Can Singapore be a Liberalised Society?

If Singapore is fast in becoming a developed country, why are we still at snail-pace towards a liberalised society? The grotesque photograph on the left provides me the answer.

The 2007 anti-smoking advertisement (left) which aired on TV at prime time last week caused a stir among some viewers, calling the image too scary and disturbing to kids. Health Promotion Board said it would review the complaints. If the noise makers prevail, the objective of nailing the health message to more people will be significantly dampened. (Read a public's letter to ST Forum, titled "Children the very group who need to see 'shocking' anti-smoking ads")

I want Singapore to be liberalised but when we made those kind of noises, we are sending a message to the Government that Singaporeans are not ready for new norms. Whether it is violence, sex, alternative lifestyles or whatever unorthodox trends, I am irked at the fact that we act like mental retards who are incapable of protecting ourselves from these invasion of new ideologies, and need an external party, such as the Government, to shield us from the so-called bad influences. If I were wrong of such perception, tell me then why the fuss over a creative advertisement that is intended to curb smoking? The Government has always balanced itself between placation and adamance in managing what is acceptable to our society; the noise makers in Singapore make their job much easier.

The issue of a 4m-tall painting of a nude woman by Beijing artist, Chen Xi, cited an example where the authority was adamant on its rule that "nude or erotic artworks cannot be displayed in venues easily accessed to the general public, including children and youths." The painting was therefore prohibited for display at the atrium of the Ministry of Information, Communications, and the Arts (Mica) building where the main exhibition organized by SooBin Art Gallery was held at its ground floor. It was, however, not banned at the gallery premises. The reason given was that Mica, being the building's landlord has to comply with Media Development Authority's guidelines. The Government may be oblivious of its ambivalent attitude towards promoting arts in Singapore, but other critics have not. Since they did not ban it totally but allowed the painting to be displayed at an appropriate location, it's hard to point finger at anybody because such a move was deemed to have relaxed the society by shifting away from censorship to classification.

While Chen Xi's work was lucky to be displayed in Singapore, local famous photographer, Leslie Kee's photography book "Super Stars" have to look for greener pasture online and in Hong Kong, where the promotional exhibition of the book was held (left). Despite the book's charity cause to the vicitm of 2004 Tsunami, it was banned for sales at local bookstores. The authority aruged that "It contains numerous pictures of Asian personalities in full nudity with pubic hair and genitals clearly visible".

In both cases, the authority's restriction of access to nude or erotic artworks was across the board - meaning Singaporeans at large. It doesn't matter whether we are above 21 or below. The authority has decided for us that such materials are not suitable for our state of mind. Why do we need them to tell us what are good for our intellectual or visual consumption? They should downplay its role as the mother hen and let's her chicks roam freely.

Following Chen Xi's incident, The Straits Times ran 2 full spread of an article on the greatest nude masterpieces with photographs of the male and female genitals in its full glory. Isn't it ironical that the 4m-tall painting of a nude woman is excluded at its exhibition premise at mica building, but more are made available in the form of still images at the convenience of our home? Should parents censor the newspapers daily and remove undesirable pages from their kids? In the unfortunate case of the talented Leslie Kee, so what if pubic hair or full frontals were shown among his works? Priced at USD$300, I'm sure bookstore owners will take extra measure to protect their "Super Stars". The books will definitely be shrink-wrapped and displayed behind the staff counter with no browsing allowed (even upon request.) If the display of male pubic hair is of concern to the authority, we should also ban showering naked at the open area in the changing rooms of all swimming pools? Otherwise, young boys will be exposed to not just pubic hairs but penises and more of the same sex.

The authority is protecting us from pornographic materials which ridiculously, the "Super Stars" photography book is associated with. If pubic hair or genital is considered pornographic, we are all walking pornography in our shower room. The label 'pornographic' in Leslie Kee's artworks is a smoke screen for the homosexual innuendo projected by the naked male super stars, a lifestyle that the Government has never been in favor of promoting. The media also sings the same tune in its concerted effort to tarnish the image of our gay community. Anyway, the crux of the issue here is how does one judge if nudity is pornographic or artistic? Can't arts and pornography co-exist? Are erotic arts pornographic? I was at the Sex Museum in New York last Summer and on its first floor, the exhibition was about Japanese erotic arts. Will the authority allow such exhibition in Singapore? Does the authority perceive the illustration of the various sex positions in Kamasutra as pornographic? In my opinion, whether nudity is regarded as arts or pornography depends on how it is marketed and how the consumers think. If I insist on an argument, bodybuilding magazines have a stronger homosexual innuendo than "Super Stars". Afterall, semi-naked, muscular guys with big pecs and guns are the objects of lust for many gay men. Bodybuilders are no better than male strippers flexing on stages, and God knows how many men at the bodybuilding shows are there in the name of sports and not for the muscles candies. Get my point?

