Tag: repeal of Section 375(4)

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: