Are Bhutanese genuinely happier than other nationalities?

If you want happiness for an hour -- take a nap. If you want happiness for a day -- go fishing. If you want happiness for a month -- get married. If you want happiness for a year -- inherit a fortune. If you want happiness for a lifetime -- help someone else. (A Chinese proverb)

Bhutan is on top of my list of places to visit. This small Himalayan Kingdom is so isolated that not many people know much about this country with only 700,000 inhabitants. If you follow the news, you’ll know that it is known for two things.

On 24 March 2008, Bhutan held its first democratic election which officially ends its system of absolute monarch to constitutional monarch without executive power. Unlike its Nepalese counterpart, the election came as an aftermath of the Bhutanese King’s voluntary resignation and urge for his people to pursuit democracy. According to the Secretary of Information and Communications, “They resonate well, democracy and gross national happiness. Both places responsibility on the individual. Happiness is an individual pursuit and democracy is the empowerment of the individual.”

This change in governance is part of Bhutan’s pursuit in gross national happiness (GNH). This term was first created by former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck in 1972, soon after the demise of his father. It signalled his commitment to building an economy that would serve Bhutan’s unique culture based on Buddhist spiritual values.

According to Buddha’s teaching, the cause of suffering (as opposed to happiness) is want or desire. By rejecting such want and desire, one shall attain happiness. Which is why, when calculating gross national production of Bhutan, the criteria used is not economic benefits but by the happiness it produces.

The Bhutanese government has developed a unique and intricate model of well-being when measuring the gross national happiness, conducted every 2 years through its nationwide questionnaire.  The model consists of four pillars, nine domains and 72 indicators of happiness. The four pillars of a happy society involve economy, culture, environment and good governance, which then branches out to 9 domains; psychological well-being, ecology, health, education, culture, living standards, time use, community vitality and good governance.

The nine domains are then assessed using 72 indicators. An example given is from the psychological well-being domain where the indicators include the frequencies of prayer and meditation, feelings of selfishness, jealousy, calmness, compassion, generosity, frustration and suicidal thoughts.

While I feel that such “scientific formulas” are no doubt interesting and unique,  I feel that some of the questions asked are too subjective and not to mention unrealistic. For example, under the emotional experience indicator, respondents are asked how often they feel angry, guilty, jealous, forgiving, etc. in the past few weeks (see picture above). Unless each Bhutanese actually keeps a daily diary religiously, I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to measure such state of emotion accurately.

Bhutan is the only country where cigarettes are banned (making it the first country to be tobacco free) and the television was introduced only 10 years ago. It is also probably the only country which makes it mandatory for its people to wear traditional clothing. Amongst these laws, laptops are being banned from parliamentary sessions for fear of representatives playing computer games.

Generally, I do agree that economic development is not indicative of a population’s happiness and hence, the gross national happiness is a better reflection of the overall well-being of a nation. The problem is, how does one define happiness and whether the concept of happiness can be accepted and agreed upon by the majority? When you look at the case of Bhutan, I also think that it is important to differentiate between what’s “forced happiness”; i.e. standards imposed by the government and a general consensus of what should represent happiness.

Going back to Buddha’s teaching, it would be difficult to discredit  wants and desires manifested by the internet and television (which incidentally are not banned in Bhutan) which often “market and sell” various forms of desire as well as dissatisfaction. If Bhutan’s standard of happiness is to reject the causes of suffering, then the government should also ban the media as well as its nationals from travelling abroad.

The last criticism I have about the GNH brings me back to the Chinese proverb at the beginning of this post. Today, the government of Bhutan is yet to answer for the hundreds of thousands of nationals with Nepalese ethnicity who have been stripped off their citizenships and deported to bordering Nepal, making them stateless. Many children have been borne and brought up in refugee camps without any identity or nationality. Neither the Nepalese nor Bhutanese governments want to have anything to do with them.

According the the Bhutanese government, these refugees are not Bhutanese but at the same time, is unable to explain why many of these refugees possess formal documents to prove their Bhutanese nationality.

I then question this, if a nation is able to feel proud of its GNH while hundreds of thousands of its people are being cast off on grounds of ethnicity, then something is terribly wrong. Either that, or we haven’t got a clue at all about happiness.

p/s: How would you define or understand happiness?

