Category: Rants

Commentary – Sweta Agarwal

6 comments

I would have written something about this letter when my friend sent it to me earlier had I not been bothered by work and some personal matters. Here’s the letter in question:

Thanks, being a PR is good enough
August 20, 2009 Thursday

IN RESPONSE to letters by Mr Jimmy Loke (‘The PR difference’, last Saturday) and Mr Chia Kok Leong (‘No school, no Singapore’, last Saturday), I would only ask them to refer to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s speech reported last Friday (‘MM: Foreign talent is vital’), where he gave an idea of the benefits citizens have over permanent residents (PRs).

I am happy to be a PR and although we do not get equal benefits in housing and other respects, that is understandable. We understand the difference between a citizen and a PR.

But where our children are concerned, we just want them to have the best education possible and I think we are not asking much. Citizens have the upper hand in buying homes and other respects, which is justified, but where schooling is concerned, ‘every child has the right to get the best education possible’.

About living here for six years and not taking citizenship, I think this is a very personal choice. I would just like to end this topic by saying we are not here to compete with citizens but there are certain things on which one cannot compromise and children’s education is one of them. I think we are not asking much and we are grateful to the Government for understanding that for every parent, his child’s welfare comes first.

I would like to thank Mr Loke and Mr Chia for inviting us to become citizens but for now, I am proud to be a citizen of my country and have PR status in Singapore.

Sweta Agarwal (Mrs)

It appears to me that PRs from this one particular country always have this unusual and unacceptable ‘mentality of entitlement’. We have far less issues with other PRs, apparently. I recalled having written another blog post before, after another PR (apparently of the same nationality) shamelessly wrote in asking why he can only get HDB flats off the open market and not the ‘subsidised’ ones which are offered only to Singapore Citizens who are first time owners.

When I first read it, my response to the friend who sent the article to me was simply this: “This is like a customer, whom after being served a cup of plain water, asks for a cup of chai latte – for free, and also to be served first.”

Frankly, I don’t understand where her argument of “compromising her children’s education” is coming from. Giving priority to the children of citizens in getting a place in schools would hardly compromise her children’s education. She either have to send them further away to study if she can’t get her children a place, or to a private school. After all, we citizens expect her to pay the full fees for her child’s education for taking up a place which would otherwise have been given to a Singaporean child!

According to this article, Mrs Sweta Agarwal had also issued a veiled threat that PRs may consider leaving Singapore if their children cannot get into the schools of their choice, and had justified the equal chance given to PRs because they ‘pay taxes and abide by Singapore’s laws’.

That’s preposterous! Everyone is expected to abide by the law of the land, wherever he / she is, and this PR should not forget that Singapore provided her the job opportunities in the first place and thus paying taxes to our State is a duty and in my personal opinion, an institutionalised method for people who has benefited from the society to give some of it back. It doesn’t matter whether the government gahmen uses that money to build infrastructure or invest (and lose) it in investments. Ultimately, that money is spent with the intention to benefit everyone staying here. Before Mrs Sweta Agarwal issued her threat, she should first ask herself why she has chosen to come to Singapore, if not for the fact that Singapore offers the best deal? Unless she is really exceptional, Singapore losses nothing in a win-win deal like this since someone else either more capable or equally capable would have quickly filled the positions she vacated.

As my friend Modeus put it: These people probably think Singaporean men do our national service and get allowances and enjoy free meals paid by them. Personally, I am not surprised if these people think we citizens enjoy our lives on their hard work and money or that Singapore cannot do without them. After all, whenever the Singapore gahmen defend the Foreign Fallen Talent policies, they have repeatedly make it clear that while Singapore can fill some of these jobs, we do not necessarily have the critical mass to fill all of them. As such, the gahmen opened up the labor market to attract investors to set up shop here, so that the investors won’t take it elsewhere. To put it in a simple analogy: We’ll let some outsiders come and eat the pie, because we can’t finish it all. That is better than losing the entire pie to someone else entirely.