Last week, I met up with my boyfriend and his co-workers from the US and Australia. A few of them told me that there was nothing much to do in Singapore - translated into a less polite way, we are boring. For the past 2 weeks, there had been extensive reports in the newspapers written with a clear objective to sell Singapore to foreigners. We may have all the edges over most countries, especially in area of safety, but we are still far from the big cities like New York and London, which the government is trying to emulate. The plain fact is that to emulate the success of these cities, we need to look beyond its economical and infrastructural development and start liberating our people in other intangible areas like freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of lifestyles. Before we even get close to become the eastern Big Apple or Big Ben, we should first try to emulate Hong Kong first. Like Singapore, the population is predominatly Chinese but it is not at all conservative - both the citizens and their government. I saw gay and straight porn magazines for sale on the street and at conventional or GLBT bookstores. The community even published their gay porn magazines and have offices in Hong Kong. Singapore will forever be an orthodox society if the Government continue to think that we can never accept such deviation from a "clean" image (devoid of pornography or alternative entertainment) which we have uphold for 42 years. I am not saying that we should become the 'sex in the city. However, we should be on par with developed countries in relaxing rules on adult entertainment. This could be another source of revenues for Singapore besides cigarettes.

In the CNN interview on 11th Demeber 1998, our then Senior Minister, Lee Kuan Yew was quoted as saying this in reply to an unnamed gay caller:

"Well, it's not a matter which I can decide or any government can decide. It's a question of what a society considers acceptable. And as you know, Singaporeans are by and large a very conservative, orthodox society, a very, I would say, completely different from, say, the United States and I don't think an aggressive gay rights movment would help. But what we are doing as a government is to leave people to live their own lives so long as they don't impinge on other people. I mean, we don't harass anybody".

This was a diplomatic answer and I totally agree that our society plays an active part than the government in the gay matters. However, the Government should take a bold step and adopt the similiar approach to that of the casino's issue: Singaporeans aired their objection against the building of a casino but the Government still went ahead. In the same way, the authority should also allow sale of "Super Stars" and other books alike locally. If alternative lifestyle fiction or non-fiction books are available here under the category of "Gender Studies", why can't it exemption be extended to gay lifestyle magazines like "Gay Times", "Instinct", "Out", "Advocate" etc? Does it mean that books with all words and no photos, pictures or graphics are not viewed as promoting alternative lifestyles or pornographic in nature?

Attracting foreign talents or tourists to Singapore also means attracting gay men and women, who are highly talented and professionally gifted. Since the Government has already allowed gay men to work in the public services, it is time to revamp Singapore into a fun and liberalised society to attract professionals at large, gay or straight. The authority should start relooking into relaxing rules in such areas:

1) Allow exotic dancers or strippers, male or female to mingle with the crowds and not just restrict them on the stage. However, house rule is no sex on the premise.

2) Allow stores that sell all adult merchandises, gay or straight, inclusive of porns and sex toys.

3) Allow porn industry with regulations on employment of actors and models. An example would be a Federal compliance statement like this:

"All persons that appear in any visual depiction contained on this site were eighteen years of age or older at the time said depictions were created. All sexually explicit images on this site are being published pursuant to 18 USC 2257."

4) Allow gay parties and parades.

Surely the above move will shock the world and Singaporeans. We are an affluent, educated and civilised nation. It is not hard to push liberalisation to the majority who are already imbibed with western ideologies. As for the minority who are adverse to change, their hullabaloos, if any, will soon die a natural death just like the casino case. With people travelling places, the comparison between Singapore with other liberalised countries is inevitable. Relaxing its regulation and guidelines on censorship will not only make the locals happy but will also change the foreigners' impression of Singapore from 'boring' to 'Xciting'.

Inferiority Complex, countries have it too.

