And a bell(e)?

in today's papers were the following:
Comments in response to Ignatius Low's "Is Annabel Chong a national hero?"
one was titled: "Don't glorify Annabel Chong"and the other was "Youth may get wrong message". both felt that what Annabel Chong did was disgraceful and "celebrating" and "glorifying" her would lead to promotion of promiscuity amongst youths. i think both are missing the forest for the trees.

firstly, i don't think Ignatius Low was promoting promiscuity in any ways. Rather, i think he was urging youths to emulate Annabel Chong's daringness to challenge the boundaries, to think out of the box, to question the status quo, to take a stand and be prepared to defend that stand, to fall and bounce back up. in short, i think he was urging youths to emulate Annabel Chong's entreprenueral spirit and exploit a niche to make a name for themselves. how they then utilise and make manifest this entreprenueral spirit would definitely have to differ from what Annabel Chong did.

secondly, i don't think our 'glorifying' Annabel Chong will make our youths more promiscuous. the causes of promiscuity in Singaporean society are many and complex. if anything, Annabel Chong is but an effect of these causes and i think if youths were to become more promiscuous, they'd do so anyways with or without Annabel Chong.