Either way, this is not the first time a PR issued such a threat when PRs in general faces a backlash from citizens. However, PRs would do well to remember that when Singapore’s economy change, they might find themselves obsolete just like many of our own graduates trained in the wrong trade. While they may currently be in demand, they shouldn’t think that Singapore owe them a living. After all, they may come a day when their currently valued ‘talent’ become obsolete and available at a cheaper cost at some newly industrialised economies elsewhere.

We Chinese have a saying: 山水有相逢. It literally translates as: Even the mountains will meet the water. To elaborate, the mountain maybe high, but even then one day the water once flowing at its foot will be on its peaks. What it really means is that a person shouldn’t feel so high and mighty, because conditions can change so drastically that it takes others on top of you.

When the day comes where Singapore’s economy no longer needs the likes of Mrs Sweta Agarwal, I hope the ICA officer at the customs putting the chop on her passport will say:

Good riddance, to bad rubbish.

Commentary – Maintenance of Parents Act

7 comments

This is a translated excerpt of the Prime Minister’s Baby Lee’s National Day Rally speech (Mandarin):

We Asians pay great attention to filial piety This is a traditional virtue & we must maintain this. Although the government has a duty to look after the aged, and the government will try its best to look after the aged, but to the family members, it’s not only duty, it’s duty plus love. It’s not something the government can provide. The love of the family members, the warmth of the family cannot be replaced by nursing homes & hospitals.

Recently I had a chat with some nursing home operators & they told me that in principle this is correct. But some Singaporeans have not preserved this virtue. Some Singaporeans have abandoned their parents in the homes or hospitals. After they sent their parents to the homes sometimes they disappeared & even changed their addresses on their ICs. When the nursing home contacted them they said: “It’s not my business.” and said that even if the nursing homes were to drive the parents away, they would not mind.

This is something that causes great discomfort to us – a new social phenomenon – and we must deal with it. So the government is looking into how to be more effective in implementing the Maintenance of Parents Act so that the children will fulfill their duty. Besides building more community hospitals the government will look into other measures so it will facilitate people looking after the sick relatives at home. We will do our part. Our whole health care system will be effective but individuals must also carry out their duties

I am not sure whether this was also touched on in his English and Malay speech, but if it wasn’t then it would be really interesting why it is in Mandarin only. It implied that Chinese Singaporeans are the only ones who abandoned their parents in Old Folks Homes.

But I am not surprised if that is true. I have a distant relative who did just that to his own mother and after hearing the exact detail of the events leading to her predicament, I could only gnash my teeth in cold fury (恨得我咬牙切齿). Here’s a summary: One of her three sons, knowing that their mother doesn’t know English, conned her into signing a lawyer letter which bequeath all of their late-father’s estate to him alone, thereby cheating not just his own mother but also the inheritance of his other two brothers. When all of that is done, the mother was so completely devastated, she suffered from dementia. This scum then send her to a home. Failing to understand their mother’s predicament, since she had signed away what they felt is rightfully theirs, the other two sons felt no obligation to bring her home and all three of them left her there till she died a lonesome death. It was a situation as bad as that depicted in Jack Neo’s ‘Money No Enough 2’ except that the three brothers in that movie didn’t con their mother or just left her to die.

When my parents found out about it and went to visit her before she passed away, the old lady (an aunt of mine from the father side) could not recognise any of them. My only consolation was that these sub-human trash didn’t share my family name, and I promised myself that my clan will never forget the debt this family owed and if God is willing, one day I’ll settle this score with them… personally.

The Maintenance of Parents Act is thus an welcomed piece of legislation for me, even though it has came too late for my aunt. However, I felt that the act should not become a piece of legislation which empowers irresponsible parents and allows them to force their kids to maintain them. I can only say parents who have never been their for their children, such as compulsive gamblers or violent, abusive parents who left their children to fend for themselves at a young age, should only deserved what they had coming for them if their children abandons them. While I am not really encouraging an environment of vengeance, I felt no one should be subjected to the word and wrath of the law when they have already suffered long enough in their childhood.