Road thrills that kills

Road traffic in Phnom Penh is a bit like a slow boat ride through a haunted tunnel. Most of the time you know that nothing exciting is going to happen because most drivers don’t speed. There’s hardly any room for speeding due to bad road condition, combined with swarms of motorbikes encroaching on narrow lanes, making it impossible to breeze through traffic at more than 60kmph.

At the same time, your heart can’t help but skip a beat or two whenever a motorbike seems to appear out of nowhere and often at high speed. It’s a time when you feel that something could go wrong and it’s beyond your control.

Yes, car drivers hardly speed but some motorbike riders do and they don’t stop at that. Very much like our very own Mat Rempits, these riders try hard to terrorise other road users by weaving along traffic without any concern for their safety or others. The scariest part of all, they often don’t wear helmets.

On 3 January this year, police began enforcement of helmet law in Cambodia. It came at a time when fatal road accidents involving motorcyclists are on a rise due to increasing number of vehicle users with extremely low driving skills and even lower respect for traffic laws.

When you take a tour of the city, it’s easy to sight images such as the one shown below. This picture, taken by Dr. Sok Long, Director of the Health Development Department of the Cambodian Red Cross, is called Motorbus for the obvious reason that a lot of motorbikes are often used to transport a whole family. Sometimes, I cringe when I see a baby cradled between the driver and passenger(s) on a motorbike. Very often, I also see young toddlers being held carelessly by the waist while balancing precariously on two feet. Such images are the ones that make the horror tunnel ride heart-gripping and nerve-wrecking.

 

It has been 5 months since the start of the helmet law but the way I see it, the law is getting nowhere as I see more motorcyclists without than with helmets on their heads. Many people complain and justify that they can’t afford the helmets, which cost around USD1 each. But how do you explain many motorcyclists who ride around with helmets, not on their heads, but dangling around their shoulders like handbags? Perhaps, the scorching heat is preventing them from wearing them, or perhaps the helmet causes too much discomfort particularly on their vision? Most importantly, perhaps law enforcement officers are just not doing their jobs?

I think the answer lies on the high level of corruption within the law enforcement authorities. What boggles the mind though is how many Cambodians are willing to pay a bribe to escape penalty than buying a helmet.

I often wonder why Cambodians are not able to understand the importance of road safety. Does it not matter to them that lives are being compromised here? When I suggested to my husband, who is assisting the Cambodian Red Cross in its road safety campaign, that public exhibitions of graphic pictures of road fatalities are effective methods to shock and scare people into submission, he thought it might be too traumatizing for people who have lived a violent past. Then, someone who has lived in Cambodia for a long time told me that those pictures will do nothing to change the mindset of the people here. Apparently, they are used to violence and death here.

I remember when I was in primary school, we were forced to attend a road safety exhibition in school. Until today, I am not able to shake off the images of disfigured faces, crushed skulls and severed limps from my mind. Yes, it was traumatizing and perhaps not the best method for a child to witness such graphic images, but I honestly thought that the exhibition has left such a huge impact on my classmates and I that we are very careful when it comes to road safety.

Whether this would have provided the same impact on Cambodians or not, the more pressing issue is for the government to make a conscious effort to study the factors which are preventing the people from observing road safety regulations. As a start, there is a need to find out how to get the people to understand that these are not just rules, but something which is created for their own safety and the protection of their lives and the lives of their families.

I also think that economic conditions play a huge role in deterring people from obsessing about their safety on the road. Not many people can afford to buy a car here and hence, have to rely on a motorbike to transport their whole family. Cambodians are practical people. If the only way for a whole family to get from one point to another is by motorbike, then so be it. As such, I think the government needs to take this into consideration and starts to think of ways to provide safe and affordable public transportation. There are not many buses in the city. Some do resort to tuks-tuks but the same problem presented itself when eight to ten people pile into one.

Road accidents is one of the biggest killer today. If Cambodia wants to develop, it needs to think about the high rate of people that are being killed in the country every single day and this includes their future generation.

Mother’s Day – A time for reflection

I can’t believe that I have forgotten about Mother’s Day but then again, I haven’t celebrated Mother’s Day with my Mother for a long time. I know that this note came a day too late but as they say, better late than never.

In the past few years, when I could, I would send a Mother’s Day card to my Mother from wherever I was. Otherwise, I tend to believe that the best way for me to pay tribute to my Mother is by not giving her unnecessary grief or any reason to be worry about me. I hope that I have succeeded in doing that and this is the least I can do for her.

