling methods, because of the experience of one of my friends. Did you know that the people selling these tickets for charity on a so-called voluntary basis get a commission for each ticket sold? My friend earned about $50 selling these tickets once. Imagine: he is only one of the many hundreds out there doing the same thing. Where is all the money going? After a simple subtraction of commission and other miscellaneous fees that the charity/organization will deduct off the amount of money received, how much actually goes to the people who really need the help?

I also find it ridiculous that sometimes you have to buy the ticket, and are not able to simply donate a smaller token sum, especially when the ticket is priced at $5 or $10. I understand that it may be the charity/organization’s fear that the ticket sellers may pocket the money. However, that could only happen if the money is given to them, instead of placed, by the donator’s hand into a can or bag that allows only one way traffic.

Community Service in Singapore is overrated. It has lost the spirit of volunteerism, and the meaning of service, especially amongst the younger generation. I think systems need to change for Community Service to really thrive.

Cryogenics - it's the Ice Age all over again!

Reading the Straits Times today, I came across an article on Cryogenics. What did I think of it? Another rich innocent being bites the dust again!

What is it? Cryonics is a speculative life support technology that seeks to preserve human life in a state that will be viable and treatable by future medicine. It is expected that future medicine will include mature nanotechnology, and the ability to heal at the cellular and molecular levels.*

Damage done to your wallet: minimum USD$80K - USD$150k
The former is only if you choose to preserve your head, the latter, for your entire body.

Personally, I think mere little humans like us, who do not have any of the powers that be, should not dabble to change the life cycle. A lot of ethical as well as religious issues are associated with Cryogenics.

At the outset, there is the issue of playing God (if you happen to be a free-thinker, an atheist, or a really staunch sociologist who believes that religion is man-made and therefore fictitious, skip this comment). Religion dictates that there is a greater being that made life the way it is. Hence, we are supposed to be born, live through our lives, and die at the end of the day only to ascend to the greater heavens for an afterlife, or be reincarnated. Really staunch Catholics believe that if we fall ill, or meet with mishap, it’s all part of God’s plan. Dying is glorified – a path to a better life. Cryogenics, viewed in this light, is thus, interference in God’s plan, and to some, may even be viewed as Devil-influenced.

Of course, there are the naturalists, who simply state that this goes against nature. Either way, Cryogenics upsets the life cycle.

Not to mention there is NO guarantee that revival is possible. Revival would be an improbability with current technology. Cryogenics supporters will tell you that sooner or later, following the rapid development of technology, revival will be made possible in the future. Even if that were to be true, which I highly doubt, it would still be untested technology.

How do you think technology is tested? On guinea pigs. Who do you think are those guinea pigs? Animals? Testing on animals, would not only be cruel but also offer no assurance that humans will respond in the same manner. The only way people are going to know for sure that something works, is to test it on a human. Who do you think are these test subjects? The very first would most definitely be one of those poor souls, who forked out a tenth of a million USD dollars, lying in their ‘sub-zero tombs’. Good for you if it works, but what if it doesn’t?

Information runs scarce when it comes to complications during revival, if it should even be possible. There is information, do not get me wrong. However, the manner in which this information is presented is not as obvious, or publicized as it should be, given the nature of Cryogenics. Amnesia is ONLY ONE of the complications that might occur. What is the point of being revived if one cannot remember the people around you, the life you’ve had, or worse, who you are yourself?

I find it difficult to believe that the process of preservation requires an initiation ideally within 1-2 minutes of your heart stopping. It is claimed that the maximum gap between the preservation procedure and the time of your heart stopping is 15 minutes. Here’s the thing: if the preservation procedure needs to be initiated within 1-2 minutes of your heart stopping, this would mean either (1) specialists from the cryogenics lab are standing by your deathbed (2) you are in the cryogenics lab on your deathbed. While the former perhaps requires a simple phone call, the latter would mean that you know exactly when you are going to die – either that or you would be living the remainder of your days in the cryogenics lab, or nearby surrounded by equipment. What a lovely memory to have as your last second on earth ticks away.

“Don’t be absurd! You can drop dead anywhere you wish, and still be preserved, as long as it’s within 15 minutes!” you say. I thought our brain dies within 6 minutes of our heart stopping? What’s the point of preserving yourself if you’re brain dead, since you’ll be revived as a brain dead person anyway! The heart cannot function without a brain and the brain a heart. If you are brain dead, you’ll have to be kept on life support for the rest of your life. If you are revived, it would probably mean the rest of your after-life. Seriously, 15 minutes isn’t a hell lot of time in the first place. Fine if you drop dead amongst people who can make that one phone call to get the cryogenics specialists down, but if you die in isolation?

There’s also the issue of the preservation of the dead. If you’re dead when they preserve you, won’t you be dead when they revive you? Cryogenics argue that you are biologically alive but legally dead. I thought you have to be biologically dead to be legally dead? What if you die of cancer? When you are revived, don’t you still have the cancer? So won’t you die again anyway? Even if you die naturally in your sleep, there’s a reason you actually die. Reviving you in the same state as when you died isn’t going to help things.

The one fact I read that really got me laughing on the ground was the fact that you actually had a choice whether to preserve your body or your head alone. Bad enough you choose to preserve your body, forking out all that money, with no certainty of revival, going against nature itself, but to preserve your head only? I think that just brings it to a whole new level of idiosyncrasy. Do you really expect people to be able to reconstruct your entire body? If not, the only other option I see at this point of time, is grafting your head on someone else’s body. For one, you have no idea where that body’s been.

Face it, vitrification (the technology of preservation by cryogenics at temperature -124 degrees celsius) is almost like freezing, just that you look prettier and healthier, and there is no ice formation.

I can’t believe over 700 people were suckered into believing in this nonsense, and yet another estimated 70 people lie ‘dead’ in their frozen tombs. Why not just donate the money to charity, or to me?

*Source: Alcor Life Extension Foundation. http://www.alcor.org/
Photo obtained from same source.