That being said, I must also point out that while the Maintenance of Parents Act will serve as the stick to deal with those heartless beasts who abandoned their parents, there is no carrot for those who fulfill their duties without fail. Certainly, I would like the government gahmen to do more to help those who are fulfilling their duty.

However, I am not asking for handouts from the gahmen, but I would at the very least expect the gahmen to make it far easier for me to pay some of the costs. For e.g. I think it is prudent that everyone of us – especially those who are only child – to get health insurance in place for their aging parents. However, I can only use up to $800 (or was it $880?) from my CPF’s Medisave account to pay for each insurance bill. The rest I would have to foot out of my own pocket. All is fine as long as I remained gainfully employed, but I might have difficulties paying the difference if I am not. As such, I would seriously prefer to be able to pay the full amount from my CPF. Above which, allowing us to have more money would indirectly increase our spending power which would indirectly increase the GST collected by the gahmen, and thus giving it more money to finance any future ‘wealth sharing’ projects.

Is it too much to ask for the cap on Medisave payment for health insurance to be lifted, as some kind of ‘carrot’ for some of us who are doing our duty as children faithfully? I am not even asking for handouts. I am just asking that I be allowed to use this money which is rightfully mine, and it is not as if I am asking to use the CPF for hedonistic purposes.

Commentary – 44 Years of Nationhood

4 comments

This is a post inspired by Erniesurn’s blog post and a consolidation of my comments on his blog.

It has been 44 years since our expulsion from the Federation of Malaysia. Singapore has come a long way since then, and on National Day, I stopped and asked myself – Do I feel a sense of belonging to Singapore?

Frankly, there is hardly any belonging as far as I am concerned. The place I lived for 26 years is now nothing more than a grass patch – the flats were torn down about a few months ago. And the place I spent my childhood from 5 ~ 12 years old (the Kreta Ayer – Upper Cross Street – Chin Swee Road area) has gone through so much changes, I could not really recognise the place – especially the Chinatown area.

Singapore changes so rapid that when I look out of my office’s window everyday I see a drastic change at Marina Bay. Yet all of the developments driving these changes is geared for ‘instant gratification’ – from the IR, to the F1, and the Sail, etc. All of which are targetted at ‘high spenders’, and it doesn’t matter little, or perhaps even none of that money really flows into the pockets of the common man.

The Sail, for e.g., is out of reach of the average Singaporean. As for the F1, whatever benefits there are to Singapore is probably negligible to the common Singaporean. Yet, consider who bears the cost? Common Singaporeans like you and I will have to live with chaotic traffic, bus re-routes and road blocks for the duration the F1. (I wouldn’t even want to get started raving about how the shops in SunTec / Marina area bore the burden of bad business during F1 and get none of the benefits!)

To me, none of these things would make me feel more at home, nor give me a sense of belonging. I simply console myself that whatever revenue that comes of these would hopefully translate into some GST credits for me.

While on the topic of the IR and the new waterfront, I recalled a proposal sometime ago to build a replica of the ship which took Raffles to Singapore. I am not surprised the idea never took off. The reason is quite obvious – what revenue would a floating history museum and an antique ship replica bring to Singapore? In fact, it probably doesn’t even fit into the plan for this so-called new waterfront. In general, historical heritage and preservation of historical buildings in Singapore is a joke – just take a look at the MICA building at the junction of Hill Street and River Valley Road, or some of the old shop houses along Telok Ayer, Tanjong Pagar, or Chinatown itself. It is as if we managed to preserve the carcass in its full glory, but failed utterly to retain its living soul.

Frankly, the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board knows for a fact that once we remove the figures of transit, the figures for visitors in Singapore will be so pathetic, that there is almost non-existent tourism to speak about. Don’t believe me? Try visit the Bird Park or the Zoo on a weekday and see the visitors. Then compare that to the Ocean Park in Hong Kong, when you get to visit it. In fact, I find it easier to promote Taipei and Hong Kong to my own fellow citizens, than to foreign friend from Taipei and Hong Kong to come to Singapore.

