Philip Jong

We are social creatures. With few exceptions, we prefer to be in the company of others with whom we can share our interests, our likes, and our dislikes. Over time, we make “friends” with those whom we consider to be trustworthy, sincere, and like-minded. We share personal information with our friends, through which we develop an emotional bond with them beyond that of mere acquaintances. However, the advent of online social media has redefined how we make “friends” in the digital age. In particular, the rising popularity of social networks has allowed those who choose to participate to expand their social reach and make quick connections with other individuals who have also chosen to participate. Yet, the ease by which such a relationship can develop undermines the standard by which we uphold to define a friendship. Making a “friend” on a social network often means merely sending an unsolicited request to an individual and waiting for the individual to approve the request to be included on a “friend” list. The act inherently bypasses all established etiquettes that otherwise screen out individuals whose motive for wanting to be a “friend” is neither sincere nor honorable. More importantly, defining our social reach by the number of “friends” we make on these social networks ignores the quality of the friendships by which we should instead judge the success of our social net worth. In other words, we must not be blinded by the lure of collecting “friends” in the virtual world and ignore the value of making “friends” in the real one.

I am amused by the whimsical debate among language enthusiasts on how to properly pronounce the name of the year 2010 in English. Amid the many variants currently in use, two pronunciations seem to be most favored: two-thousand-ten and twenty-ten. Although this dilemma in pronunciation may merely boil down to a matter of style choice, it nonetheless attests to the flexibility of a living language that adapts to the needs and tastes of its users. On one hand, according to the Gregorian calendar system, given that each year is represented in succession by a sequence of increasing integer numbers in an arithmetic progression, the pronunciation for a year’s name ought to follow the same convention of that for a numeric figure. On the other hand, since a calendar year stands for more than just a number but as a symbol of human history, its pronunciation ought to befit the cultural context (such as Y2K for the year 2000) and give preference to brevity over sesquipedalianism. Linguists also argue that the phonetics of the English language favor speaking of the year with a name that conforms to an iambic rhythm. By contrast, in Chinese (my native language), each digit of the year is pronounced separately, so that no concatenation is used to give rise to this pronunciation corundum. Most ironically, it is likely that the calendar year in question would have long ended before the accompanying debate would ever be settled.

It was exactly 10 years ago from today that the so-called Y2K bug threatened to cause catastrophic computer system failure worldwide. The bug was attributed to an oversight in computer programming in which dates were stored as data in an ambiguous format such that many software were unable to differentiate between years in different millennia that shared the same last two digits. As the countdown loomed closer to 1 January 2000 (when the rollover would occur), both public and private sectors began to escalate their efforts with unprecedented assiduity in a desperate attempt to fix affected software for which a malfunction would threaten our global security or economy. At the same time, the prospect that critical city services and infrastructures might collapse at the turn of the millennium because of a peculiar software glitch fueled growing fear among the public, many of whom had scarce understanding of the true nature of the underlying problem.

Fortunately, with few exceptions, the Y2K crisis turned out to be a non-event. No globally significant major computer system failure occurred. Proponents argued that the absence of a catastrophe was prima facie proof of the success of the preemptive measures taken to address the problem. Opponents argued that the crisis was largely overblown and the panic expressed by the public was mostly unnecessary. Skeptics also claimed that countries which had invested much less intensive remediation effort apparently experienced no more Y2K-related problems than countries which had invested much more.

It is unlikely that we will ever know the full potential impact of the Y2K crisis. The truth, however, likely lies somewhere in between the opposing speculations. Regardless, the Y2K crisis has served to warn us of the danger in our dependence on technology and, more importantly, teach us that indeed an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The infamous claim by celebrity artist Andy Warhol that everyone will be “famous for fifteen minutes” underscores our incessant obsession and allure with fame. In an age when mass media are too easily lured by the drama of sensational news, a few unscrupulous individuals will indubitably conspire to take advantage of the public’s goodwill to draw attention to themselves for personal gains. Publicity stunts are not a new affair, though: advertisers, celebrities, and politicians have long engaged in carefully staged campaigns to attract media attention to their superfluous causes. Most of these stunts are tongue-in-cheek by nature and are no more than harmless media pranks. Yet, when immoral perpetrators deliberately waste public resources as means to further their hoaxes, they do more than just defrauding the community but take away scarce resources that may be needed by others elsewhere. Undoubtedly, the press must share a part of this blame, for it frequently fails to investigate critically on the legitimacy of such stories before giving them the due attention that they may not deserve. Above all, these unwanted distractions destroy what little is left of our empathy toward each other, turning all of us into uncaring cynics against anyone who seeks our help. Indeed, when the boy cries wolf one too many times, not only will his cries for help be ignored by others when he is finally confronted by the fierce beast, so will the cries of all other poor boys who are truly in dire danger but are now left to fend for their own in an unsympathetic world.

Much of the public’s attention in recent weeks had been captured by the tragic news of a string of “celebrity” deaths. These deaths included famed actors, artists, musicians, journalists, and even political leaders. Many of us expressed grief about their losses, though our personal connections to these individuals were often tenuous at best. We took interest in their lives because they were role models, because they offered us inspirations, or simply because they made good topics for mindless gossips. Some drew our heartfelt praises by the positive contributions they had made to societies; others were mocked relentlessly by us because of the irresponsible antics they chose to portray in public.

