We need to find jobs which we love and where love is shared. My typical day at work is something like this.
It's a 5-day week for all of us. I start work at 9.30am and I work at least 1 day a month from home. This flexible arrangement means I have more time for my family and friends.
When you get to office, you sense you are part of a very big family. We support each other as friends, rather than bosses and underlings. While we may not always agree, we look out for one another and we encourage positive messages and responsibility. In our efforts to be better people, we are conscious about not leaving anyone behind. We share our rewards as a team.
We have a strong corporate social responsibility culture. You are exposed to some of the country's best sporting, artistic and cultural talents. You get to meet some of the country's most vulnerable communities. There are opportunities for you to be a voice in the industry and in the community. We create work for the elderly, for the less abled and for those who really need work.
Above all, at the end of the day, we know how to pull up our sleeves and have fun! Our colleagues always have something on.
Finally, when you reach home, you reflect about what you have done the past days, the past weeks, the past months or the past years. All these positive images come before you and you believe passionately that the work you do makes a real difference!
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Tell A Story
I was recently invited to speak about a very dry topic. And because it was a dry topic, I had to find ways to make the topic interesting for my audience. This was also made difficult by the fact that the audience was going to be a young and restless one.
In order to get a point across, we often do many things. We state the facts. We provide statistics, tables and other forms of relevant research to pepper up the facts. We even quote what others have said.
Unless it is a very compelling fact or quote, the point we attempt to get across often ends up being lost. A more effective way is to tell a story, which incorporates the point being made and the facts. It also helps if the story is personalised.
This was what I did with my young and restless audience. I got full marks from them and returned from a highly interactive session.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
In order to get a point across, we often do many things. We state the facts. We provide statistics, tables and other forms of relevant research to pepper up the facts. We even quote what others have said.
Unless it is a very compelling fact or quote, the point we attempt to get across often ends up being lost. A more effective way is to tell a story, which incorporates the point being made and the facts. It also helps if the story is personalised.
This was what I did with my young and restless audience. I got full marks from them and returned from a highly interactive session.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Growing Up Again
We spend a good part of our lives growing up. And before we know it, in the eyes of the world, we are "grown up" and it's time for us to help others do the same. It can be refreshing to go back and spend some time with those who grew up with us.
I did just that today. I met two groups of friends who grew up with me. And with both groups, much good news was shared and celebrated.
One friend brought his new partner. Another spoke about how he was soon to wed. And another told us about how he was on his journey to become a father and take responsibility for a life. And a fourth shared about his most recent achievement. The happiness was contagious!
It was as if one had found a cherished moment, lost in the subconscious.
When was the last time you met friends who grew up with you?
When was the last time such a friend shared good news with you?
When was the last time you shared good news with this friend?
There is much value in finding forgotten friendships. And if you haven't done this in a while, there could be no better time than now.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
I did just that today. I met two groups of friends who grew up with me. And with both groups, much good news was shared and celebrated.
One friend brought his new partner. Another spoke about how he was soon to wed. And another told us about how he was on his journey to become a father and take responsibility for a life. And a fourth shared about his most recent achievement. The happiness was contagious!
It was as if one had found a cherished moment, lost in the subconscious.
When was the last time you met friends who grew up with you?
When was the last time such a friend shared good news with you?
When was the last time you shared good news with this friend?
There is much value in finding forgotten friendships. And if you haven't done this in a while, there could be no better time than now.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Journey More Valuable Than Reward
Someone I know recently made his child sign an agreement. The agreement puts in place a structure to reward the child with more money, as the child moves from success to success.
I wonder what values the parent will impart to the child. The child may grow up to have sound financial management skills and will perhaps make a good negotiator for a pay increase!
On the other hand, the child may grow up to cherish the reward more than the journey to success.
In school, I received less than most of my peers. My parents made me realise very early I was unlike other children, and my life would not be like "the others".
My parents thought me to:
a. value learning experiences more than material things; and
b. seek happiness, share happiness and celebrate happiness; and
c. be independent.
When I achieved, my folks did not buy me presents. Instead, they provided me opportunities to spend time with loved ones. My parents knew the journey is more valuable than the reward.