If you are wondering just what is the point I am trying to make, it is simply this: Everything in Singapore gives me me nothing more than a feel that we are merely transitional. As a resident and a citizen, I can’t help but feel a sense of loss when something I have attached to gets demolished and then rebuilt – such as the Tiong Bahru Market. There is no doubt if you take Raffles or General Yamashita through time, none of them would recognise the Singapore they know.

It doesn’t help, when I am further reminded that anyone is considered useless if he has no economic contribution to this nation, either in the form of labour or spending. It really never surprises me why Singaporeans readily raved against any proposal of ‘welfare’ even before we have heard of the details! The real reason isn’t really all about ‘welfare encouraging laziness and free loaders’, but this: one more person fxxking up would simply be one less competitor.

Indeed, Singapore has progressed much, but at what expense? Did we really gain something, or lost something? Student suicides were almost unheard off to this old fossil when I was a student. My friends and I were hardly any less entertained or unhappy when I was a kid, in spite of the fact that we didn’t have PSP or Andy’s Ass NDS. The best arcade games were Galaxian or Space Invaders, and Ultima IV was the closest game we had to Diablo, and it is not even networkable! Yet, we were thoroughly happy and we enjoyed our childhood catching longkang fish in the drain, playing marbles or catching, flying a kite or even looking for fighting spiders in the plants at the seemingly abandoned power relay stations.

Yet in spite of the progress we have made, in spite of the luxuries we enjoyed, I seemed even more unhappy. In fact, we ranked even below the Philippines on the Happiness Index or something like that. What am I really unhappy about? Is it a lack of material possessions, or the absence of social consciousness?

I will admit, I am quite unhappy as far as material possession is concerned. In fact, I am definitely upset not only because some of the things are really out of my reach – such as an apartment in the Sail at the new Downtown – probably no matter how hard I try, but also because of the increasing burden in getting them into my possession. My father took 10 years to own the home he bought – it was nothing to boast about but I am still paying another 15 years for mine, 10 years after I have moved in.

I am even morey upset with the absence of social consciousness. I recall the day when a few of us was jaywalking and dashing madly across in spite of the oncoming cars, and then this person in front of me who just got on the divider didn’t bother to step aside so I can step on it, even when he knew I was right behind him. It was there and then I came to the stark realization that in this country, even in matters of life and death, no one gives a damn about the person beside or behind him once he’s safe.

This same I am safe and I don’t give a flying damn about you attitude is prevalent everywhere. Ever come across the guy who after stepping into the train or an elevator, stop right there and not move in in spite of the rest of the rest of the people behind him? Or that person who stopped right on the landing after he step off the escalator in spite of the oncoming load of other passengers? Or the two scums who walk in a line abreast under the corridors of old shop houses in Chinatown or Boat Quay, and yet expect you to give way to them?

In fact, whenever we read the papers about Tai-E-Loan (大耳窿 aka loan shark) problems plaguing some residents, had we stop and consider that had everyone more social consciousness, we would have taken turns to look out for one another and put an end to all these loan shark nonsense? After all, it’s not like these thugs that were arrested were really mean looking gangsters or something. Some of them were just teenagers! I recalled the NPCC (National Police Cadet Corps) used to form Crime Watch groups during my school days, whatever happened to those?!

What national identity and belonging are we talking about when even our closest neighbours are complete strangers to us? A Chinese teacher once said Singaporeans are all ‘bird people’ and we thought he was using bad words. Yet, what he meant was that we lock ourselves up behind our steel gates, like little birds in their cages when we get home.

Is it not true we mostly don’t even talk to our neighbours? Some of us may pride ourselves of having Malay friends but we hardly speak to our Malay neighbours. Is it a surprise why the Kampong Spirit in Singapore is dead?