Singapore will soon be known as an island of beaches and not skyscrapers if our sand issue with Indonesia continues to receive wide coverage in The Straits Times. Don't take my words literally; it is just a metaphor to best describe the deep fried news of Indonesia's abrupt ban on sand export to Singapore.

I don't play any sort of politics. This blog is not meant to comment on the political agendas behind the sand issue but to reflect on the emotional well-being of a nation and its people. Whether it is an issue with Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand, these developing countries are in need of cure for their inferiority complex.

"Shu Da Zhao Feng" the Chinese idiom which means prominence invites attention. Singapore is the "Da (Big) Shu (Tree)" which draws envy from developing countries as the rich kid on the block. 2007 marks the 42nd year of Singapore independence from Malaysia. We are now one of the most affluent country in the world. Our internationally renowned 'Kiasuism' is the driving force that keeps the country and its citizens on the forefront of local and global competitions. The little funky red dot is fun to tourists and safe to investors. Our effectiveness and efficiency in building the nation have become the centre of criticisim as an arrogant lion city.

12 years ago, I was perceived to be weak and incapable among colleagues before I proved them wrong that my small frame and geekiness had nothing to do with my work performance. When my capabilities were endorsed by the CEO, they changed their impression of me to arrogant. I did not bother and continued to shine in my work. Singapore was just like me then - small on the map but big success in the real world.

"There was a time when people said that Singapore won't make it, but we did."

The first verse of the lyrics from the National Day's song echoes the sentiment of our government during Singapore's founding days. Singapore is a peace loving and diplomatic country. We do more than we talk and that's why our progress is remarkable. I'm sure that before we become who we are today, we must be envious of other developed countries at one point or another. Instead of engaging in empty talks and day dreamings, we learn from the developed countries and move ourselves up the ladder to become one. Mind games and tricks do not build a country; excuses do not eliminate poverty and corruption among its citizens. Any claim made against a country must be genuine and supported by transparency. Any country that creates smokes without fire to stifle the growth of other countries, especially those around them, is tarnishing its image to the world. Countries that are still catching up with developed countries should channel their time in political wayangs to rethink on a faster way to run the race. Their government should be upright in character, embrace the spirit of the 300 Spartan warriors, and adopt the Nike tagline "Just Do it!".

Today I am no longer skinny but muscular. My body didn't change by looking at other muscular men. I started with a positive mindset that I could build my body to look like theirs. Next, I developed a strong determination to execute my goal. Then, I excercised strict discipline to follow through my workout schedules. Lastly, I remained patient to see my growth. Oh, I kept junk foods at bay too. After 4 years, I gained 12 kg of mass.

Singapore has promising psychologists but they can't counsel countries that are insecure about themselves.

The Importance of Being Highly Educated

Everywhere I go, I see foreigners. The most distinctive group being Caucasians. Once spotted mostly in financial and tourists districts, angmohs* are invading our neighborhood today. Every other day, I meet Koreans and Caucasians at my neighborhood's supermarket. 20 years from now, it will not be surprising to see other nationalities living among our community when the population of Singapore is projected to grow from 4 million to 6.4 million.

In the recent Budget Debate 2007, the Ministry of Manpower is allowing companies greater access to skilled foreigners on the S-Pass scheme. S-Pass holders are foreign mid-level workers who earn at least $1,800 a month for their professional, specialist or technical skills. I hope the US will practise the same for its H-1B Visa holders but I don't see it quite possible in the near future. Singapore, however, has several valid reasons to do so. Singapore is ranked one of the lowest in the world in Total Fertility Rate (TFR). With a greying population and less babies produced, more job openings will be left unfilled. Over the next 5 years, more than 450,000 new jobs will be created but there are not enough locals to fill them. Beside encouraging workers to retire later and women to return to workforce, the next plausible solution is importing talents from overseas.

I welcome foreigners to my country because I like a rich blend of cultures and languages. I am not worried that having more S-Pass holders will threaten the job of PMETS (professionals, managers, executives and technicians) like myself. I hope Americans too will embrace foreigners into the US workforce without fear of being replaced. The key, whether as an American or a Singaporean, is to stay employable.

