Links to Aware's CSE Archived Links to Aware's CSE can be found here. Death Penalty and Vui Kong - why activists got it wrong By now most of us know the tragic case of Vui Kong who is on death row. While it can be commended that there are activists who work hard to save his life, I feel that the approach taken is wrong. There are many bloggers who have joined in the appeal to save Vui Kong's life. However, I shall concentrate on TOC's article found in the link below. I do so not because of anything else, but because TOC is one of the more visited sites, compared to individual bloggers.http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/toc-editorial-media’s-silence-on-yong-vui-kong-a-national-shame/Here is a video clip that was also posted on TOCVui Kong's story from Lianain Films on Vimeo.My question to these activists is this. Are you 1. Trying to get the Death Sentence Penalty in Singapore revoked or2. Trying to get Vui Kong off the death rowPlease note that it appears that TOC (and others at other sites) are trying to do both. My opinion is that won't work. That's because all we need to do is to look at past executions who deserve the death sentence. It must be remembered that once again, it is international lobby groups that is trying to get countries to revoke the death sentence penalty. Very unfortunately, no one seems to care a hoot when Saddam was hanged. That's where the problem arises. Those who argue for death sentence to be ditched, did NOTHING when Saddam was executed. Now if one argues that Saddam was a monster and deserved it, then that person would automatically void all his arguments why the death sentence is inhumane. He has already given the reason why the death sentence should exist - it is reserved for monsters committing monstrous deeds. On the other hand, if you want to get Vui Kong off the death row, then you should not touch the law that allows the death sentence itself. Rather, you should look at the mitigating factors why he committed the crime, and perhaps plead for leniency - leaving the death sentence penalty in the country itself untouched. Sad to say, we see that activists who lobby against governments, cannot think far. To me, Vui Kong's case is sad on many counts. Most of all, he comes from a poor family who needed the cash. He was not the rich and powerful kingpin who masterminded the transaction and earned himself billions of dollars. The real monsters who are the drug lords appear to be left unpunished. However, there is another sad side to this story. If TOC and others are truly caring about Vui Kong, they would simply concentrate on Vui Kong's plight and NOT even touch about Singapore's death penalty system. By trying to be heroes getting legal system involved (playing to the foreign gallery again?), they have severely reduced the chances of Vui Kong's appeal being approved - because the govt can now just cite "that is the law - respect it".Sometimes I really wonder if these activists are truly compassionate people, or are they using the plight and sufferings of others to advance their own agenda. Isn't this yet another tragedy in Vui Kong's case, being made to be used as a pawn not only by the drug masters, but by lobby groups too?Let's all hope for the best that Vui Kong's appeal is successful. And let's just hope that the hypocritical lobbyists don't take credit for it, if it is successful. That would certainly make a farce out of Vui Kong's appeal case. Archived Links As suggested by a reader, here is a list of links contributed in the Section Comments of this blog. It isn't a complete list as I only had the time to retrieve what was posted the last week or so. wherebearsroamfree.wordpress.comPlease note that I have turned the moderation function on at the above blog because I do not monitor that blog as often as I do over here. As you know, spammers have a habit to put up porn links in attempt to down my site. Why is TOC so afraid of Solo Bear? The Online Citizen decries that PAP censors opposing views. It lampoons PAP for silencing others who criticize them. Yet, TOC is so afraid of Solo Bear, the way PAP is so afraid of JBJ.Hey TOC, it is not that I am an influential guy that you need to censor me. It is that you don't have the self-confidence in yourselves, in spite that you are bigger than me. The fact that you censor and I have not (yet - but may do so in future because of porn spams in my site), shows that you are less confident about your own views than I am with mine. That's why you feel threatened you need to censor just because someone disagrees.Now tell me, which part of my comments has transgressed any of your your house rules that needs to be censored?http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/singapore-the-darker-side/Click on images below for larger view. Fig 1Censored:1) Solo Bear on Your comment is awaiting moderation. December 6th, 2009 11.50 amThe Singapore American School is made up of mostly foreign students. I see this as an external interference in Singapore’s affairs.TOC, as usual (like SDP’s Chee), plays to the gallery of foreigners. If you want to talk about death penalty in Singapore, let’s just talk about it. No need for foreign voice.Rating: -10 (from 16 votes)Fig 2Censored:3) Solo Bear on Your comment is awaiting moderation. December 6th, 2009 1.01 pmBtw, since we are talking about “human rights” and “foreign voice”, what about the real victims of inhuman treatment? Yeah, I am talking about how the Americuns hold prisoners of war without trial, torture them and even killing them in the process.So if 3 judge system is bad, what about no trial system then? If death by execution is inhuman, what about death by torture? If Singapore hides the number of criminals executed, what about how America hides the number war prisoners who died in the hands of their torturers?These students should look at their own (Americun) dirty backyard, before telling others to clean up theirs.Rating: -2 (from 14 votes)Fig 3Censored:8) Solo Bear on Your comment is awaiting moderation. December 6th, 2009 6.41 pmOnline Cit,Just like we all know that ST the arm of the govt, we also know that TOC is very close to SDP. Chee likes to get foreigners involved. So of course, TOC toes the line.This is NOT just one post. There are many in past posts where there are signs of foreign interference. As if you do not even know what exists in your own website.As sidenote, here is another whammer for those Americun students. Under the Taliban, the drug trade in Afghanistan was at an all time low. Today, under US forces, it is at an all time high. If you dig further, you will see that there are reports that the US is profiting from this illegal trade. Black market deals are made with warlords in order to “buy them” so as to ” win the war”.Don’t wanna say if the reports are authentic or not. But what remains a fact is that the poppy trade flourishes under US control, when it nearly died out under the Taliban.Like I said, those Americun students should get their own govt clean up their own dirty backyard before telling others to clean up theirs.Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)Note that it is not a case of me having my posts being held in moderation. It is a case of my post is being censored. Note that my posts attracted votes. This is an indication that it was approved, viewed by readers, rated by readers, then the moderators removed my posts.Someone at TOC doesn't like my posts. Who is TOC to be the champion of free speech, telling PAP to be more open, when itself is hypocritically censoring differing views? Does gayness give rise to boorishness and unreasonable behaviour? As much as I would like to shake off the stereotype that gays are...1. Boorish2. Have highly sexed minds which they cannot control3. Unable to think anything outside sex4. Use sex as a generic argument for about anything5. Force others to accept only their way of thinking... I find it hard to do so, because time and time again, that's what gays show they are!For the past few weeks, this blog has been spammed with porn and rubbish links. It is clear that many gays do not like this site. Now just because it could be a single person or a group of persons (most likely gays), does it mean that we can stereotype gays as boorish, childish and only good at stooping low?Their idea is to shut down this blog. Or at least make me turn on the moderation button, hoping that the hits on this blog will go down. Sorry folks, but this blog has more "quiet" visitors than "speakers". Even if the button were to be turned on, visitors will still come by.It is not that my topics on homo attract most visitors. From my stats, ALL my posts have about the same number of visitors. It is that homo topics have a high disproportionate number of comments, compared to other posts. Only exception is the topic on Evolution and Creation. That's the ONLY topic where the number of comments are more than comments on gay topics.The irony is that if I were to turn on the moderation button, visitors will still come by. And I will of course be at liberty to censor the gay voice into oblivion. So while this site (it could well be the only site!) actually allows free comments from BOTH who support gay as well as those who don't support gay themes, gay supporters appear to pushing for change - which would lock them out!This "stooping low" behaviour by gays is not isolated. We have seen it many times before. During the S377A repeal attempt as well as the Aware saga.Now tell me, how