I can’t help but feel, the Education system in Singapore is a completely failure if we go strictly by Confucius definition of the purpose of education. Confucius believed in educating people so that they know how to ‘be people’ (做人), to understand the meaning of being a human being (做人的道理), to be in harmony with society, and to serve one another. Yet our education system teaches us none of that.

Our education system simply programs the next generation of youngsters to become the labor (or living automaton) which the economy required. Educational institutes would be providing courses towards what is required and taking in most students for them. In 1988, it was high tech manufacturing. By 1998, it was IT. In 2003 it was Bio-Technology. Today, in view of the IR and a service orientated economy, it is service and entertainment. It is quite alright when you are the early batch… but what if you are the late batch where what you are trained in becomes sunset industry in the rapidly changing economic environment of Singapore? Your parents may have spent a whole load of money to get you equipped with these skill sets. But what use are these skill sets when they ‘expire’? Did I mention that my diploma was only good for the first 3 years of my employment before I changed line, when I saw where the wind is blowing?

Simply put, if you haven’t jumped ship before it sank, you are simply, finished! You are stuck with an obsolete skill set or even an education that is a complete waste. If you have been in a particular line for quite awhile… there’s no chance of taking it overseas either since the company would have taken your job to another country where you simply can’t compete with their pay scale. If you just graduated, you probably have no money and yet you have to spend more money to upgrade… or starve.

If you think you are safe being an entrepreneur or a businessman… it brings to memory a friend’s father, who runs a small business making paper bags, boxes and stuff like that. He had several sons gainfully employed in the family business. Yet the business could no longer sustain itself, when provision shops, supermarkets and hawkers rapidly moved into using styrofoam boxes and plastic bags. It was simply a matter of changing times.

In short, I really want to feel belong to this country. Unfortunately, in spite of all the apparent prosperity, I can’t when I look at the direction that the country takes either leaves some of us behind or marginalises them. And this will be what the rest of your fellow Singaporeans and this government gahmin say to you:

Good luck!! It’s not my fault and not my problem!! It’s your own fault!! You are lazy!! Don’t expect any handouts, you free loader!!

The gahmen can claim that it created the job that I have, but it is the skill and ability of the Singaporean worker that keeps the job here. That same job, faces competition also from foreigners coming from elsewhere to seek employment, and foreigners who would leave at the sign of trouble.

In short, I can find nothing to make me feel I belonged. And no one cares. In fact, I know what people who has only smell the roses – and none of the manure in the flowerbed – all their lives, like Wee Shu Min, would be saying if they happened to read this.

Get out of my elite uncaring face, you useless bum.

Funny Picture of the Day:

Commentary – Personal Capacity?

8 comments

Sometimes I read statements like the following with some amusement (see below):

I have said this before, and I will repeat it here: my involvement in AWARE was in my personal capacity and not as an NMP, and in any case I do not think that I did anything wrong, improper or inappropriate at all. Presumably, those who feel that I was unwise, thought so because of the adverse impact that my public involvement in AWARE would have on my chances for re-appointment. – Siew Kum Hong

Did Mr Siew meant this as a joke? From what I gather through a simple search on Google, AWARE broke its silence on a homosexual issue for the first time in 2007, when it said it supported the repeal of Section 377A. As an NMP, Siew Kum Hong presented a petition to repeal Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code in Parliament. It is clear AWARE shares Mr Siew’s opinion (or vice versa) on HBT (Homsexual, Bisexual & Transgendered) issues. On top of that, from the chatter one can gather on blogosphere and in extension the Internet, the Josie Lau ExCo’s stand on HBT issues and alleged lack of inclusiveness and tolerance, is also one of the reasons why AWARE held an EGM on May 2nd, which led to its overthrow.

Now, with Siew so closely identified with championing for the HBT, he expects people to make the distinction that his involvement with AWARE is in his personal capacity and not as an NMP? It is even more surprising that Siew failed to see there was never the issue of right or wrong in his participation, but the possibility of his participation being used by some to mislead others into believing that an NMP has expressed explicit support, in spite of his declaration otherwise.

