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:

Commentary – No To Rape Petition

15 comments

WARNING: Opinions expressed in this post WILL BE offensive to some.

A friend showed me a petition on “No To Rape” addressed to our Prime Mini$ter.

The intention behind this is certainly noble, and indeed I am against men with a high sex drive treating their wives like an object to vent their lust. However, in view of the protection granted to women under the Woman’s Charter, the repeal of Section 375(4) in particular would put all married men in Singapore at a complete disadvantage. It’s repeal would be the equivalent of the complete capitulation of men in Singapore to women. It will leave all married men in Singapore completely vulnerable.

First of all, consider the possibility of a wife, after having sex with her husband, then turns around and accuses him of rape. Next, consider the scenario of a man who is denied sex by his wife for long periods. What avenue does a man have to satisfy his desires? Go to a prostitute? Keep a mistress? Or have a tryst with some other female companion? The main problem is, if he is caught by his wife, she can then file for divorce under the grounds of adultery. And guess what is going to happen to the poor man under the Woman’s Charter? In the worse case scenario, he could easily lose half his wealth.

So what can a man really do when the wife denies him sex? He can’t get it outside so he’s left with doing it himself. But another friend told me that a woman can actually accuse her husband for ’emotional torture’ if she catches him watching pornography and masturbating. The best part is that this can also be grounds for divorce!

While it is true that a husband can also file for divorce on the grounds that his wife refuses to consummate the marriage, the wife’s lawyer will then portray him as a inconsiderate sex crazed demon, since the wife has to work and have other ‘wifey duties’ to perform too. It doesn’t matter whether the man may have just asked for it once a week, month, quarter or year at all. After all, there is nothing to justify how much sex is excessive!

In fact, someone (I believe it was a particular Dana Lam) who said this ‘rape is the violent cover up for men’s inadequacies’. A logical question to that remark would be how much sex and what manner of sex would then be considered adequate just so men will not to resort to rape to cover it up? Perhaps Dana and women like her should agree on that and have the specifics stick into some law themselves and have the men abide by it. Indeed, the women, and not the men should be doing that, because a blog post on “No To Rape” lambasted President Kazai of Afghanistan for ‘entitling men to sexual access to their wives bodies every four days’ as legalising legal rape.

So consider this, there is now no legal grounds left for the man to actually obtain sex from his wife! Meantime, the dire consequences as a result of the Woman’s Charter, places the ‘alternatives’ of obtaining sex elsewhere undesirable. Even jerking off in your own study room to a porn movie or in the toilet can be grounds for divorce. What’s there left for married men in Singapore except the misery of a ‘sexual desert’?

I am NOT for marital rape nor am I trying to protect those who commits marital rape. To be frank, I am single so this probably doesn’t affect me now, even though it might possibly affect me later should I choose to get married. In fact, had there not been laws that already created a prior imbalance (as a result of the Woman’s Charter) I would be all for the petition. A pastor once said to us wife beaters are demon possessed – a husband gotta be beating his wife before he rapes her – and I am all for punishing them.

However, with the Woman’s Charter in place, any man who is invited to sign this petition should hold their horses. A man should take some time to consider the prevailing conditions, really understand what he is signing up for, and think really hard how that is going to impact him later.

Remember, these days it is not always the husband that is abusive and unless a more comprehensive, gender-neutral laws against marital violence is written, the repeal will place every married man in Singapore (not just Singaporeans) at a disadvantage. Signing this petition under the prevailing conditions is almost akin to an unconditional surrender. Should you sign it, your only alternative maybe to leave Singapore forever, just so you don’t end up on the business end of such laws.

Gadget Review:
Nicole – Review: Samsung Jet

Funny Picture of the Day:

Commentary – SMRT To Reinforce No Drinking / Eating On Trains

9 comments

Some friends were discussing on Twitter the recent decision by SMRT to reinforce no drinking / eating regulation on their trains. I believe this is enforced not just on the trains, but also the station platforms, and all of the ‘restricted area’ – i.e. the area leading to the platform after you tap your card.

What is interesting, is that some commuters readily embrace this, and go so far to even suggest that people sucking on a sweet (or lozenges) or drinking plain water should be punished as well.

Before I talk about these people, I would like to say the sudden decision to reinforce this regulation is the result of several conditions. First of all, SMRT has lowered fares recently and need to make up for their ‘income loss’. While they had attempted to adjust their usual ‘elastic schedule’ to try and squeeze more commuters (and thus, income) per train, this had led to an outcry from commuters. There is now a group called ‘I don’t like to squeeze on the MRT’ on Facebook.