In essence, I wish that everyday is Mother’s Day because mothers who really care hardly relinquish their role and they’re not mothers only on the first Sunday of every May. They are mothers every single day and many until the day they die.

I was reminded of Mother’s Day when I read Susan Loone’s blog entry bearing the title, “Not Everyone Wants A Mother’s Day”.  I thought it was a courageous and refreshing article. It provides a completely different perspective, shying away from the usual “airy-fairy” tales paying tribute to Mummy Dearest.

Since I am lucky to have a Mother who devotes her whole life to protecting my interest and was brought up in a circle of relatives and friends who have the same kind of mothers, my first encounter with “bad mothers” came about when I was in Afghanistan.

I was then working as a Human Rights Officer with the United Nations and came across a case where a woman was hung to death after she was accused of adultery. The facts presented to me were both shocking and sad. In order to redeem the family’s honour, the woman’s mother had sent her to the gallows with her own hands.

The thought of a mother giving up her daughter for death is inconceivable and against the law of nature as I thought it is the primal instinct of all mothers to defend and protect their offspring at all cost. As much as I question how a mother could have done that, I also wonder how a daughter would have felt knowing that her own mother is responsible for her death.

I’ve also read many stories where mothers have allowed their husbands or lovers to rape their daughters. What about mothers who abuse their children? In Cambodia, I’ve encountered cases where mothers sell their daughters to slavery and prostitution.  These are things which I can never understand and in some ways, I do wonder whether these mothers have themselves being victims of abuse when they were young.

Luckily enough, not all mothers are bad and in fact, a lot of the mothers I’ve known are simply amazing. They each try to bring up their children the best way they can.

Not too long ago, I managed to catch up with a friend who is taking care of her two young children; all by herself without the help of a maid or nanny. I am often amazed by how much energy she has because attending to the needs of two young children is not an easy feat and she seems to be managing it well on her own. She told me that there is a deep sense of satisfaction knowing that she could impart life skills and values to her children. Not many people are able to see or understand that motherhood is not just about feeding, bathing and providing shelter to their children. It’s much more than that and above all, it’s about bringing up children who will become responsible and independent adults.

To end this note, I think Mother’s Day should be a day for reflection. It’s a day for mothers to think about how much they have contributed towards shaping their children’s lives in a positive manner. It’s also a day for children to think about how much they have done in return for all the sacrifices their mothers have done for them.

“Our World. Your Move” Campaign: Celebrating World Red Cross and Red Crescent Day

“All can, in one way or another, each in his own sphere, and within his own limitations, do something to help move the good work forward.”

These powerful words were uttered by Henry Dunant following the Battle of Solferino 150 years ago. The founder of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement was one who believed that individuals have the power to make a difference and why not? He was a living example of how one person managed to change the ethics and conduct of warfare which is enshrined in the Geneva Conventions.

On 24 June 1859, Henry Dunant, a Swiss businessman arrived in a small town in Solferino while on his way to Algeria. He witnessed the Battle of Solferino (part of the Austro-Sardinian war) which resulted in 40,000 soldiers on both sides dead or wounded in a single day. They were left on the battle field with no medical assistance. Horrified by the sight, Dunant abandoned his business plan and instead devoted to care for the wounded. He mobilized the local population to distribute aid to wounded soldiers without discrimination and this became the basis of humanitarian law.

This year is particularly special for the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, IFRC; International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC; and National Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies, NS) because it is the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Solferino, 90th anniversary of the IFRC and 60th anniversary of the “modern day” Geneva Conventions and most significantly the 4th Convention.

I will not attempt to provide the historical background of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement in detail. Instead, I would like to focus on the National Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies, IFRC and my own experience with them.

It wasn’t until five years ago when I first heard about the IFRC. When we talk about the Red Cross, we often think about the ICRC and since I met my husband who works for the IFRC, I began to understand more about the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement.

There is a Red Cross/Red Crescent society in almost every country today. In Malaysia, we have the Red Crescent society and as a child, I remember being a member of the society in primary school. Unfortunately, I associated the society with marching in the sweltering heat of our tropical climate. I did not learn first aid, neither did I volunteer to raise fund for any victims of natural disaster. At that time, AIDS did not exist yet and I was definitely not aware of any food insecurity situation in the country, if there ever was. I hope that things have changed since then because being a member of the Red Crescent society is not about engaging oneself in boot camp activities.