is society going to shake off the link between gayness and boorish behaviour when time and time again, gays and pro-gays reinforce that? Even ST can't exorcise the Ghost of Aware Saga! Notice how New Media (especially The Online Citizen and some other like blogs) have for the last few months been trying hard to exorcise the ghost of the Aware Saga? They're not alone. Even the mainstream media (Straits Times) are having difficulty trying to shake it off!We are objective and someone else said so, got that? Got that????? (You need to be a subscriber)Dec 4, 2009AWARE SAGAST fair, objective, balanced: ReportBut researcher says not all issues arising from saga received full public discussion in mediaTHE way the Aware saga was covered by The Straits Times (ST) newspaper earlier this year came across to a media researcher as 'objective, fair and balanced'.If there was an instance of bias, it was in a photograph that showed the belligerent gestures and expressions of the group of new leaders, wrote Mr Tan Tarn How, senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, in a report released earlier this week.The group, made up mainly of new members, were accused of having a hidden agenda when they wrested control of the women advocacy group.Except for the one photograph, Mr Tan wrote: 'The Straits Times tried to give everyone the opportunity to make her case and to have the right of reply. It did not mix comment with the news in its news stories.'He made the point in his study on media coverage of nationally important issues, and used ST's coverage of the leadership tussle at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) as a case study.However, not all issues arising from the saga received the 'full public discussion in the media that they deserved'.These include how civil society groups should engage each other and the meaning of secularism in Singapore's context.Another issue that was not fully discussed is the sexuality education programme for schools, Mr Tan wrote. This programme that Aware had offered for students aged 12 to 18 was the propelling force that led a group of new members to take control of Aware at its annual general meeting in March.This 'New Guard' of staunch Christians was strongly opposed to homosexuality, a topic covered by the now-defunct Aware programme.The 'Old Guard' eventually wrested back control of Aware, but not before heated debates broke out in the wider community on religion, secularism, democratic elections and homosexuality.In his study, Mr Tan, a former ST journalist, set three yardsticks to assess media coverage of an event: quality, quantity and whether the implications are adequately covered.In most of the discussion of ST's coverage, the question was whether it was biased against the New Guard, following criticisms from Christian-right campaigners such as lawyer Thio Su Mien and university don Thio Li-ann, noted Mr Tan.Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng, in calling for the media to report dispassionately and impartially, had said in May: 'The Aware episode was surely not the most important challenge facing Singapore, deserving such extensive and even breathless coverage.'In late May, Ms Thio Li-ann, then a Nominated MP, said in Parliament that the coverage was, among other things, biased.Mr Tan noted two points in the defence later made by ST editor Han Fook Kwang.One, the New Guard was given many chances to declare its objectives and motives, but it dodged them until 'an overdue press conference, which The Straits Times covered extensively and objectively', wrote Mr Tan in the report.Two, ST did not hold any negative sentiments towards the New Guard, but was merely reporting society's sentiments.Wrote Mr Tan: 'I found Mr Han's defence adequate enough except in two particulars.'One, ST remained largely objective in its news coverage but when attacked, some of its commentaries 'attacked the New Guard in its defence of itself', he wrote.'The paper could only be expected to defend its honour and professionalism.'The other is the case of the unflattering picture. He noted it was the only such picture among the many New Guard pictures used.He was unsure if its selection was the result of conscious or unconscious bias, or purely accidental, but wrote: 'The picture would not likely have won (the New Guard) any converts among a nation not inclined to be sympathetic towards public displays of disharmony and hostility.'Mr Tan also noted that when Ms Thio Li-Ann criticised ST in Parliament, it 'duly carried not just a report but an edited transcript of her speech'.haoxiang@sph.com.sgPathetic. ST, like The Online Gay Citizen, in trying to tell everyone it is objective, is instead telling everyone that it has difficulty trying to exorcise the ghost of Aware Saga that has haunted it many months."You just have got to believe us. Really. We are objective and balanced. Someone else said it. Come on, please, pleeeeeeeze believe us....", spokesperson for the PR Dept of The Gay Times. They are at it again Yep, those gays are at it again. Spamming with porno links on this site. Had to manually remove them from various posts the last few weeks. Family is the Backbone of Society - tested and proven, again and again There are those who are bent on demonizing the Family Unit Structure. All sorts of trash are thrown to make it look like the Family Unit causes oppression, especially on women and those who seek freedom to express alternative lifestyles (eg single motherhood, co-habitation and gay couple living). From feminists to gay activists, the onslaught against the concept of Family as the Backbone of society has been non-stop for the last few decades.But when it comes to the crunch, who bails society out of the dumps? Yes, the time tested, time-proven, always reliable Family Unit! Here is an interesting article that tells you why.Note that the background of the story is about America - the very society that started the Woodstock Era Culture, Mother of Alternative Style Living, and the beginning of erosion of Family Values!From Straits Times (online)More young adults return home in US(You need to subscribe to be able to access to the link above. For those who do not subscribe, click this link to read a reproduced full version.)Excerpts:More young adults return home in USTight finances and fewer jobs making them move back in with their parentsWASHINGTON: Faced with limited job options, many young adults in the United States are turning to an old standby to weather the recession: move back in with mum and dad.Nearly one in seven parents with grown children says he had a 'boomerang kid' move back home in the past year, according to a study by the Pew Research Centre.In a turnabout in the rite of passage in which a college graduate finds a job and an apartment, many are returning to their parents' empty nests because of tight finances or as they pursue advanced degrees.So when times are hard and you need food and shelter, the very basic necessities to live which are hard to come by during an extended recession like what we have now, who do you call?1. The government?2. The Societies that campaigned and lobbied for freedom to live away from the chains of the patriarchal family?3. The friends who campaigned with you that the Family Unit is oppressive?4. Or your parents - the ones who gave you life, followed by love when you were a child?The Family Busters who have been promoting a lifestyle that demonizes marriages and families should take a good look at what is happening now. Here are some more facts from the same article.One in seven parents with grown children has a 'boomerang kid' who has moved back in with mum and dad, according to a study.About 20 million people aged 18 to 34 live at home with their parents - roughly 30 per cent of that age group. That is up from about 18 million, or 27 per cent, in 2005.About 12 per cent of young adults aged 18 to 34 said they were forced to move in with a roommate because of the poor economy.Fifteen per cent of adults aged 18 to 34 said they had postponed getting married due to the recession. That share increases to 21 per cent for adults aged 25 to 34, when many people tend to get married in the United States.Fourteen per cent of those aged 18 to 34 say they delayed having a baby.As the saying goes, you should not bite the hand that feeds (or in this case, fed) you.The Family Unit is the Backbone of Society. No matter what, it is the security you can depend on. Time tested and time proven - over and over and over again. Climategate - The Latest (Censored) Scandal by Singapore's MSM As usual, the Mainstream Media (MSM) in Singapore censors major news that it feels is detrimental to the Singapore government's political/economic agenda. Singapore is one of the supporters of Carbon Tax, which many feel is a scam to skim off more of your dollars. Here is a video to show you that a major scandal amongst the Global Climate Change Alarmists has been exposed. Some hackers have retrieved emails from pro-climate change alarmists and these emails incriminate some parties that they are involved in a major fraud to fool the world.See video below. Just like you don't get to see the atrocities of US crime wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because Singapore supports those wars, you don't get to see much of the incriminating news that emails of global change scientists have been hacked to show this global warming stuff is just another scam to skim tax dollars off you.PS - The above is MAJOR