Next, the inconsiderate commuters, such as the one who ate an apple in the station daily, and then leave the core on the platform benches, must have pissed off some SMRT staff to no end. On top of that, all the photos posted to STOMP now gave SMRT the perfect excuse / pretext for reinforcement. Of course, they need to pay also for all that advertisement with Phua Chu Kang tell people to give way to alighting passengers and to give up their seats to more needy passengers.

Thanks to these sheep, as my friend Ridzuan called them in a comment to my mei Nicole, there is now yet another thing to make our already hardly enjoyable MRT rides even worse. Though personally speaking, with the trains being so packed I would like to see how SMRT can get their staff to patrol the trains to enforce this regulation!

Anyway, Ridzuan is clearly too kind. I would have called them monkeys, because these Singaporeans reminded me of a ‘monkey experiment’ I read about a long time ago. It goes like this. Three monkeys were put in a cage, and a passage will lead to another section in which there is some food – peanuts or bananas. Whenever a monkey moves through the passage to grab the food on the other side, water will spray onto the section where the other two monkeys remained – to their immense annoyance. After awhile, the monkeys that were repeatedly sprayed, figured out that this has something to do with the other monkey’s actions. And they forcefully restrained the other monkey from doing so, at times even resorting to violence. These monkeys knew and understood why this law in place.

The scientists then removed a monkey and put in a new one, and now turned off the water spray. Without an prior experience of the situation, this new monkey quickly tried to cross the passage to grab the food, which the other two remaining monkeys promptly beat the new one up, even though no water now sprays on them. When all three monkeys stopped attempting to grab the food on the other end of the passage, yet another one of the old monkeys are removed, and again the situation repeated itself. Surprisingly, the monkey that hit the hardest is always the new joiner – which had exactly no clue why it was beaten. The experiment thus repeated itself until none of the monkeys has any idea why there’s this law in place. Now, anyone who tried to cross the passage to grab the food is simply beaten up promptly.

What is my point on talking about this experiment? The point is that there is something called the Spirit of the Law – where you understand why it is enforced, and the Word of the Law – where you understand what it says, but not necessarily the reason or the rational behind it. Neither do you give a damn why it is there and you probably enjoyed it when you see a person punished by it.

In my opinion, the spirit of the no-eating and drinking regulation was meant to keep the trains clean. SMRT will spend a lot to clean up the crumbs of food or stains from colored drinks, to prevent an infestation of ants and cockroaches. The idiots who are the usual whining STOMPERS probably have no clue about this, since I recall seeing some complaints about someone drinking a bottle of… plain water! These monkeys just whined about anyone eating or drinking on the trains – even when these people have not dirtied the trains. Granted, people will take it for granted if the regulation is not enforced, and we might soon find ourselves with a huge pest infestation on our trains, but my point is that some moderation is required when enforcing it – with the spirit of the law in mind. For example, people sucking on a lozenge because of a sore throat / cough, or a mother pacifying the baby with a bottle of milk is excusable.

Talking about wailing babies, my personal advice is that one should bring earplugs in the future, since you probably get more of them on the trains in the future, as a result of mothers not allowed to feed their babies on the trains / platform. Keep a look out for news of babies rushed to hospital because mothers tried to force them to drink more milk than necessary before they rushed onto the trains too.

By the way, since eating on trains is an offense and it deserved a fine, will there soon be an award the good Samaritan who gives up his seat for an old man or a pregnant lady, for example?

Funny Picture of the Day:

Anti-Social Media: tweet.sg

One comment

This is NOT yet another post to bash tweet.sg for the recent decision the owner has made.

My mei nicole brought to my the attention this blog post on tweet.sg. For those who have no clue what tweet.sg is, it is a free service that allows Singapore Tweeters to update their Twitter page by sending an SMS to a local Singapore number.

I have not used tweet.sg before, though I have caught glimpses of it on wall updates on Facebook. For e.g.

From what I have gathered, it all began with some complaints about the (long?) lag time between the SMS-Twitter update. This then slowly degenerated into some sort of flame war between Jym Cheong, the person who built the system, and some users over tweet.sg’s Twitter.

I took a look at the site, and while I do find a few ad units on it, the commercial benefits coming from them would be negligible, since most users will likely have visited the site at most a few times, to find out how to use the service, and probably never to return other than to check whether the service is down when their sms did not appear in Twitter. If there was any intention to take it commercial subsequently, I would have no confidence whatsoever with the business model. As such, I have to agree with Jym Cheong that there is little incentive to operate this system. In short, he has all the right in the universe to ban from his system anyone who is unhappy with the free service, and / or makes a direct personal attack on him.