About twenty years later, I learned that the IFRC is a federation of all the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. Unlike the ICRC, the IFRC is represented by the National Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies from each member state, very much like the United Nations and each country can only have one National Red Cross/Red Crescent Society (based on one of its seven fundamental principles of unity).

Although the IFRC carries out all the activities one would expect; disaster management, food security, health, etc., one of its main functions is also to provide capacity building and support to local national Red Cross/Red Crescent societies. As such, a huge bulk of its mandate is to work closely with local NSs.

When my husband received a job placement in Ethiopia, I volunteered for the Ethiopian Red Cross Society (ERCS). It was then when I first learned about the dynamics of the Red Cross Movement having lived and worked with those who were either involved with the IFRC, ERCS or ICRC. I would say that the experience was invaluable as it broadens up my own scope of understanding in terms of human rights as well as institutional operations.

Some would like to define humanitarian law as the human rights aspects of war and what this essentially means is that even during a civil or international conflict, the basic rights of soldiers and civilians must be observed regardless of political, religious, gender, racial or other forms of orientation. Although this is more or less what the ICRC’s mandate is, the IFRC and NSs often concentrate on humanitarian relief during times of war and peace.

In many ways, I find that working for the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement provides instant satisfaction when compared to the United Nations, which I worked for as a human rights officer several years ago. For instance, when there is a natural calamity, swift responses and actions are taken. There is no long discussion on diplomacy, international relations, politics or law. The main concern that triggers the whole movement is to save lives.

At a lower level where natural disasters are not the main issue, the Red Cross Movement concentrates on more basic needs such as health care, food distribution and over the past few years, tackling issues concerning climate change. Issues such as religious, political, cultural or criminal convictions are never in question. Neutrality is by far the most important principle which governs the whole Movement. To me, this is the essence of human rights.

Having said this, the intricacy of institutional relationships between the three entities (IFRC, NS and ICRC) can be a challenge and if so, it is mainly due to the issue of independence (they are all essentially independent bodies).  Nevertheless, due to their guiding principles of neutrality and humanity,  it is less complicated than the UN which is governed by State Members where politics often become the main issue of contention. The NS itself is independent from its own national government and hence should not be influenced by state policies.

As we slowly move into an era where human rights have become a major topic of concern, I would assume that many people often find it too daunting and dangerous to join in the struggles of activists who are often threatened by arrests and prison convictions in countries where civil and political rights are considered as devious forms of activities. If so, I would strongly encourage you to take up a humanitarian cause instead. While it is less “controversial”, the impact is not any lesser.

Providing basic needs to victims of natural disaster, learning first aid to save lives when it is needed, sensitizing people on HIV/AIDS and climate change, encouraging breastfeeding, educating people on road safety, etc. are all heroic acts that count towards sustaining humanity. You don’t have to become a champion for human rights by marching on the street in protest of government frailties, but you do need to take actions against other threats.

In conjunction with this year’s World Red Cross and Red Crescent Day, let’s remember what Henry Dunant said 150 years ago:

“All can, in one way or another, each in his own sphere, and within his own limitations, do something to help move the good work forward.”

IT IS OUR WORLD AND YOUR MOVE.

p/s: For more information, please refer to http://www.ifrc.org and http://www.icrc.org.

Proselytization by the US Military Forces in Afghanistan poses death threats to many

This is an updated version of the post bearing the same title.

“Just as the Special Forces are hunting down al-Qaeda, we’re hunting down people for Jesus.”

I shuddered as I listened to a uniformed man (who appeared to be leading an evangelical worship session in Baghram where the US military force is based in Afghanistan) said in firing enthusiasm to his congregation on TV today. What’s worrying is the fact that the congregation is made up entirely of US military personnel. This video footage taken a year ago was released on Al-Jazeera news recently.

According to Al-Jazeera, a group of US military evangelists are proselytising in Afghanistan by giving out free copies of translated bibles to the local people while on duty. While I am a strong supporter of the freedom of religion, I feel that this group of soldiers are threading on very dangerous ground. For a start, as a military personnel, any religious activity should never be part of their mandate; may it be for personal or professional reasons.

The US Military Code of Conduct for Afghanistan specifically prohibits proselytizing of any religion, faith or practices and it’s shocking that these group of evangelists have boldly ignored and violated this code, also known as General Order No.1. When asked whether the soldiers are aware of this code, an officer who is set to become a chaplain answered, “you can’t proselytize but you can give gift.” He added, “I bought a carpet and then I gave the guy a bible after I conducted my business.”