news in foreign MSM now, after bloggers have been circulating the emails to an extent the foreign MSM could not cover it up anymore - indicating that foreign MSM censors news that do not favour their respective governments' agenda like Singapore! Agenda of Notorapers exposed - followed by Damage Control It is worrying that the forum letter written by Assoc Prof Chan Wing Cheong from NUS appears to be saying that we "de-legalize" a perfectly legal marriage, if the bride is below 16. What a crapper from an academic and a notoraper!From the Straits Times ForumConsensual underage sex: Review two law issuesNov 23, 2009I REFER to the report, 'When teens have consensual sex' (Nov 1) and the letter by Mr Vikram Ranjan Ramasamy, 'Decriminalise consensual underage sex' (Nov 13).I agree there is a need to reconsider the overlapping criminal offences on consensual underage sex found in the Women's Charter and the Penal Code.In this connection, I wish to point out two matters which should be considered when this legislative overhaul takes place.First, the age at which society is prepared to allow young girls to have sexual intercourse needs to be thought out. The present law is inconsistent in that consensual sex with a girl under the age of 16 is a serious offence under the Penal Code, punishable with imprisonment of up to 10 years and/or a fine, but it is not a criminal offence for a man to have sex with his wife who is at least 13 years old.If we are concerned about the emotional and physical well-being of young girls engaging in sex, it cannot be right to allow men to have sex with their wives between the ages of 13 and 16, just because they are married to each other. The marriage will most likely have taken place with a foreigner overseas, where marriages with young brides are allowed.The second matter relates to the duty to make a police report when one becomes aware of the underage sex. The duty applies to everyone, such as parents, teachers, counsellors and doctors. Although one does not need to make the report if one has a 'reasonable excuse', the meaning and scope of this exception has not been tested in the courts. It cannot be right to have this threat of criminal prosecution hang over the heads of those who wish to help the parties involved and may deter the young girl from seeking help, leading to dire consequences.I urge the authorities to amend the laws soon.Chan Wing CheongWell, if a husband cannot have sex with wife (be whatever age she is) just because they are married, then what? So what if that marriage took place overseas?Assoc Prof Chan was one of the speakers during a seminar held by the Notorape organizers. It now looks like what the true agenda of the notorapers is. Isn't this the beginning of the dismantling of the institution of marriage here?On the same day the above forum letter was published, the Notorape Organizers run into "damage control" mode. Here is their piece on what Assoc Prof wrote;WIVES UNDER THE AGE OF 16A letter by Associate Professor Chan Wing Cheong (who previously kindly spoke at the No To Rape seminar) has been published in the Straits Times Forum. It makes reference to the situation of wives under the age of 16:The present law is inconsistent in that consensual sex with a girl under the age of 16 is a serious offence under the Penal Code, punishable with imprisonment of up to 10 years and/or a fine, but it is not a criminal offence for a man to have sex with his wife who is at least 13 years old.If we are concerned about the emotional and physical well-being of young girls engaging in sex, it cannot be right to allow men to have sex with their wives between the ages of 13 and 16, just because they are married to each other. The marriage will most likely have taken place with a foreigner overseas, where marriages with young brides are allowed.Currently, Section 376A makes it an offence to have sex with any person under the age of 16, whether or not the minor expresses consent. Associate Professor Chan’s letter appears to question the retention of two separate exempions:(1) Section 376A(4), which grants immunity from this offence when a girl under the age of 16 says “yes” to sex with her husband.(2) Section 376A(5), which grants immunity from this offence, even in situations where a 13-, 14- or 15-year-old girl has said “no” to her husband.The current No To Rape petition calls for the complete removal of Section 376A(5). (This is in no way an endorsement of Section 376A(4), which may also require further review.) If you believe that a man should not be able to force an unwilling 13-, 14- or 15-year old wife to have sex, please sign it today, and help to spread the word.Note how the Notorapers are trying to say that Assoc Prof Chan meant the repeal a certain section, rather than a direct objection to sex in marriage if bride is below 16.Assoc Prof Chan is a lecturer. Surely he knows what he writes. So is the real agenda of the notorapers actually the slow dismantling of the institution of marriage, which Assoc Prof Chan unwittingly appears to give away? - only for the notorapers to make a quick "correction"?Ever since the gay and other family busting activities have been exposed in Singapore, we really cannot take anything for granted.Important Note to Readers:-1. If the Notorape petition goes through, it would be easier for the Family Busters to decriminalize minor sex, because it will now all boil down to "consent of young girl".2. Note that Notorape is arguing on "consent", be it if the bride is above OR BELOW 16.3. The notorape petition would pave the way for a wife BELOW 16 to CONSENT to her husband and if she DOES NOT CONSENT and he has sex, it would be rape.4. With the above, the Family Busters can now argue that if a girl below 16 HAS THE ABILITY TO CONSENT, then surely if she now consents to having sex with another minor, that is not stat rape.Look far and deep, my readers. This is a plan to destabalize the institution of marriage.A Further Important Note - Point 4 above is one of the Family Busters' objective. But that objective itself is problematic. What if underage girl consents and the boy is above 18? Rape or no rape? That about whacks the whole purpose of having a law called "statutory rape" (stat rape because underage girl can't consent) out of orbit, no?Now what? All 18 year old boy has to argue is that 13 year old girl consented. Hooray! Look what the Family Busters are doing to your daughters! Feminists, be responsible - stop the blanket "It was not your fault" statement Before I start, let me say that rape is probably the most heinous and barbaric crime any woman or girl can go through. This crime is so inhumane that if Singapore were to make it mandatory for rapists to be hanged, I would support it.Having said that, I find that Feminists, in their eagerness to impose their own philosophy on others, have very irresponsibly taught young women and girls how not to be safe from sex crimes.In the old days, grandma always told their young grand-daughters not to walk alone along dark streets. They were told not to come home late. And yes, they were told by their doting grandmas to dress conservatively. Grandmas knew and still know best.Come the age of Women's Rights, all the wisdom from past generations are washed down the drain. Feminists would claim that the advice given to young women are influenced by the male dominated society. So, don't listen to any crap about dressing conservatively, avoiding dark streets and coming home alone late at night. Feminists tell young women and girls that all that advice comes from the oppressive male, who wants to keep women at home. So don't listen to the men, just listen to the Feminist. Never mind that all that advice is actually from grandma.In reality, feminists should note that:The "It was not your fault" statement should only apply to women and girls who have taken grandma's advice and yet, still get sexually assaulted.It should not be used as a blanket statement to victims who carelessly disregard grandma's wise words.There is such thing as contributory factors on the part of the victim - let no feminist deny that.And let no feminist portray those wise words from grandma as male dominance, such that women and girls can throw caution to the wind.Below is a post from a blog which appears not to give consideration for the safety of women and young girls. Instead, it up plays that the victim did nothing to contribute to her own state. But all the signs of disregarding wise grandma's words are there. So why the denial that there was a contributory factor on the part of victim (read as disregarding grandma's advice) in the article?Is not the above article sending an erroneous (and irresponsible) message that advice on personal safety can be disregarded?Let me reiterate that rapists are demons and should not go unpunished. But what really distresses me is that fact that there are feminists who disregard simple safety first rules taught by good old and wise grandma.Police handling of rape cases in Singapore : Skills Upgrading NeededNote the quote "(reproduced at the end of this post too. I hope that she will be strong, know that none of this is her fault, and that many people care about her and will support her all the way)".If you read about the case found in this link, you will see that the victim somehow let her guard down, which grandmas had always warned - "In her bedroom, she recounted to SI Kim the ordeal of how she had too much to drink in a Woodlands apartment and was raped by