Does Mr Siew need to be reminded that when Chan Soo Sen, a former Minister of Education was invited as a guest-of-honour at a dubious university’s convocation, he got a lot of flak? Other than a lack of diligence on Chan’s part to check up on the background of the university, one of the main gripes of the public is that he failed to see how his position as an ex-Minister of Education would lend credibility to this university and his presence would suggest to the general public that he endorses it. Comprendez, Mr Siew?

Next, let me move on to explaining how it is usually impossible to make the distinction between what is in one’s personal capacity, and in the capacity of one’s office. Take for example the Lewinsky Scandal, where Monica Lewinsky allegedly gave Bill Clinton a ‘blow job’ (oral sex for the really pure and innocent) in the Oval Office while he was on the phone with with a Congressman. Assuming Clinton was speaking to the Congressman as President of the U.S., in which capacity was he receiving the blow job then? Can you imagine the mouth that was talking to the Congressmen was in the capacity as President while ‘Little Bill’ below was getting some serious ‘attention’ in Bill Clinton’s personal capacity? Now I understand why Bill Clinton dare to say “I did not have sexual relations with that woman!”. He obviously didn’t, in his capacity as the President.

Next, consider this: whenever the name of our respected Minister Mentor (MM) is invoked, do most people think of him as just a simple respectable elderly man, or as an elder statesman from Singapore, Prime Minister of Singapore for a good 31 years who is instrumental in the success of modern Singapore, and Senior Minister when Goh Chok Tong was PM? If I am laying this a little too thick, then also consider this, when someone is asked who was the former patron of the NKF, which of these answer do you expect: Tan Choo Leng or simply, Senior Minister (SM) Goh’s wife? All of the people I asked gave the latter as the answer. But why? Did Madam Tan not served in her personal capacity as NKF’s patron? What has her capacity as the wife of our respected SM Goh got anything to do with it? Similarly, in 1999, Choo Wee Khiang resigned his Member of Parliament (MP) seat after facing court charges (for allegedly using falsified invoices to secure $1.83 million in loans in 1999). Was Choo not acting in some other capacity for the company facing those charges and not as an MP?

Now, the above examples, 2 positive and 1 negative are used for a simple illustration. The first two examples showed that ‘lesser mortals’ (as a Charles Chong would have called people like us) cannot see the distinction at all. And the last example reminds us that even though Choo has acted in whatever capacity other than an MP, he resigned as a matter of integrity because whatever action in the other capacity has tarnished the office of MP, and the political party he belongs to.

In other words, for Siew to justify that his participation in AWARE as being in his own capacity is quite spectacularly lame. (Granted, that it was the most politically correct thing to say, as that would indicate the decision not to reappoint him was unbiased.) After all, I have shown that the first thing that always comes to mind is always that of the person’s office, or his relation to some famous and important person and never just his ‘personal capacity’.

If I were in his shoes, I will start doing some recollections, such as when I started participating in AWARE – before or after I was nominated an NMP? If the answers is the latter, then I must ask myself whether I seek them out or the other way round. If the answer is again the latter, then there is much to ponder about the implications. That’s not mentioning that I will be asking myself just what is so outstanding about me, among the thousands of lawyers out there in Singapore, that AWARE welcomed / desired my participation. In fact, if my profession as a lawyer isn’t what AWARE seek, then what is so special about me compared to any Tom, Dick or Harry out there?

Simply put, it is my considered opinion that it is naive for Siew to justify his participation in AWARE as being in his personal capacity regardless of his office he holds. If Siew cannot yet see that there is really no distinction whatsoever, then he should really refrain from participating further in any political activities, because he is opening himself up for attacks or what some would consider as ‘smearing’ by his opponents.

Funny Picture of the Day:


[Translation] Nabei!!! Weekend Burn!!! = Fxxk!!! Here goes my weekend!!!