This appears to be their modus operandi as a video footage showed copies of bibles being taken out from underneath a box of supplies that were distributed to the local community in Parwan province. The Provincial District Governor expressed her shock when she discovered six bibles at the bottom of what would appear as innocent military aid supplies. She said that she hastily burned five of the bibles out of fear and handed one to the local police authority.

Having lived and worked in Afghanistan, I know for a fact that military soldiers rarely take off their uniform even when they are conducting personal commercial transaction. It is common to see soldiers strolling along the local markets with their rifles strapped on their backs while haggling with Afghans over carpets and other knick-knacks. Even if a bible is intended to be a personal gift, it will not be perceived as such.

The US’s highest ranking military officer confirmed that it is not the US military’s position to promote any specific religion. The US Military Spokesperson told Al-Jazeera that they have confiscated bibles from those who were involved in such activities and some soldiers who appeared in the video have been reprimanded. The US Pentagon, however, has not issued any statement on this.

Three years ago, Abdel Rahman, an Afghan, was sentenced to death when he converted to Christianity. In 2007, twenty-three South Korean missionaries were held hostage by the Taliban and two were killed. A local journalist was sentenced to death last year for spreading information against Islam. A few years ago, cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad published in Denmark and allegations of US troops mistreating the Quran in Guantanamo Bay sparked off violent and bloody demonstrations which killed hundreds of civilians. All this clearly indicates the intolerance of religious conversion and blasphemy in Afghanistan. What the US military force is now doing, is to increase and reinforce the vulnerability of local Afghans and foreigners to further threats by religious fundamentalists.

As a UN Human Rights Officer in Afghanistan several years ago, I know that fundamental human rights are issues which have to be dealt with delicately, if not cautiously. It’s not just about serving a prison sentence if one is convicted of adultery, spreading information which is against Islam or apostasy. The penalty is usually death and because there is no proper rule of law system, chances of getting a sentence overturned or obtaining justice is close to zero. Even if such a system is in place, religious fundamentalists will not hesitate to take matters into their own hands.

Shortly after the release of this news on Al-Jazeera, the Taliban released a message on their website; threatening “harsh reprisals” targeting Pope Benedict XVI and Christians if the former does not intervene to stop Christians from proselytizing in Afghanistan.

There is an urgent need for the US to tackle this issue immediately for five reasons.

Firstly, it is necessary for its military force to re-gain credibility and trust from Afghans when its reputation has been sorely compromised over the last few years with the increasing cases of civilian deaths during military operations. Confirmation of torture and countless number of human rights violations on Guantamo Bay prisoners do nothing to increase the respect of the Talibans towards the US.

Ahmed Shah Ahmedzai, a former Afghan Prime Minister told Al-Jazeera that such activity is damaging for the diplomatic relations between the two country. He urged the US to conduct a serious investigation now that this information has come to the public’s knowledge. If the US military force wants to remain in Afghanistan to help restore peace and security, proselytizing activities will only serve to counter the objectives of its operation.

Secondly, such proselytizing activity will only jeopardize the lives of Afghans who may or may not be influenced by it, but the mere possession of bibles will automatically increase the suspicion of religious fundamentalists. And let’s face it, the Talibans have no qualms in taking any drastic actions against those who are suspected of going against Islam, even when it comes to killing.

Sayed Aalam Uddin Asser of the Islamic Front for Peace and Understanding in Kabul told Al-Jazeera, "It's a national security issue ... our constitution says nothing can take place in Afghanistan against Islam. If people come and propagate other religions which have no followers in Afghanistan [then] it creates problems for the people, for peace, for stability.”

Thirdly, hardcore religious fundamentalists like the Taliban reserve no room for reasoning nor negotiations. Any US citizen or those who have any association with it; may it be appearance, political, social or cultural in nature, can be considered as an enemy. As such, this poses a threat to those who may not necessarily have anything to do with proselytizing.

The message posted on the Taliban website claimed that dozens of Christian missionaries are proselytizing in Afghanistan under the guise of humanitarian non-governmental organizations. It also claimed that these groups are collaborating directly with American and other foreign troops in Afghanistan. According to them, “They are taking advantage of the war and of needy Afghans, who are driven towards the religious deviance of these groups.”