five men, one of whom was a friend of hers."I agree that the police could have handled the case more tactfully and professionally. But that is not the point I want to make. My main points are as follows:1. Rape is a serious and heinous crime. I will support the death penalty for convicted rapists if the law allows it.2. Feminists should stop acting irresponsibly, belittling words of wisdom handed down over generations on how to avoid rape and/or other sexual assault.3. Feminists should stop giving the idea to young women and girls that all the wise advice given to them are from the male's perspective because in doing so, they are encouraging these women and girls to behave in a manner that puts themselves in peril.The crux of the issue is the safety of the women and girls. It is NOT about male dominated society telling how women should behave, as what feminists want you to believe.If you touch a hot iron, you get burnt. If you disregard safety advice, you end up in perilous situation. These are FACTS.Feminists should start acting responsibly. Feminists should stop using the "It was not your fault" blanket statement to justify the disregard of grandma's wise advice.If feminists want to protect women and girls from rape, then do the right thing - take grandma's advice. It works marvelously. Israel's Right to Defend or Right to Kill Civilians? The Mainstream Media (MSM) is America's Lapdog. And America is Israel's Lapdog. Hence, the media always portrays that Israel has a right to defend its land and that it is the victim. Never mind that the fact is that Israel has been killing defenceless civilians in their own lands for decades.Here is news that a truce was declared by Hamas.Hamas: All Gaza militant groups agree to halt rocket attacksNote the date and time stamped on the news article - Last update - 01:44 22/11/2009To no surprise, here is the truce broken by Israel - as always.Palestinians: Israeli planes hit Gaza targetsAgain, note the date and time stamped - Last update - 03:13 22/11/2009Israel struck Gaza within less than 2 hours!Don't be surpised if the conflict escalates, the MSM won't highlight who broke the truce, but will keep portraying that the victim is Israel.Also note that all the rockets "launched into Israel" are always single rocket shots falling harmlessly into some deserted place. As if Hamas is so Bobo King.At the same time, all the rockets falling into Gaza always hit hospitals, schools and refugee camps.A sign that the "Hamas rockets" are self-launched by Israel to kick off a war?Some Issues -So why is Israel always so bent on invading Gaza Strip in the South and Lebanon in the north? Defending own territories? But those are NOT Israel's lands. Those are lands of others.Israel being attacked from North and South? But can it not be seen that Israel has been invading their lands and they are only defending themselves?The untold story is (untold, no thanks to the MSM), Gaza Strip has Natural Gas ---oooh, $$$$$ --- while in the North in Lebanon, there is the Litani River, a source of precious fresh water supply. You can do a search on the internet and not take my word for it.The above are the real reasons and motivators for Israel to invade and pillage the land of others. No difference from America's ways actually. Obuma - no difference from Bush - both lie src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4LsSppYxSHk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">Quote: "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." Related news:Obama popularity below 50 percent for first time: poll This Forum Letter looks like another Family Busting Attempt Ever since the Aware Saga where it was exposed that homos and their gang attempted to teach young girls how to have sex, I have been on the lookout for anything that looks sinisterly threatening the the Family Unit. You may call me overzealous or even obsessed. But I rather say let's be safe than sorry.In today's ST Forum, there appears to be another (well disguised?) letter that soft sells why we should adopt some changes in the law to address the problem of family violence. When the Family Violence Bill was first mooted many years ago, many (me included) did not think too much about it. However, since the Aware saga, we have to be on our toes at all times.Incidentally the term "Family Violence Bill" itself has a sinister connotation. It didn't look sinister then, but it does now. A better term would be "Domestic Violence Bill". The former term appears to be yet another attempt to programme society to think that somehow, families are the cause of many domestic and societal problems.Here is the forum letter. Bolded fonts are edited by me.S'pore must do moreI AM encouraged to learn how female victims of violence and their children have received better protection from 'high-risk' abusers because of recent initiatives to fight domestic violence. Identifying the 'high-risk' people, planning a strategy to protect second-time victims, and seeking help from agencies such as the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) Child Protection Service, the police and prisons are elements of this critical 'safety net' to help victims, and these efforts should be applauded.In Singapore, concerted efforts to deal with domestic violence started in the 1980s. The groundwork for reform through campaigns was spurred by the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), which culminated in the Family Violence Bill.Note the soft introduction to give credit to AWARE.Regrettably, the Bill was defeated in Parliament, but there were some positive results. In March 1995, a specialist Family Court was established. An infrastructure was also set up to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to tackling the problem. Some provisions of the Family Violence Bill were incorporated into the amended Women's Charter 1996.But the amended charter has its shortfalls. While it protects spouse, former spouse, child, stepchild, adopted child, parents, parents-in-law and any other relative or incapacitated individual who is regarded by the court as a member of the family, couples who live together are excluded.If the Family Violence Bill was in place, courts would have protected even de facto or common law 'marriages' and not ignore them altogether.Couples living together? Cohabitation? Cohabitation to be included in a law meant for the married and/or family?Isn't this soft selling the point that cohabitation (comes with free casual sex, sex, sex of course) is to be part of society, even to be called "family"?Now why should we include a non-married couple to be part of the institution of "family"?Isn't this another deconstruction of the family unit by the Family Busters?Note - "de facto" marriages as what the above letter implies, means any couple living together. Hence, it could also mean same-sex couples. If this bill is passed as such, wouldn't by default, the Family Violence Bill include same sex couples?A sneaky, backdoor way to get Singaporeans to recognize gay marriage?Yellow Flag?The Women's Charter has another defect. Only the victim can apply for a protection order. In reality, the victim often believes she cannot help herself and, as a result, fails to take any action to end the abusive relationship.An advantage of the Family Violence Bill would have been that anyone who had reason to believe that family violence (including spousal violence) was being committed could apply for a protection order for the victim.Now that's a Red Flag! Anyone at all? A neighbour? Perhap's a "friend" whom the "abused" spouse has been chatting up with?Shouldn't family matters be matters for the family to resolve? Why the trigger-happy action to get others involved - and that too, by way of the law and not through counselling?The Women's Charter is flawed in another way. The amended charter makes it mandatory not only for the abuser but also the victim to undergo counselling. In contrast, the Family Violence Bill would have reserved mandatory counselling for the abuser only.Clearly, family violence should be fought on many fronts, as is currently done. But legal reform is also critical to eradicate this social problem. The legal reforms in place to fight family violence are a step forward, but more can be done to ensure gender egalitarianism.Dr Theresa DevasahayamCoordinator, Gender Studies ProgrammeInstitute of Southeast Asian StudiesNote the typical signature of the Family Buster. Getting the law to be amended or introduced to tackle what can be resolved through counselling. Just like notorape. Just like trying to decriminalize minor sex.Get the law to be involved, sit back and relax. The erosion of the family unit will come soon enough. It has happened in the West - tested and proven - and it is now being introduced here, by the Family Busters.I would love to see my analysis as being overzealous. But then again, better safe than sorry. No one would have believed that Aware is anti-family if not for the Aware saga. But now we know.Take NOTHING for granted. Sovereign Palestine? Why not? Palestinians seek UN nod for statehood(You need to subscribe to ST online to access the above link)For those who do not subscribe, here is a link to a reproduced text.The Palestinians are seeking statehood. There are reservations from some parties in particular Israel, US and very possibly many European countries. Various reasons are given for the reservation. However, failing to give the Palestinians will give rise to some very serious