My job hunting last summer in the US received luke warm response. I am a Diploma holder and used to earn more than $1,800 per month. By Singapore standard, I should quality for a S-Pass work permit; by the US standard, I need a Degree or some special skills such as nursing. I used to think that with a Diploma and a skill in web design, it isn't necessary for me to pursue a Degree. After out of job for 4 months, I see it otherwise. Although I am surviving on freelance design projects, I don't see myself becoming a web designer in the US like Annabel Chong. Mind you, she has a Degree too. At 34, I am now planning to do a part time Degree course to compete locally and internationally.

When I went for interviews in the past, some employers asked me what were my strengths and weaknesses. In restropect, those were just routine questions without any impact on their decision to recruit me eventually. The minute I was shortlisted for the interviews, my qualification and work experience would have already impressed them. If you read recruitment ads that say 'Management Trainees needed. Degree in any discipline. No experience required', they are saying that education is more important than experience, not discounting the fact that trainees are assumed to be greenhorns. Ever wonder why some big, established organizations require a Diploma graduate to be an Administrative Assistant? They are saying that the candidate must have a qualification that matches their corporate image. The same goes for Statutory Boards which only recruit Degree holders as office executives, whereas private sectors deem Diploma holders as sufficient. This is a micro-view of our soceity at large where education means an entry qualification rather than a performance-based qualification. Potential employers won't even consider our strengths as valuable unless they see that we have the right educational level to perform the job. On the same note, employers won't consider an over-qualified candidate, stereotyping such group as desperate job seekers who will leave for greener pastures when available.

I am glad that the Parliament has indentified that it is not just the low-level workers who have survival problems, mid-level workers are also in peril. After 11 years in the entertainment industry, I got sick of the circle and decided to walk out of my comfort zone. Initially, I applied for senior positions in various industries but none responded. Then I downgraded to junior positions with a pay cut in mind. None responded too. The Government advises Singaporeans not to be choosy about jobs, but employers are choosy too. When I put myself on lelong*, it doesn't mean I will get a buyer. Employers want a candidate that is neither under nor over qualified.

I have made up my mind to take up a part-time Degree course and at the same time, find a full time job to accumulate work experience. Maybe a MBA and a PhD later, even if it means that I will be 45-year old by then. Meanwhile, I continue my job hunting. Wish me good luck. Ciao.

*Angmoh - a colloquial referring to Caucasians
*Lelong - a Malay word meaning 'sale'.

What is True Beauty?


"I am beautiful no matter what they say, words can't bring me down."

When Christina Aguilera sang this song, it became an anthem for an ulgy nation with a low self-esteem. One gay friend of mine who is unattractive told me that this was his favorite song and he quoted the above lyrics, calling it the true spirit of the song. Does it really make the ugly community feel better with songs, movies, TV shows or books which advocate that inner beauty matters the most? Or it is a whirl of self-deception that goes in circle like a merry-go-round?

The media is best at playing the game of beauty versus ugliness, and most people are susceptible to their influence. I remember that I tried to imitate the Top Gun hairstyle in the 80's. I overlooked the fact that I do not have a Tom Cruise's face and body. Having a replica hairdo doesn't turn me into a drop dead gorgeous hunk like Tom. Women who see walking sticks on the runways as beautiful are oblivious to what men think of their flat chests and defined ribcage. They morph into living skeletons without realising that they have done more damage to their beauty and health.

Last Sunday, 'Ugly Betty' debuted on TV after much anticipation. The protagonist, Betty Suarez, is unattractive but she has all the qualities that the beauties lack: a zeal for her dream, a great work attitude and pretty smart. In most circumstance, the pretty one gets the job. But Betty got hers because she wasn't pretty. She was handpicked by the Founder of the fashion magazine, Mode, to prevent his son, the handsome Editor-in-Chief, Daniel Meade from womanising with his PA. In other word, her lack of sexual appeal outsold her capability. Like any story with a 'ugly vs pretty' theme, Betty emerged as a woman of substance that even Daniel had to overlook her sparkling braces, bushy eyebrows and awful glasses. God is fair but that's beside the point. In a world where pretty or handsome is associated with an attractive appearance, where does true beauty stand?

True beauty stands in the eye of the beholder and the person concerned. To be truly beautiful, we have to first acknowledge our unattractiveness and say to ourselves: "I'm not pretty, so what?". I'm not suggesting over confidence to the extent of dressing inappropriately (if you know what I mean) or not dressing up at all. What I meant is move on. We are not born to this world just to look pretty. My bestfriend stereotyped that most unattractive gals have kind hearts. It is hard to disagree with him. His ex-girlfriend is one sweet soul and so is Betty. If the pattern is observed in Singapore and New York, the world should come to the same consensus too.