It is important to be aware of the values one wishes to impart to another.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
I wonder what values the parent will impart to the child. The child may grow up to have sound financial management skills and will perhaps make a good negotiator for a pay increase!
On the other hand, the child may grow up to cherish the reward more than the journey to success.
In school, I received less than most of my peers. My parents made me realise very early I was unlike other children, and my life would not be like "the others".
My parents thought me to:
a. value learning experiences more than material things; and
b. seek happiness, share happiness and celebrate happiness; and
c. be independent.
When I achieved, my folks did not buy me presents. Instead, they provided me opportunities to spend time with loved ones. My parents knew the journey is more valuable than the reward.
It is important to be aware of the values one wishes to impart to another.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Friday, October 21, 2005
Rethinking Political Censorship in Singapore
ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN TODAY (SINGAPORE) ON 21 OCTOBER 2005
Today, legal and media professionals will gather at the Supreme Court to debate the relationship between law and media. One can expect the issue of the Films Act to be brought up.
The Media Development Authority (MDA) recently noted that the MediaCorp television series Up Close did not breach the Films Act prohibition on party political films, as the episodes in question - which featured five ministers talking about their portfolios - were "non-partisan" and aired "for the purpose of reporting current affairs".
The Government had introduced the ban on party political films amid concerns that "political discourse in Singapore would degenerate into 30-second spots directed by image consultants", and that the quality of election campaigning would be compromised. As then Minister for Information and the Arts George Yeo emphasised, the Government desired "to keep political debate in Singapore serious".
According to the Films Act, "a party political film" is one "made by or on behalf of any political party in Singapore"; by any body whose objectives primarily concern Singapore politics; or by any person for "any political end".
A film has a political end if it contains material "intended or likely to affect voting in any election or national referendum in Singapore"; "partisan or biased references"; or comments on "any political matter". As is typical of most media legislation, the classification is worded broadly to capture diverse activities, even discussion on government policies. It allows for two situations in which a film is not a party-political film: If it is made to report current events, or to give general information on election "procedures and polling times". Offenders can be fined up to $100,000 or imprisoned for up to two years.
The MDA faces a daunting task in deciding what is - or isn't - a "party political film". How does it decide if something is "partisan" or if it merely "reports current events"? Is this best decided by an independent body of persons, or by a group of government employees?
Some, like me, feel a review of the Films Act is in order. For example, its process of assessment, investigation, enforcement and appeal can be codified separately.
Decisions should preferably be made by an independent body of people whose deliberations should be public and free from any perceived political pressure from the dominant party or the opposition parties. There should be opportunities for appeal and for judicial review. Yet even with such codification, any decision can be disputed as subjective, since it is based on interpretation. So, we need to ask if banning such party political films is the best way forward in the first place.
These films can be easily screened outside Singapore, and controversy is often the best crowd-drawer. Also, film bans are increasingly irrelevant in this age of broadband Internet access, which has made it possible to download films from websites that are hosted overseas, such as Martyn See's documentary on Singapore Democratic Party secretary-general Chee Soon Juan, Singapore Rebel.
Even if such websites are blocked - as they are in China - there are Internet entrepreneurs who will simply mirror the website and provide regulators like MDA with a bigger problem to manage. A better solution may be not to ban these films but to require them to include warnings or declarations, for instance.
If the film is deemed partisan, MDA, together with the Singapore Film Commission, can appoint another film-maker to introduce brief footage that will make it less partisan. For example, if the film makes fun of film censors, get a quick view from film censors, or request an academic to provide a brief analysis. Such clips can be screened at the end of the film to balance audience perspective, as a condition for the film being passed for screening in Singapore.
Conditions can also be imposed on where and how party political films can be screened. For example, like R21 (restricted) films, such films could be screened in specified cinemas only. Tickets could be subject to a minimum price of $20 - half of which could be donated to the film commission and the National Arts Council.
These moves would address the Government's concerns about the negative effect of party political films and its desire "to keep political debate in Singapore serious", while in the long run, also enrich our creative industries and make audiences more media savvy.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Today, legal and media professionals will gather at the Supreme Court to debate the relationship between law and media. One can expect the issue of the Films Act to be brought up.
The Media Development Authority (MDA) recently noted that the MediaCorp television series Up Close did not breach the Films Act prohibition on party political films, as the episodes in question - which featured five ministers talking about their portfolios - were "non-partisan" and aired "for the purpose of reporting current affairs".
The Government had introduced the ban on party political films amid concerns that "political discourse in Singapore would degenerate into 30-second spots directed by image consultants", and that the quality of election campaigning would be compromised. As then Minister for Information and the Arts George Yeo emphasised, the Government desired "to keep political debate in Singapore serious".
According to the Films Act, "a party political film" is one "made by or on behalf of any political party in Singapore"; by any body whose objectives primarily concern Singapore politics; or by any person for "any political end".
A film has a political end if it contains material "intended or likely to affect voting in any election or national referendum in Singapore"; "partisan or biased references"; or comments on "any political matter". As is typical of most media legislation, the classification is worded broadly to capture diverse activities, even discussion on government policies. It allows for two situations in which a film is not a party-political film: If it is made to report current events, or to give general information on election "procedures and polling times". Offenders can be fined up to $100,000 or imprisoned for up to two years.
The MDA faces a daunting task in deciding what is - or isn't - a "party political film". How does it decide if something is "partisan" or if it merely "reports current events"? Is this best decided by an independent body of persons, or by a group of government employees?
Some, like me, feel a review of the Films Act is in order. For example, its process of assessment, investigation, enforcement and appeal can be codified separately.
Decisions should preferably be made by an independent body of people whose deliberations should be public and free from any perceived political pressure from the dominant party or the opposition parties. There should be opportunities for appeal and for judicial review. Yet even with such codification, any decision can be disputed as subjective, since it is based on interpretation. So, we need to ask if banning such party political films is the best way forward in the first place.
These films can be easily screened outside Singapore, and controversy is often the best crowd-drawer. Also, film bans are increasingly irrelevant in this age of broadband Internet access, which has made it possible to download films from websites that are hosted overseas, such as Martyn See's documentary on Singapore Democratic Party secretary-general Chee Soon Juan, Singapore Rebel.
Even if such websites are blocked - as they are in China - there are Internet entrepreneurs who will simply mirror the website and provide regulators like MDA with a bigger problem to manage. A better solution may be not to ban these films but to require them to include warnings or declarations, for instance.
If the film is deemed partisan, MDA, together with the Singapore Film Commission, can appoint another film-maker to introduce brief footage that will make it less partisan. For example, if the film makes fun of film censors, get a quick view from film censors, or request an academic to provide a brief analysis. Such clips can be screened at the end of the film to balance audience perspective, as a condition for the film being passed for screening in Singapore.
Conditions can also be imposed on where and how party political films can be screened. For example, like R21 (restricted) films, such films could be screened in specified cinemas only. Tickets could be subject to a minimum price of $20 - half of which could be donated to the film commission and the National Arts Council.
These moves would address the Government's concerns about the negative effect of party political films and its desire "to keep political debate in Singapore serious", while in the long run, also enrich our creative industries and make audiences more media savvy.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Friday, September 30, 2005
Let judiciary educate, not penalise
ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN TODAY (SINGAPORE) ON 30 SEPTEMBER 2005
Recently, a Muslim friend made a remark about the 17-year-old boy who was charged for racist remarks on his blog.
He said that blogger had to be taught a lesson because "this is Singapore. Like it or not, people should be taught to respect other races".
In the last few weeks, two others have been charged for similar offences. Some people are calling for the arrest of a Government scholar who made racist remarks on his blog months ago.
While many feel it is right for the Government to send out a zero-tolerance message, it is, however, worrying when they agree that the judiciary should apply the full force of the Sedition Act to individuals who make racially-insensitive remarks.
They also find appealing the suggestion that, like in some other Commonwealth jurisdictions, the penalty for crimes with a racial element should automatically be increased.
But in the many commentaries and views expressed so far in the media, few have paused to ask: "Why did the youth write such things?"
The root of the problem may run deeper.