implications. Here are some facts to consider.1. UN Resolution 181 (29 Nov 1947) divided Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian sectors. It was from this resolution that Israel derived its "right" to declare independence in 1948, the day after the British mandate to rule Palestine ended. If Israel insists it has a right to exist, which actually is dependent on this very resolution, why should Palestinians be denied their right to exist, based on the very same resolution?2. The partition was sanctioned and supported by US and its European allies. Denying Palestinians a right to statehood, while upholding Israel right to statehood is double-talk and hypocrisy.3. Israel has for decades occupied lands partitioned meant for Palestinians. This is illegal. The non-action of US and the Europeans, who have supported Israel based on Resolution 181, yet does nothing to rectify the illegal actions committed by Israel, shows that the double-talk and hypocrisy is already in existence.4. Israel claims to defend its territories. Little said is that the territories Israel fights on is actually in the lands meant for Palestinians.5. Jerusalem, the Holy City of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, was set aside as an "International City" under Resolution 181. Israel's claim and control over Jerusalem is hence illegal. Again US and the European nations that supported Resolution 181 does nothing to rectify the situation.Israel is now worried that a Palestinian State would be created -Israel Worried As Support for Unilateral Declaration of Palestinian State GrowsAs usual, Israel will seek help from US, to "sort things out" -PM heads to U.S. under threat of Palestinian statehood declarationAnd US, will in all probability, abide -US Senators Act to Force Recognition of Jerusalem as Capital(Remember that Jerusalem is an International City, so endorsing Jerusalem as Israel's capital would make US complicit in an illegal move. Making Jerusalem as its capital would stall and sidetrack Palestinians' attempt to statehood because this would be yet another explosive issue.)Never mind that Impotent UN Council only barks and has no bite -General Assembly chief: UN must adopt 1947 resolution on partition of PalestineI know this is a sensitive and explosive issue. I have discussed such issues in many forums and with many different people from different backgrounds. Here are some points I would want to make from a "pre-emptive stance".- The Six Day War which Israel fought with its Arab neighbours is a non-issue. The Palestinians should not pay for what Israel and its other neighbours did to each other. Let's stick to the point that if Israel has a right to declare independence because of Resolution 181, so has the Palestinians that right.- Israel has a right to defend itself. So has the Palestinians. Israel's right to defend itself does not mean it has the right to usurp the lands of Palestinians. It has no right to build settlements on lands which was partitioned for Palestinians under Resolution 181. Hence, arguments that Israel has a right to defend itself should not be used to justify why Palestinians are killed and maimed IN THEIR OWN lands.- Palestinians should negotiate. Yes, they did and they had a good deal signed. It was The Oslo Agreement. That agreement spelt out the terms for a transfer of power to the Palestinians. After the assassination of the then PM of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, the transfer of power was stalled. That Agreement is still valid.- Hamas. Mainstream media and Western powers argue that Hamas is a terror group hiding behind Palestinian lines. The fact is that Hamas is the LEGALLY ELECTED party of the Palestinians. Abbas, the current leader backed by US, is NOT the elected leader, but seen as a dummy figure slotted in by the US.So why not an Independent Palestinian State? After all, it has been long overdue - since 1948 when the Brits pulled out from Palestine. If Israel claims a right to exist on the validity of Resolution 181, why can't the Palestinians?By denying Palestinians statehood, it would give rise to some serious implications. The most obvious one is the double talk by the US and its European allies that Israel has a right to exist. Another serious implication is that the UN is just a dud. Yet another is that the authority of the UN would be eroded because in future if a "rogue" country does not "obey" any UN Resolution, all that "rogue" country has to do is to cite the double standards in the application of Resolution 181. TOC, the "PAP of the New Media" One of The Online Citizen's (TOC) biggest cry against the PAP is that PAP dominates to such an extent, it rules the (local) media. Hence, censorship is one of TOC's biggest tirade against the PAP. Nothing wrong with that argument. Actually, few would disagree with TOC's point on that.But then, of late, TOC is behaving in the very same way it chastises the control and censorship of the media. I guess TOC is getting to be big-headed and hence now feels that it has the right, the power, the influence and the might to tell others what should be discussed and what should not be.There have been many cases where opposing views against TOC has been moderated, or totally deleted from public view - especially if it does not pander to the gay agenda. TOC's argument is that it moderates because those comments are "not relevant" or they are "personal attacks". But then again, that's the kind of argument PAP uses to stifle free speech, no? Yes, be vague in your explanation, so that it can be applied at any time to your convenience!So is not TOC now behaving the very same way PAP does?Here is a case example:The Church (not the Bible) discriminates against gays, says pastorScroll down to the comments SectionDonaldson on November 15th, 2009 12.12 pmHi everyone,If you don’t want your comment to be moderated, please comment sensibly – no denigration of the author, the interviewee, fellow commentators and anyone in general. Also, please refrain from actually posting religious texts.CheersDonaldCurrent Affairs EditorNow exactly what is "comment sensibly"? Very vague and open to interpretation. Hey, isn't this very, very grouse of the likes of TOC makes that govt is very vague in its policies, such that about anything can get censored?So has not TOC now become the very Tyrannical Anti Free Speech Monster it accuses the PAP of?In that thread above which I linked, I have had some discussion with other forummers. It went on well until of course Mr Scissors snipped it off. Now to make it worse, TOC actually deactivated my email notification WITHOUT informing me! So actually, unknown to me, I was cut off and posts were made without my knowledge.Now, isn't this again the very action TOC is against the govt's practice of non-information? Imagine if PAP's arm (read as MSM) did that to them!Let's all be clear now. If TOC is sincere about freedom of expression and against censorship, it should practise what it preaches. "Comment sensibly" is very, very vague. No different from PAP or any govt institution telling others why it does not approve your application, say for a permit to speak to the public.In short, TOC is behaving like the very PAP it tries to oppose. We don't need to have a tyrannical PAP being replaced with another tyrannical PAP. I'd rather just stay with the original PAP if that's the case.As to the point that posters refrain from making reference to scriptural texts, that has to be the bummer of the year.So on one hand, the gays at TOC are given a free hand to slam religion (especially Christianity and to some extent Islam). On the other hand, when Christians and Muslims quote their texts in defence, the TOC Admin moderates them because "posters should refrain from scriptural texts"!Well, TOC moderators, if you don't want scriptural texts, then it is very simple. Get your gay fans off the bloody topic off religion! Don't allow your gay fans to bash religion! Why do you allow your gay fans to bash religion, but disallow the followers of religion the right to reply?Are you not censoring free speech?Oh, since we're at it, here is an article by TOC, which hypocritically points out that the ST heavily censors free speech.Letter on ethnic stereotyping gets heavily edited by Straits TimesWhat bloody crap from TOC.