Daily, we are facing interviews of a different kind in our society. As long as humans live, we all judge and are judged. Like in a job interview, we keep selling our best quality and we achieve that by identifying our USP (Unique Selling Proposition). When an unattractive person searches within, he/she can only find personality and ability that will make them shine. A good personality is competitive: Whether one is pretty or not, nobody will want to be an asshole because it gets them nowhere. So the person is left with ability as the USP. The second step is hence to build on those strenghts. When an ugly duckling catches fish better than a kingfisher, it will forget for a day that it is ugly. The more fish it catches each day, it will bite you if you won't stop calling it 'ugly duckling'. "I'm a swan, mind you!". When we become so good at what we are doing, we look stunning in our power suit. Trust me, it works! In a different context, the heartbrokens are singing "I'm strong enough to live without you, strong enough and I quit crying" from Cher when they releash the power within. It's all about finding back the confidence.

Interestingly, there aren't any shows that are produced with the intention to turn actors into an ugly lead casts for the sake of TV ratings. If reality show 'Beauty and the Geek' count. Generally, actors are cast as chuckleheads because people love to laugh at men's silliness rather than their ugliness on TV. Perhaps, MediaCorpTV should consider making a Singapore verision of 'Ugly Betty' but a male version. I will make the the best lead - 'Ugly Tony'.

In real life, unattractive men, like Betty, are not spared from rejection. Last week, I saw him again in my neighborhood - the young man with one side of his body burned, from the face down to his arm. He is always seen with a cap. He was interviewed in the newspaper about 2 years ago. He was turned down by several employers despite having a Polytechnic Diploma. His act of stepping out and coming face-to-face with the nation is truly courageous. I hope he has a job now. If not, I say to all employers: this man deserves a job not out of your sympathy but through his qualification. And by the way, he is looking for an office job, not as a model or actor, duh!

Whether you are Betty or the guy in my neighborhood, do not belittle yourself. Put on your power suit and you are ready to kick some ass. Try this for a warm up. When you step into an elevator, don't shy away from your reflection. Look up, stare at yourself, smile and sing in your head:

"I am beautiful because I know it is, (the) world can't bring me down."

Practice makes perfect.

Chipmunks Singing in the Train

I was trying to digest my book 'The Undercover Economist' on the train when a bunch of noisy teenagers entered the cabin. The guys were loud; the gals were ok except when they laughed. The details of their group conversation became a public hearing. At one point, they were guessing who was the most hairy guy among them. They were inconsiderate but at their age, it is understandable to make some noise.

A few stops later, they alighted together. I thought the cabin has returned to its normal noise level. Out of the blue, a dance tune in chipmunk remixes was heard from my right where I seated. I thought it was just a ring tone which would stop eventually but it played in full duration. I turned and saw a lanky teenager leaning against the panel opposite my seat. I wasn't sure if the music orginated from him but he was holding a gadget in his hand. I leaned forward to see if there was any likelihood that it might come from the other side of the cabin. However, the passengers were either talking or had their earphones on. Naturally, this guy became my prime suspect. One dance tune followed another and they were all the irritating chipmunk versions. He probably couldn't care less if others enjoyed his kind of music. I would have plugged in my iPod if I had it in my bag. I was hoping that he would get off the train before I did but fat hope. I stared at him a few times. In the course of doing so, a teenage couple who sat next to me caught my attention. Both were in their school uniforms. The guy was obviously trying very hard to impress the gal. He sat and talked like a tough man, but his small, skinny frame didn't quite conjure up a macho image. The gal was soft-spoken and sat demurely throughout their conversation. I considered this a mismatch. But I was wrong. The gal suddenly changed seat to the opposite side and the word that she shouted across at that guy was 'Chxx Bye' (a vuglarity that is derogatory to woman). Her sitting style became a mirror image of the guy and I was embarrassed to see her white panty. In just a few minutes, she transformed from my fair lady to Madame mafia. I took back my word; they were a perfect match.

By random observation, it is quite accurate to conclude that teenagers are the attention seekers in the trains. Look around: Who sit in group on the floor and turn the cabin into a stock market? Teenagers. Whose phones ring with a woman screaming in horror or a MP3 of a heavy metal song? Teenagers. Who play music on speaker mode from their mobile phones? Teenagers. In this blog, I shall just air my frustration with loud music in the train.