It was a rather simple and straight forward matter with really nothing much to talk about. Yet, that was not to be. Apparently even the people who have stopped using his service, or has nothing to do with the quarrel at all now joined the fray – in the holy name of the ‘this is an example of what you shouldn’t do on social media’. *Yawn*

So I read on and from the chatter of some of the people I do follow on Twitter, it appears that an allegedly new face in the Public Relations (PR) industry has joined the fray in attacking Jym Cheong. This is in spite of the fact that her friend, who runs a well known blog aggregator in Singapore (and according to some sources, allegedly has full intentions of selling his site) has often handled the same way, people who directly criticise the blog aggregator itself, or disagrees with his unspecified users policies. (The only difference, as a friend pointed out, was that the blog aggregator’s admin would simply kick you out of his service unceremoniously and quietly.)

Again that was really nothing to complain about – his service, his rules – though some of us in our own follies did still complain and earned ourselves the eternal enmity of admin of the blog aggregator. And I certainly don’t recall the new face in the PR industry having an issue with that. I am puzzled by the blatant hypocrisy double standards applied to this matter. Again, I seem to recall that some the users banned in the blog aggregator were also criticising her as she was then holding some position there. It is then quite understandable why her position is now completely different regarding two similar matters. (By the way, it also reminded me that she is also quite dismissive of many things Singapore – like Singlish, our way of life, etc, which you can find glimpses of it on her blog. It surprises me that someone who held my nation with so much contempt did not already leave and yet shamelessly continue to enjoy the hospitality and employment opportunities my nation provides.)

Beyond her, some self styled social media ‘guru’ (who according to RSNA – aka RoadSide News Agency – is allegedly still jobless half a year after graduation, and had once boasted that graduates from his varsity makes the most money after graduation) has also jumped into the fray. What is most interesting, was that this same ‘guru’ who now bashes tweet.sg, has seemingly applauded the similar action taken at the blog aggregator last year too. He even gone so far to say that the departure of some users has actually ‘improved the standard’ of postings there.

But just like he has been wrong about his self importance, he has also been wrong on this account. Several months later he whined about how things has really gone south at the blog aggregator.

Subsequently, instead of helping to make things better, he beat a hasty retreat. Clearly, the so-called ‘guru’ has failed to see the fact that the so-called naysayers were actually the mainstay of a group who has been keeping the very posts that so disgust him in check.

Looking at just how wrong he has been in this past incident, and then how wrong he has been in jumping on the bandwagon to make a fuss out of tweet.sg’s predicament, I personally am not surprised that he has remained among the ranks of the unemployed for so long. Then again, perhaps all the current jobs available on the market are all ikan bilis (aka small salted fishes), and he is just waiting for the dream job befitting of his imagine stature and clout on the Internet.

Anyway, this incident once again reminded me that social media in Singapore is really a freak (怪胎). Where in overseas it is meant as a platform to benefit the general public, in Singapore it has evolved into nothing more than a private playground of cabals that would jump on anything to promote their own agenda, or to bring themselves into the limelight. It is an avenue for them to create some personal influence and good ideas are sometimes torn up by these people in the process, simply because when they aren’t ‘in’, then whoever who didn’t include them in these ideas are ‘out’ and ruthlessly destroyed.

And if you think you can try to be ‘in’, it’s not so easy either. Some of these individuals already think of themselves as ‘somebody’, and their guideline on how to treat people in real life is thus based on how much they value the imagined online clout of the person.

Indeed, to some of these individuals, bloggers or people who are considered to have nothing much to offer or to contribute to the personal agenda are ignored. These people may breathe and talk much about social media, but they never do the real thing.

If you want to know who these people are, keep your ears open. Sooner or later you will pick up complaints from certain bloggers such as: when you follow this person on Twitter, he / she don’t even get a follow back. Ask around and you might even hear bloggers complaining about not even getting so much of even a proper hi and greeting in a real life function from certain individuals! You can always keep an eye on who are excluded or ignored by certain social media personalities and check out their blogs and the conclusion why it is so, is really not hard to imagine.

That shouldn’t really come as a surprise to anybody. After all, once they have already written someone off in their minds, there isn’t really any necessity for them to spend more time on that individual. But don’t be too happy for those who are now still considered valuable. I shudder to think about their fate, once their usefulness in furthering the agenda of such individuals has… expired.

Well, I am a nobody in social media or blogosphere anyway, so take my complaints with a pinch of salt. After all, I am quite certain some people will be telling you: ‘This guy is just whining because he wants in and simply not getting it. Just look at his piece of shit blog.’

Right. As if I am hard up for any of these events at all!!

Funny Picture of the Day:

Assistance Request:

1 … 45 46 47 48 49 … 186