From a perspective of those in the thick and thin of it (commentary by unnamed source), it is felt that there is a right and responsible time and place for proselytizing and this (in a country like Afghanistan) is not the right time or place. Such activities and news place all civilians working in Afghanistan in greater danger. As the Taliban or Anti-Government Elements (AGE) do not make a distinction between international military forces, UN or NGOs, all of which are regarded as “international entities”, such reports make all foreigners a potential target. Also, in this regard, civilians are more vulnerable as by their very nature, they do not carry arms (rightly so) and do not travel in huge military convoys. This does not mean that they should be carrying arms but it means that civilians are easier targets and hence more vulnerable towards being kidnapped and killed – there has been an escalation of security incidents against NGO workers by AGEs in the past few years.

Fourthly, one cannot dispel the harms that have been caused by the US military’s engagement in proselytizing on genuine efforts and work by humanitarian organizations. While engagement in humanitarian activities to “win the hearts and minds” of local population by military operations has been a common practice to gain the trust and acceptance of local civilians (in essence, such activities are prohibited by the UN Security Council and handbooks of military coalition forces), the way these activities have been conducted, not to mentioned the boundaries that have been crossed by whatever hidden religious agenda; have all contributed to the shrinking of humanitarian space in Afghanistan. The US military force has not only reduced the integrity of humanitarian workers, but also rendered them as dangerous enemies who must be eradicated by all means.

Finally, when the US decided to send more troops into Afghanistan, it should keep in mind that its main objective and priority is to restore peace and security and this includes reducing civilian casualties during its military operations. With the increasing number of incidents and controversies surrounding the deaths of civilians; in which the US has often denied responsibility; indirectly contributing to further threats on civilians through proselytizing activities will not reduce the onus. The US must start to make serious effort to protect the security of civilians and not just pay lip service.

If the US does not wish to aggravate the already fragile state of security in Afghanistan, President Obama needs to do something about this immediately. If none of the above arguments holds any form of persuasion, proselytization is still a violation of any military code of conduct and for very good reasons too. Any religious belief or activities should never be associated with military operations.

These evangelists are in Afghanistan as soldiers of the United States of America, not God.

11 May 2009

Reasons to be nervous when meeting FB buddies for the first time

This post is inspired by my night out with a friend whom I haven’t met for a long time, her adorable daughter and three other new Facebook (FB) friends tonight. I must confess that I was a tad nervous meeting this new group of people for the first time. We have debated and shared quite a lot of opinions on FB on various issues and I have to say that they are definitely interesting and intellectually stimulating lot.

Anyway, here are some reasons to be nervous when meeting Facebook buddies for the first time. Feel free to add on to the list.

1) You can’t pretend to be smart since you can’t google every single unfamiliar terms being discussed.

2) You actually have to pay attention to the conversations. You can’t scroll back to read who said what and what was being said.

3) You can’t turn up being naked or dressed in your PJs.

4) You can’t choose which poses make you look  good and use photoshop to help hide any undesirable flaws on your person.

5) When you try to say something witty or funny, you have to be very convincing. There’s no time for you to think, write and edit. Don’t be surprised if you receive weird looks instead of blanks when you fail to execute your lines well.

6) You cannot have different conversations with different individuals simultaneously (this includes gossiping behind their backs) because that would be rude.

7) You can’t actually say w-t-f, f-asterisk-hash-percentage, etc. you get the gist.

8) You actually have to show your emotions and expressions; emoticons won’t save your life if you have no personality. For instance, you do know that you can’t fake a laugh by saying l-o-l exclamation mark.

9) You can’t simply ignore someone if they say something or invite you for something because that would be rude too.

10) You can’t keep updating someone about your status or state of being every few minutes because that would be weird, not to mention a tad too self-obsessed.

11) You have to be on top of things when it comes to what you are allowed to say or not to say and to whom since there is no exclusive message groups/threads to guide you.

12) You can count on people noticing your funny voice or any other strange characteristics you might have.

13) Of course, you do know that you will have to speak at some stage.

14) Poking/bitch slapping/tickling/annoying/throwing your knickers at someone, etc. is generally considered as socially inappropriate behaviour (in this country at least). This applies to rolling-on-the-floor-and-laughing-out-loud too.

15) You can’t instantly de-friend someone if he/she is a loser.

16) Just because you’ve finally met your cyber buddies for the first time, it doesn’t mean you will remain as their 305th friend in real life.