At 34, I am still not too old to embrace the marvel of advance technology. But I'm sure that most communters on the train would rather apperciate a peaceful journey. The article 'Hello, you deaf ah?' on 8Days magazine no. 848 also shared my irritation with these inconsiderate teenagers. I was pissed off several times when they would wait for the chorus of their favorite song to end before answering their phones. Such negligence to answer their phones swiftly was intentional. How could they possibly not hear their damn phones ringing when the ring tones were set to the loudest? And what took them so long to answer the call when their phones were either in the pocket or in their hands? The same goes for teenagers who blast their music phones. Why must they play their music on speaker mode when the choice of earphones was there? If they were giving their ears a break, they should also give other passengers a break too!

My encounters so far were mainly teenage guys. From their nonchalance towards the gazes invited, they probably think that the music they are listening to make them look cool, and to play them loudly is a sure way of sending out a strong message. When I was a teenager, I felt groovy as I walked down the street with my walkman blasting the music of Rick Astley and Paula Abdul to my ears. The kind of music I listened to was a representative of the image I wanted to protray - fashionable and pop. I was a plain, boring guy during school days. My self-esteem was pretty low. Music lifted my spirit and in a way compensated for my lack of physical and intellectual attraction. In other word, I was an empty vessel that made a lot of noise (but only to my ears). Looking back, I don't think I was cool then. I was engaging in self-illusion at the expense of my eardrum. As I look at the teenagers now, I can see where they are coming from. However, they may not be aware that technically the playing of music in public from their phones requires a public performance licence for the sound recordings. The music stored in their phones may also be unauthorised digital copies. Perhaps when the music industry start to impose a licence directly or indirectly on end users for all purchases of music phones, teenagers will feel the pinch to pay a price for the noise pollution they caused in the train.

While there are announcement in the cabin to keep the train clean for the comfort of all passengers, it is also important to keep noise level in the train to the minimum. Whether it is the London tube, New York subway or the Bangkok BTS, I had my peaceful rides. These countries may not have train quality like ours, they certainly outbeat us by their considerate passengers. I urge the authorities to look into this issue. Here are my sugguestions:

>>>Include considerate use of music phones as part of our existing courteousy campaign.

>>>Include classroom discussion on all aspects of courteousy in the train as part of moral education. This need not be incorporated as part of the school curriculum.

>>>Put up sign like 'no music from portable hi-fi, mp3 players and mobile phones' in the cabin.

My advice to teenagers - use your music phone responsibly and that itself makes you cool.

LIttle Bits & Pieces of Crazy Thoughts on American Idols Season 6

My eyes were teary when A J Tabaldo was voted off the American Idols Season 6 competition on 1 March 2007. He bears a strong resemblance to my Filipino-American friend especially when he smiles. Don't worry, I'm not going to splatter my adoration for this young man in this blog (not now, maybe later.)

If you have watched the show earlier tonight, you would see that I wasn't the only one with teary eyes when A J performed the last time on stage. Big guy, Sundance Head, was just as emotional as me. If you followed the competitions closely, you will understand why. Although he proved his true singing quality this week, he was not resting on his laurels. From the look upon his face, I knew he was not even 70% sure that he would pass through to the next round. Naturally, when he did but Nick Pedro and A J Tabaldo didn't, he cried twice. He couldn't withhold his tears from falling when A J sang his last song. Even the consistently good, Melinda Dolittle cried. I can tell as far as this two contestants are concerned, their tears were real.

In any competition with only one person going home with the big prize, elimination is the common rule of the game. The remaining contestants must be glad that they weren't the one leaving the show last night. Simon Cowell was sceptical when contestant, Stephanie Edwards put friendship on the pedestal over winning. I, however, choose to differ. If every contestant in any competition is putting trophy ahead of everything else, disappointment and resentment will consume them when they fail their purpose. Joining a competition is an effort to fulfil a dream, an opportunity to meet new friends and an experience to learn from. All these are good enough to have when the trophy is lost. How great can an American Idol be if he or she has a beautiful voice but without a beautiful mind?

When Americans voted A J Tabaldo out last night, Sundane and Melinda felt like that they have lost a little brother. As for me, I'm going to miss a friend on TV.