(I mean TOC's hypocrisy that it is against censorship - not Ms Chow's letter.)Ms Chow of course, has a valid point. TOC's Juvenile-like Rebel Without a Cause Like during the Woodstock Era of the 1960s through the early 1970s, today, we have a new generation of juveniles and adolescents who rebel against society - just for the sake of rebelling.The Hippie Lifestyle of the Woodstock Era promoted free sex, cohabitation, loafing, drugs and yes, rebel against authority. Any authority. Against the school, parents, any government institution - including the law. The more vociferous and the more rebellious, the better.It was only when those adolescents (then) grew up into mature adults in the late 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, that they saw the need to dump their Hippie ways. Bankers, lawyers, doctors, corporate men and women, all gave up their loafing, rebellious and drug taking ways to pave the way for the great rise of the global economy. The only place where the Hippies did well was in Rock Music. And that too, we saw many of these stars fell from grace, either due to their drug addiction, or due to Aids because of their liberal sexual lifestyle, including gay sex. Now don't anyone dare say these rock stars know nothing about condoms because they did not have proper CSEs. Ha ha. (Actually it is no laughing matter.)So why are today's adolescents and juveniles trying to mimic a lifestyle that has shown to have disastrous consequences? Here is a screenshot of TOC's (The Online Citizen) Facebook, taken on 13 Nov 2009. The text by TOC reads: "I hope we have grown up to become much more disobedient because life on this world of ours may well be terminated because of too many acts of obedience."The message above is referring to an article from The Guardian, found in this link - The Seattle activists' coming of age in Cophenhagen will be very disobedientNote that the article is specifically referring to an identifiable issue. The message by TOC however, appears to be saying that we rebel for the sake of rebelling - piggyback riding on an article from The Guardian that contains the word "disobedient". Now if TOC wants citizens to question PAP's policies, let's just do it. There is no need to bring in articles from foreign lands, which has NOTHING to do with Singapore. TOC appears to jump on anything (and I really mean anything!) that gives the slightest hint of any rebel or disobedience towards the government. That includes hyping up gay lifestyle, taking the side of foreign parties who criticize Singapore and about anything under the sun - as long it can be used to "disobey the government". I thought adolescent-like rebel went the way of the dinosaurs after the extinction of the Hippie lifestyle. Looks like a new generation of kids are now back to rebelling - just for the sake of rebelling. TOC appears to lead the way for the new generation of juvenile and adolescent disobedience against authority. "Rebel without a Cause", or "Rebel for the sake of rebelling", is making a comeback. No thanks to TOC who thinks the recession means we can look at doing things unproductive. Upside Down World - Bastardizing marriages, celebrating sex between minors What an upside down, inside out, inverted world we are now living in. We have seen how the notorapers go all out to bastardize the institution of marriage. Say NO to bastardizing marriageNow we have another call from the wild, that we decriminalize "consensual" sex between minors. From the Straits Times Forum.Decriminalise consensual underage sexI REFER to the report, 'When teens have consensual sex...' (Nov 1).In highlighting some of the difficulties faced when prosecuting underage sex, Attorney-General Walter Woon identified one particularly problematic category of cases - when both participants are under age and have consensual sex.The penalties for underage consensual sex are stiff: Under Section 376A of the Penal Code, sex with a minor under 16 or 14 is punishable with lengthy jail terms and fines. The Attorney-General's current approach of looking at the circumstances of each case and warning offenders, instead of proactively enforcing the law, appreciates the complexities involved in such cases. It recognises that punitive action is counter-productive, traumatising all parties involved without providing redress.However, the Attorney-General's position of compromise - not actively prosecuting underage consensual sex, even though it remains a criminal conduct - is inherently uncertain and undermines the integrity of the Penal Code.Instead of repealing Section 376A altogether, because it serves a valuable purpose in protecting minors against abuse from sexual predators, perhaps a better solution is to introduce a legal exception for consensual sex between underage participants, with the issue of 'consent' between the minors to be proved as a question of fact.Some members of society perceive underage consensual sex as morally wrong. However, political theorist John Stuart Mill opines that society may not enforce its moral perceptions unless its violation causes objectively perceptible harm to others. Even under a generous reading of Mill's 'harm principle', it is difficult to pinpoint the injury to be prevented in criminalising consensual sex between minors, especially when their safety, which is adequately protected by other provisions in the Penal Code, has not been compromised.Instead of branding these young people as criminals, so tainting their future with a criminal record, they should be given better guidance, care and support by parents, schools and social workers.Vikram Ranjan RamasamyPoint to note - Isn't it is because it is assumed minors cannot consent, that we have the stat rape statute, which makes it illegal to have sex with girls who are minor in the first place? Now the author argues that if the sex between two minors is "consensual", we should not press charges?So? Can a 13 year old girl consent or not?What an upside down world we live today. Sex in marriage is to be bastardized. Sex between minors is to be celebrated. Man marries man. Woman marries woman. Family is bad. Free open sexual relations is good.Day is night. War is peace. Moral living is wrong. Aids spreading is good.Welcome to the "Civilized" 21st Century. Media more Islamophobic than Homophobic For all the cries that the media portrays homos in negative light, I feel that the real phobia it promotes (since 911) is Islamophobia. The latest slew of news that implicates Islam/Muslims is the shooting incident at Fort Hood.The media (and some bloggers around the world) cannot help capitalize the fact that the main suspect is a Muslim - and of Arab descent. Fort Hood shooter used as excuse to scapegoat Muslims, ArabsExcerpts:As soon as the name of the shooter at Fort Hood who killed 13 people and wounded 38—Nidal Malik Hasan—was known, reporters and bloggers began jumping to conclusions about his heritage and his motive..........Lest you think that given Hasan’s name and religion, the backlash against Arabs and Muslims is only natural, recall that when Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in 1995, no one raised alarms about his Catholic upbringing or his Irish heritage. And when it was discovered that Seung-hui Cho had compared himself to Jesus Christ before killing 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech in 2007, no one called for a “war" on either Christians or Korean-Americans.As a comparison, there was a similar shooting in a US base by another soldier earlier this year. The shooter was a white and non-Muslim. Of course, the media did not play it up, because it could not wave the Islamophobic card. Army IDs Sgt. John M. Russell as the shooter who killed 5 fellow soldiers at Iraq baseMilitary officials Tuesday identified the soldier accused of killing five of his comrades at a U.S. base in Iraq.Sgt. John Russell, 44, of Sherman, Texas, is in custody at Camp Liberty in Baghdad. He is accused of opening fire at a combat stress clinic Monday, killing five U.S. soldiers.There was yet another mass shooting incident, this time by Seung-Hui Cho, university student, who killed 32 people. Watch his self-made video below, taken just before he massacred his victims. Also take special note of his mention of Jesus Christ. Yet again, the media did not use Christianity to taint the religion - unlike atrocities allegedly committed by Muslims and/or Arabs.Here is an article about the the university shooting incident - High school classmates say gunman was bulliedBack to Fort Hood. The story as portrayed by the media (and the US govt) is quite fishy. It looks like there were at least 3 shooters in total. Texas Gov. Rick Perry Gives Remarks on Fort Hood Shooting Tragedy -- FOX NewsSo if there were at least two other shooters, who are they? Why the media blackout (till now) on that? It appears like other incidents, where the govt and/or media tries to paint an Islamophobic scenario, many parts of the jigsaw puzzle cannot fit.So what has this all got to do with homophobia? Nothing really, except the homos should really take a lesson or two from the Muslims and/or Arabs, that they have been facing intense global discrimination since Sep 2001 - yet they don't howl as loud as the gays. SDP playing to the Gay Gallery (Part 2) Last week, we saw SDP interviewed Alex Au, a prominent gay rights activist.SDP playing to the Gay Gallery (Part 1)This week, we see SDP with Constance Singam, another pro-gay activist. SDP's (covert) manifesto for next General Elections appears to be the push for gay rights. TOC's Gay Bias is getting more and more blatant I would have posted my comments on TOC's website - if not for its incessant itch to moderate my comments, then allow it to be published days after it has been posted - which then diminishes the thrust of my points in the post. So heck, here is my views on TOC's article. The article in question is found below.The approach of TOC's article has a subtle hint that conservatism is to be seen in negative light. There are also subtle hints that celebrate free and gay sex.In a way, I am glad the article was put up by TOC. Just days ago, I stressed my point that pro-free sex propagators have been drilling that sex is to be seen as fun, fun, fun - with scant consideration for the social and moral views, not to mention even more scant consideration for the law. Here is that article I wrote - "Modern" Sex Ed Programme respects no Morals or Law Now, I do not know if it is just coincidence or intended, but I notice that whenever I come up with hard hitting articles on free and gay sex, some other sites will appear to counter exactly what I posted a few days later. In any case, let's not assume too much and just get to the heart of the matter. So here is my comment to TOC by "proxy" in this blog, because for sure I know I would be moderated if I commented there.Article from TOC -And so the castle crumbles…Excerpts, followed by my comments.Think conservative, and the angry parent comes to mind. Domineering and overprotective, she grumbles over every trespass of her sensitivity. She also writes frequently to the press, railing against rising sexual promiscuity with vitriol and mock outrage.Bang! The opening lines start off with a negative image of the parent who is out to protect her child.Please note (refer to my past articles), that Feminism and Gayism work hand in hand to decontruct the Family Unit. The portrayal the Family Unit as domineering and oppressive is unmistakable .Slowly, she sees her castle crumble, her world invaded by unsavoury Western influence.It is in this besieged state that she makes the loudest noise. Is it a cry of victory or the final death throe? Is Singapore falling into a repository of everything grotesque and evil?You cannot really blame her for thinking this way; she is protective of her children, like every parent would.This is where 58-year-old Kelvind Kao comes to mind. In a recent Straits Times article, the father of a 13-year-old daughter told the reporter that he wants the Internet restricted and teenagers banned from using phones with internet access, otherwise, they will watch ‘Tammy Nyp’, he says.The article sets the scene for an attack towards conservative ideas on open sex.But is he taking it too far? Certainly, concerns coming from conservative groups are valid. Children need to be protected from unsavoury content that might disrupt their development. The effects of sexual content on television are known to shape the values of teenagers in ways that will make their parents gasp. Sex among minors and teenagers is on the rise, and part of the blame has to go to the media and the Internet.If you ask me, the media cannot be blamed. It is a "non-living" thing. It is people who are responsible. They include those out to make money using sex in their shows (sex sells), as well as those who are out to scavenge and mislead unguided young minds (eg predators on the internet).To dismiss their concerns outright would be insensitive, surely, but overt censorship is not the right way to address the problem either. Singapore is gradually liberalising but much censorship still remains and can be overbearing for many. For instance, speeches by Sean Penn and Lady Gaga at the Academy Awards and the MTV Video Music Awards ceremonies respectively expressed support for the gay rights movement. However, both speeches were snipped from local television broadcast of the event.Ah....here is the introduction to the gay sex theme.Now, if TOC is a political alternative voice, why its repeated gay theme articles over and over again? TOC has argued that it represents minorities - eg foreign workers. I have replied them (ended up censored of course), that would dilute their main objective (alternative political voice). TOC would thus end up no different from Temasek Review where anything and everything is reported.Now note the explicit support for Yawning Bread, the most well known gay blogger site in Singapore.The Media Development Authority (MDA) Programme Code states: “ content which sympathises with, promotes or normalises the homosexual lifestyle will be banned” (a more detailed discussion of this is available at Yawning Bread). Presumably, the logic is that television remains the primary mode of media consumption for viewers and therefore minors and teenagers need to be protected from Primetime exposure.Now note the arguments why censorship on TV or MSM does nothing to stop (gay) and free sex from filtering down to our young as follows.The Flip SideArguably, this perspective may hold true because television is passive and minors can be quite easily exposed to, and influenced by, the content. But would they even be mature enough to understand, let alone watch the award ceremonies and appreciate the context in which the speeches were made? Also, such dismal censorship measures will utterly fail in the face of the Internet.Why watch a boring speech at the Academy Awards when gay porn can be viewed off the World Wide Web – easily accessible, highly explicit, and totally free? And while the media may have a powerful effect on individuals, censoring a few rare scenes of homosexual portrayal gives the media too much credit – a 30-second speech will not turn a teenager into a sex fiend overnight.Even the status of local television as a focal point for families to gather seems to be under threat as savvy youths can simply rip the latest American serials off the internet and YouTube. Thus, it seems the only purpose for such censorship is symbolic and may even have lost its purpose altogether and become a relic of sorts – an ornament in the park that is well-worn by wind and rain and relegated to the backdrop.Next, note the same argument of "minority rights" (implying gay rights, what else?) and intolerance towards such a group, as cited below.Worse, it becomes a sign of oppression and paternalism, firstly displaying a lack of tolerance towards minority groups and secondly, exhibiting a tendency to treat adults like kids. This overwhelming proclivity to censor is not lost on us Singaporeans – it has happened time and time again and is likely to happen in the future.And of course, being a supporter of gay and pro-gay parties, TOC has to bring in the the highly popular blogger who supports gay activities - who else, but Mr Wang? See below.And what of those who are sexually liberal and see no issue with enjoying such content? What rights do conservative groups have to impose their values on those who clearly do not agree with them? There is the question of whether these conservative voices really constitute a ‘silent majority’ and perhaps they do – a survey done by researchers at the Wee Kim Wee School found that 7 in 10 Singaporeans frown on homosexuality (original article reproduced at Mr Wang Says So with commentary).Here is the rest of the article.However, it is less important who constitutes the majority in Singapore than whether censorship will remain an effective measure in the face of globalisation and the liberalism it brings. Certainly, the government and the media have a part to play in maintaining a basic sense of moral decency in television programmes but regulation is not the same as overt censorship. Instituting ratings is not the same as snipping away segments from a film; it is like defacing a work of art. There is no use maintaining a facade of ‘Asianness’ when the Internet with its democratising influence is here to stay.The Need for SensibilityMinors of course deserve to be protected from harmful influences and internet filters serve a useful purpose for families that need them. But there will come a point of time when the child grows up to be responsible for his or her own self. What then? Surely the parent cannot continue to mollycoddle the child forever?Conservative groups with a desire to impart their moral values should do it at home, in schools, and yes, even in angry letters to the media. Parents should work at imparting sound moral values to their children, teaching them to reject perceived negative influences on their own. There is also certainly no harm in producing wholesome and safe media content for the masses either.Religious organisations play a crucial role in educating their flock to practice self-restraint when encountered by external temptation. Some of what they preach certainly has value even in a modern society so long as they are not overbearing and imposing. Singaporeans should be taught to self-regulate and separate good from harm instead of relying on the government to do it for them. Finally, there is no doubt on the danger of a sense of moral duty quickly degenerating into plain selfishness when conservative groups impose their values on others by way of the law.And in the words of Ris Low, the impetus for such selfish groups shouts: “It’s about me!”Note the subtle hint against religion and conservative groups being selfish - the very war drumbeat of the gay community. What a bummer.No conservative parent is imposing their values on others. It is the free sex and gay propagators, who have been imposing their values on others. To them, if you don't support them, you are anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-homo and homophobic.We all now know that TOC has been infiltrated by the gay community, just like Aware has been infiltrated. Too bad, it has lost its direction just like Aware.Like Aware, TOC has now taken a stance that religion and conservative groups are a hindrance to "growth", never mind that growth means free and gay sex, with no consideration for morals, values or even the law. And again, like the radical feminists, the first place to attack, would be the Family Unit. TOC has now, in my opinion, shown nothing short of the signs of the beginning of a gay takeover, a la AWARE. In the meantime, all alternative and opposing ideas and comments to gay themes at TOC, gets moderated or censored. Mugshots - literally Here are some shots of mugs with messages.To the kids at Kent Ridge Common and TOC:From Solo Bear to the kids who think he's too old:From the Feminists: From the notorapers:Mathia's Mail Order Groom: "Modern" Sex Ed Programme respects no Morals or Law Yes, this