President’s Star Charity Show- is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?

Discussing about this topic, there is something we have to first clarify before, heading directly into it. What personalities do Singaporean have in common generally? I would say that Singaporean are on of the most practical nationality in the world. We would expect something in return for whatever we give. There must definitely be an element of trade for whatever we do, placing our compassion at the back of our minds.
I have two view on for this question.
Firstly, I think that when such charities are being introduced to Singaporeans, not many people actually care about them, they just have that very practical Singaporean mindsets. therefore to milk money out of Singaporeans, it requires a bit of effort to put up performances to entertain and garner support for the foundation. Thus, this would be more like a show then a fund raising event.
In conclusion, there is definitely a need for them to put up shows like these to move the hearts of Singaporeans. Due to the many incidents that occurred last year, people began to lose faith on these charitable foundation. One good example is NKF, when T.T durai embezzled a large amount of funds for personal use. Therefore, to acheive the aim of gathering money, artiste tend to sell their performance, instead of moving people to donate to these organizations.
However, I think that there isn't a need for atriste to perform. I always beleive that charities come from within, its a matter of whether we would be kind enough to donate money to the organization, and not a matter of whether we woudl like to donate money because of the artiste performance. Therefore, if they would like to call it charity, I think there should not be any show as it fully beats the purpose of charity, where people are suppose to donate generously from within. The issue on getting more generous donations, solely depends on the income or financial ability of the household.even if you create shows for the people, those who sincerely want to donate will donate the same amount as before, as they people will still remain the same, having the same financial ability, causing no change in the amount of donations given.
Thus I do not see a need in charity shows, as it would only create a greater impression of the organizations as money earning, not being as generous as before, not donating as much.
Thus in conclusion, I think that all these charity shows are not neccesary, unless the need for money by the foundation is so desperate. And all these shows should stop, leaving these donations to come from the heart of Singaporeans, instead of the Singaporean "traders".

Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore

As Singapore is the so called "democratic country", free-will speaking is supposed to be allowed on the internet. In real life, people start speaking up at the speaker's corner, however, on the internet, political commentaries are widely known by the web surfers, as they serve as a channel for humour, or a channel for people to unleash their hatred for a particular minister.
As for Mr Brown, he attempts to inject humour into the events that happens that happens in Singapore. To prevent any offence that is sparked by the pod cast, he takes precautions by changing the names of the key personel of the events. For example Mas. The issue of freedom of speech in democratic countries is not as expected. With the freedom of speech, everyone should be given the same rights to comment, however whats the point of MR Brown not revealing the names of the people in the commentaries. This links back to the Questions of the regulation of politicl commentary in Singapore. Is it suppose to be allowed or banned? This questions lies in the depiction of SIngapore as a democratic country.
As shown in the blog, talking cock(a stronger political commentary as compared to Mr Brown), they first put up a page cautioning people of the nation, that the contents of the commentary posted on their web is fictional, not political, strong languages used and it written in free-expression. Is it just contradicting that, Singapore as a "democratic" country, does not allow people to speak freely, or is it just that Singapore's government had became autocratic.
The first caution stated on the cover page of the web, informs the readers that all the contents are fictional. Is this caution, just to ensure that this democratic country do not arrest people for posting their personal opinions of the state(which might sometime lead to flaming) on the web? Its just so ironic, a democratic country, not allowing free-will of speech.
The next caution is to inform people that the web is not political. This caution undermines the common sense of the readers or does it just ward off the moderators of the internet? It might seem politically wrong, but after all this is still a democratic country, its again back to the topic of freedom of speech.
The next 2 caution would be the use of strong language and free-expression. Its normal for them to caution the use of strong languages as its not beneficial to many children. However, like what is stated in the argument for the first caution, why does a democratic states forbids people to have free-will of speech?
The appearance just makes it look so ridiculous, stopping people from having the freedom of speech, when Singapore aims to be a democratic country, where we make our "own" decision.
Is it "own" or "their"?
Therefore, I think that as a democratic nation , Singaporeans should be allowed to give their personal opinions of the particular events openly in the public and not need to hide behind a facade, faking through all the flaming directed.