As the world becomes more interconnected, both technologically and spiritually, all of our lives are also becoming more intertwined. Our obsession with these “celebrity” deaths is thus a reflection of our preoccupation with our own mortality—knowing that someday our own deaths may also be judged by others, rightly or wrongly.

Beginning last month, all retailers in the city of Toronto (where I live) began charging shoppers 5 cents for each new plastic bag used in a purchase. This was in compliance to the controversial city bylaw passed late last year mandating the levy, following a last-minute compromise deal struck between the city and major supermarkets. One goal of this bylaw is to reduce the city’s plastic wastes by 70% from its landfills by 2010. Though environmentally sound, the initiative has evoked heated debate among its supporters and detractors, including many consumers who see this levy as just another “backdoor tax” imposed by the city and profit grabbing scheme conspired by the retailers.

As an avid recycler myself, I too find the effort by some retailers to deliberately profit from the newly invoked bylaw revolting, in effect passing the “buck” onto their customers who must bear the entire financial burden of this green initiative which the retailers themselves have also agreed to participate. This is because it was the retailers who originally lobbied against the city’s earlier (and more palatable) proposal to apply a 10-cent rebate, rather than a 5-cent levy, to encourage consumers to reduce plastic bag usage. Moreover, the current bylaw supported by the same lobbyists makes no mandate to collect this fee from the retailers for the city to offset its recycling and waste management cost, thus allowing the retailers to freely pocket the fee as added profits for themselves. A number of retailers even choose to up-sell their customers at a premium (thus making even more profits) reusable shopping bags that are plastered with obnoxious advertisements, turning all of their customers into walking billboards for the retailers’ brands. Indeed, this is shameful to see that the unsound business practice by a few unscrupulous retailers makes yet another mockery of an otherwise noble environmental cause put forth by a great city.

In March 2009, an outbreak of a newly discovered A/H1N1 influenza, or so-called swine flu, was first detected in Mexico. Since then, confirmed cases have been reported in many other countries, including Canada, eventually prompting the World Health Organization to elevate its pandemic alert phase to declare that widespread human infection of this influenza is now present and that a pandemic is imminent. In Canada (where I live), the news has triggered intense public worry that this outbreak may mirror the SARS outbreak which caused a public health crisis across the country in 2002-3. Haste comparison to the 1918 flu pandemic has even been made, though based often on inaccurate or incomplete scientific data (such as on the true case fatality rate) on the epidemiology of this disease. Moreover, news reports of rapid human-to-human transmission and disease susceptibility among otherwise healthy young individuals have contributed to the added panic about the flu by the public. Undoubtedly, a concerted national and international effort must be made swiftly to properly survey and implement measures to control and mitigate the spread of this flu in Canada and in other countries. In the meantime, the public must be vigilant to practice good hygiene and to reduce their risk of exposure but not be led by misinformation and unfounded fear about the disease.

In January 2009, the world witnessed the inauguration of Barack Obama as the first African American to become the President of the United States of America. The event attracted unprecedented international (including Canada’s) attention and renewed the political interest among the nation’s citizens. The transition in power signaled a new era in American politics that had long been divided by race since the time of slavery started during early colonial periods. Yet, it was not until 1954 that the United States fully abolished the practice of de jure racial segregation between whites and blacks (as well as other ethnic minorities). Despite the historical significance, Obama was not the first political world leader to rise to power in an ethnically diverse nation. In 1994, Nelson Mandela became the first black President of South Africa and effectively ended the longstanding apartheid system dividing whites and blacks living in the country. As a Canadian and a Chinese myself, I am proud of the multicultural representation that currently exists among our political leaders, though this representation is admittedly far from perfect. Indeed, I long to see the day when race will no longer matter in how a country’s citizens choose their political leaders, so that the government they elect will truly serve for the betterment of all of its people, regardless of the colors of their skins.

However arbitrary it may be, New Year represents a convenient time for us to reflect on what we have accomplished over the past year and look forward to what we can achieve in the incoming year. It is at this time that we lay out our New Year’s resolution—a set of commitments which we promise to ourselves or others to fulfill over the ensuring year. These goals are often lofty, but they are always made with the best of intention. Sadly, few of us will succeed in meeting our aspiration each year, though we are quick to strive to try again with renewed vigor the following year. Perhaps this is the true spirit behind making New Year’s resolution: even when it is in our pride to face up to our challenges, it is in our struggle to meet these challenges that we actually learn to better ourselves.

Just like a local school playground, the online digital playground is sadly populated by bullies preying on vulnerable victims with intent to cause harm (both physical and emotional), humiliation, or intimidation. Unlike the local school bullies, however, these online digital bullies often cowardly hide behind the veil of anonymity offered by the internet, in attempts to escape the consequences of their immoral actions. Teenagers and young adults, who form a large part of today’s online community, are particularly susceptible targets of cyberbulling because of their age, at a time when their social circles may be predominantly driven by their online personae. In recent years, the dangers of cyberbulling have received increasing attention from the mainstream media, after incidents of suicides have allegedly been attributed to relentless cyberbulling, often by adults. Unfortunately, current legislation in many countries, including Canada, is inept to deal with cyberbulling and to hold these bullies who make such infarction accountable. As an avid online user myself, I am intolerant of anyone who makes willful gestures that can be seen as acts of cyberbulling, regardless of their motivations and justifications. Cyberbulling is a societal crime, and our society and its citizens must be protected from it.