Commentary – Pride and National Service

6 comments

We were soldiers once… and young.

While there are few of us who served our National Service (NS) with pride, we doggedly do for our nation what is required of us (the 2 / 2.5 years full time + regular ‘reservists’ call up). No NSF or NSmen expected any gratitude, but neither do we expect to be discriminated against or looked down upon. Yet someone calling herself JusticeLegal has done just that on an online forum (see below).

Someone, who never even need to share the burden and obligation to the defense of our nation, who enjoyed the security and peace provided by the very men in the defense forces she ridiculed, called them ‘green smelly things’ and gone so far to even call for soldiers to be banned from our public transports. Yet why someone high and mighty like her and her precious daughters would suggest our poor NS boys to take taxis while she wouldn’t, is beyond me!

She is fortunate she is born in modern day Singapore, because had she been born in the formative years of the People’s Republic of China, she would regret what she has written. Back in 1949, the Communist forces captured Guangzhou. As most of the soldiers of the communist soldiers were from the temperate and cooler northern provinces, they were unfamiliar with the climate conditions of sub-tropical Guangdong province and thus at times, sentries of the Communist forces would stink as a result of the lack of proper showers / baths. When the ladies in Guangdong walked past these soldiers, they will cover or pinch their noses in reaction to the stench.

Of course this greatly upset the soldiers of the victorious Communist forces. They decided to teach these women a lesson and any of them who did so while walking past a checkpoint or sentry post, will be made to stand under the hot Guangzhou sun until they perspire and start to smell before they were allowed to go.

While I am not suggesting a similar punishment for JusticeLegal, she should consider herself fortunate that she was born in more civilised times and a far less vindicative country.

Now, the matter of National Servicemen reminded me once again of the ‘NoToRape’ Petition to repeal Section 375 (4). It reminds me that not only does the Woman’s Charter already put Singaporean men in a disadvantage, there is also a disparity in the obligations, burdens and responsibilities between Singaporean men and women.

The gall of the very attempt to demand legislative rights for saying ‘no to sex’ to one’s husband irks me. And the very hypocrisy behind the support from members of AWARE pushing for this repeal irritates me to no end. Here I quote a comment from a female Malay blogger:

I think that the marital rape charter only applies to non-Muslim women as Muslim marriages have laws that govern it. However, a Muslim wife is not allowed to say no to the husband when he wants sex. He’s just supposed to understand that a wife isn’t his chattel to do as he pleases but if he wants it right now, the wife must give in. It kinda sucks actually.

Totally out of topic, I guess, but I thought I’d just like to share that little bit.

My point of quoting this comment in specific is this: Do we see AWARE screaming about the above which technically gave the husband the ‘right’ to rape his wife?

Where, is AWARE for the Malay woman who claimed she has no confidence in Josie Lau’s ExCo because they were Christian and Chinese? Let me guess, they will hide behind the Religious Harmony Act for their lack of action for this particular member. I am quite sure the Malay woman who so blatantly trampled upon our pledge – in specific the part on ‘regardless of race, language or religion – has her faith well placed in the new ExCo led by Dana Lam, which she probably elected.

If AWARE believes such hypocritical actions will regain the public’s confidence in that association, they are continuing down the wrong path. (It makes me wonder if they have been on the right path to begin with!)

Anyway, I will sign the petition for repealing Section 375 (4) only when the very people who pushes for it will also push for an amendment of the National Service Act. i.e. that women will now be required to serve National Service as well. On top of which, there should be a new Woman’s Charter with ‘means testing’ in place. No longer should a woman who is already capable of earning as much or even more money than the man, or already have in her possession a large amount of assets be allowed to claim up to 50% of the husband’s wealth in a divorce.

As my friend nocturne has said in this post: Equal rights. Equal obligation.

You can’t have your pie and eat it too.

Funny Picture of the Day:

1 … 33 34 35 36 37 … 99