Some of my peers went through school and never had the opportunity to get to know an ethnic minority friend. I have met some people in their late 30s who have never visited Little India, Geylang or Arab Street.
From the time we get our birth certificate to our death, one word persists: Race.
Race matters when we seek partners, get married or search for housing.
Race is also an issue when you are in the workforce. Your race decides which self-help group your monthly donations go to and how others perceive you.
For example, I recently decided to stop the monthly contributions to my self-help group for several reasons.
I do not believe in having to be a member of a particular race to make a difference for that group. As a Singaporean, I prefer to make an annual donation and divide it among all the self-help groups.
When I stopped contributing, I was blamed by some of my friends from ethnic minorities for "selling out my own kind".
As long as race matters, we will have racists. We will also have individuals who find others racially insensitive or those who "sell out their own kind".
The solution lies not in penalising such persons, but rather in understanding their way of thinking and engaging these thoughts constructively.
By punishing racists, we risk aggravating racism. For fear of sanction, people may stop sharing their real thoughts on the issue of race. And these thoughts could gestate in such a way that they become ideologies with a cult following.
It cannot be denied that there are benefits in a zero-tolerance-to-racism policy. The legislature and modern Singapore's brief history have provided some very strong grounds to do so.
However, we cannot rule out alternative ways to deal with the issue. We should make the punishment fit the crime in more ways than one.
For example, why not empower our judiciary to get these youth to serve in the communities they make fun of. Such youth may then be in a better position to understand that community.
Perhaps, the current review of the laws will pave the way for such measures.
The show of brute force through the long arm of the law and the heavy hammer of the judiciary may provide a quick fix. But education and a culture of allowing people to learn from their mistakes can take us to greater heights.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Recently, a Muslim friend made a remark about the 17-year-old boy who was charged for racist remarks on his blog.
He said that blogger had to be taught a lesson because "this is Singapore. Like it or not, people should be taught to respect other races".
In the last few weeks, two others have been charged for similar offences. Some people are calling for the arrest of a Government scholar who made racist remarks on his blog months ago.
While many feel it is right for the Government to send out a zero-tolerance message, it is, however, worrying when they agree that the judiciary should apply the full force of the Sedition Act to individuals who make racially-insensitive remarks.
They also find appealing the suggestion that, like in some other Commonwealth jurisdictions, the penalty for crimes with a racial element should automatically be increased.
But in the many commentaries and views expressed so far in the media, few have paused to ask: "Why did the youth write such things?"
The root of the problem may run deeper.
Some of my peers went through school and never had the opportunity to get to know an ethnic minority friend. I have met some people in their late 30s who have never visited Little India, Geylang or Arab Street.
From the time we get our birth certificate to our death, one word persists: Race.
Race matters when we seek partners, get married or search for housing.
Race is also an issue when you are in the workforce. Your race decides which self-help group your monthly donations go to and how others perceive you.
For example, I recently decided to stop the monthly contributions to my self-help group for several reasons.
I do not believe in having to be a member of a particular race to make a difference for that group. As a Singaporean, I prefer to make an annual donation and divide it among all the self-help groups.
When I stopped contributing, I was blamed by some of my friends from ethnic minorities for "selling out my own kind".
As long as race matters, we will have racists. We will also have individuals who find others racially insensitive or those who "sell out their own kind".
The solution lies not in penalising such persons, but rather in understanding their way of thinking and engaging these thoughts constructively.
By punishing racists, we risk aggravating racism. For fear of sanction, people may stop sharing their real thoughts on the issue of race. And these thoughts could gestate in such a way that they become ideologies with a cult following.
It cannot be denied that there are benefits in a zero-tolerance-to-racism policy. The legislature and modern Singapore's brief history have provided some very strong grounds to do so.
However, we cannot rule out alternative ways to deal with the issue. We should make the punishment fit the crime in more ways than one.
For example, why not empower our judiciary to get these youth to serve in the communities they make fun of. Such youth may then be in a better position to understand that community.
Perhaps, the current review of the laws will pave the way for such measures.
The show of brute force through the long arm of the law and the heavy hammer of the judiciary may provide a quick fix. But education and a culture of allowing people to learn from their mistakes can take us to greater heights.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)