is what happens when pro-free and casual sex proponents push their agenda too far. All they can think of is that we need to teach our youngsters that sex is meant to be fun, fun, fun. They respect no morals, nor do they respect any law. These propagators thus do not care a hoot that they actually encourage young and underage children to break the law.From Channel News Asia:(bold fonts are edited by me)More underage teens in S'pore see casual sex as acceptableBy Hetty Musfirah Abdul Khamid, Channel NewsAsia31 October 2009 1945 hrsMore underage teenagers in Singapore view casual sex as being normal and acceptable.The Attorney General, Professor Walter Woon, addressed this issue at the third Children's Society Lecture on Saturday.He said the job for the prosecution becomes even tougher when two minors engage in casual sex.Modern technology and the Internet have played a part in the changing mindsets of young people in Singapore.Carol Balhetchet, director of youth services, Singapore Children's Society, said: "The media in various forms is giving that message that it's cool to be quite open about your sexuality. They tend to experiment and try out, literally try it out, and if you are not in the group that has tried it out, then you are not cool."Prof Woon said young people are becoming more open with their sexuality, with some even thinking that casual sex is inevitable. As such, legal cases that are emerging have become complex, with some minors even going to the extent of soliciting sexual services.Prof Woon said: "As what I see from some of the cases that come across my desk, they go out and solicit these contacts. In one case, she solicited it in her own home, not far from where I live.....It is not just the girls, but the boys (too)... male prostitute who went on the Internet, gay chatroom to earn money...."When it comes to cases involving two minors engaging in casual sex, Prof Woon said the law may not be enough to deal with the issue. "It is not easy and this is where the NGOs, the community services play a part. Obviously, it is not just for the judges. The judges cannot do very much by themselves."There has to be some follow-up. Even if you send the boy to jail, or the girl to jail, or both of them to jail, there has got to be something done."Sending them to jail per se would not make them reflect on their lives. That is the last thing that is going to happen. But good or ill, this is the framework that we have."The problem of underage teenagers engaging in sexual activities have seen an upward trend in recent years.Cases involving consensual sex with a girl under 14, which amounts to statutory rape, have nearly doubled over the last five years - from over 160 cases five years ago to 300 cases this year.Prof Woon said there could be more, as these were just cases that were reported.Remember Aware's Comprehensive Sexual Education (CSE) Programme? Remember how 12 year old girls were taught to have sex? Has not AWARE implicitly been encouraging underage girls to be complicit in crime?"Modern" sex educators appear more eager to teach "safe" sex more than anything else. (Note the terms "safe" or "safer" sex is actually a misnomer, because it actually only reduces the chances of STI and Aids, which hardly means it is safe.)These educators do not stop and think that by teaching safe sex, they may be encouraging underage teens to commit crime. It is no different from teaching these underage teens how to binge "safely", without teaching them that underage persons purchasing or consuming alcohol is against the law.Because of the "liberal" and not so responsible attitude these "modern" educators hold, they pass on the "values" that having sex is part of growing up and about everyone should try it, because it is fun, fun, fun.Never mind about morals, never mind the hazards (the Magic Condom works miracles!) - and definitely never mind the law.As it turns out, nothing, but NOTHING, beats good old traditional abstinence and "sex is for the married only" programme. Morals would be taught. The law would be taught.Safe sex propagators will argue that if safe sex programme is taught properly, fewer teenagers would run foul of the law. But it can also be argued that if abstinence programme be taught properly, no teenager would run foul.I am not saying we should not teach safe sex. I am saying that we must teach them good old traditional abstinence and morals as well. MM licks America's Boots - and here is his coveted prize As expected Old Man Lee will lick the boots of America till it shines as brightly as his botak head. I have written quite a few articles on this point.Here is a full blown article by the Straits Times.MM US key in East AsiaExcerpt:WASHINGTON - THE United States must be an important part of any new East Asian framework, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said on Wednesday, cautioning against defining the region in closed or racial terms.At a gala dinner where he was conferred a lifetime achievement award for fostering US-Asean ties, he said that the US would remain the sole superpower for two or three more decades despite the fallout from last year's global crisis.While China may be rapidly gaining economic and geopolitical clout, Beijing is neither willing nor ready to take on equal responsibility for managing the international system. Therefore, the US should not be shut out of any new East Asian architecture, Mr Lee said.'It would be a serious mistake for the region to define East Asia in closed, or worse, in racial terms,' he told about 450 political and business elites at the Mandarin Oriental hotel.Here is a link to my past articles about Old Man's bootlicking ways. Singapore, America's LapdogPS - It is because we are beholden to the US, we have to commit our troops in the War Zone of Iraq and Afghanistan, while other allies are pulling out. MM (and the other ministers) have sold our souls to the devil. Modern Woman's Dilemma - which is worse, Patriarchal Domination or Feminist Oppression? Sometimes I wonder if our women are going through some sort of identity crisis. They been told that they have always been told what to do. So it is time to wake up and be assertive - and start doing things what they want to do, and not what others decide for them what to do. So at last, with the dawn of Feminism, women are free from for any form of dictatorship - or so it seems.This article is a follow up of a previous article (also on Feminism, of course) which I posted -So exactly what about Made to Order Brides are feminists not happy about? It is the comments that follow the main post in the article above, that inspired me to write this follow-up. Briefly, the post in the link is about Mail Order Brides in Singapore. There's a video clip that shows a Viet bride being "bought" by a Singapore man. Feminists have objected to this arrangement, citing it like buying cattle in the market. In the Comments Section, it was argued that the bride accepted the arrangement out of her own free will. So if feminists now object, would it not be a case of feminists telling women what to do? Yes, the very grouse that feminists are up in arms with males telling females what to do, in a male dominated society?In this post, we will hence discuss the topic that Feminism has replaced the Patriarchal System. We shall see that feminists have been telling women what to do, in place of men telling women what to do.The Viet Bride AgainLet's get back to the Viet Bride story that is found in the link above again. She is a willing bride and gives her consent. So why are feminists so upset about that? Here are a summary of points, as taken from the comments section of article.- The transaction between the marriage consultant and the groom appears to belittle the status of women, akin to buying cattle in the market. The most telling part is that the bride has to be a "virgin". - The bride had "no or little knowledge" of her rights. She also was exploited for her poverty. A different perspective -As the saying goes, there are two sides of the coin. So what are the differing views to the above? The bride was willing and gave her consent. For feminists to say that the transaction was akin to buying cattle, feminists have in fact put forth their views above the view of the willing bride. Thus, has not feminists now taken over the place of the domineering male, expecting the bride's view to be subordinate to their own feminist views? Another point to note is the assumption of the lack of knowledge on the bride's part. Knowledge to what? That she has a right to reject? Well, she accepted willingly, didn't she? Isn't that an indication that she knew she has a right to reject but chose to accept?Or do these feminists mean that if they are given education and the ability to work, they don't have to resort to being a mail order bride? That viewpoint can be approached from two angles. Firstly, feminists are assuming that these Vietnamese ladies are willing to be brides because they lack knowledge and education. Maybe so. But until that is proven, feminists just assume, haven't they? What's that point about men assuming women are the weaker sex by male society and hence have to submit to men, which feminists object? And now feminists are behaving the very same way the domineering male has for centuries? Secondly, let's look at the stereotype feminists have on women from third world nations. Feminists view third world women as oppressed, subordinate, helpless, exploited and ignorant. So while feminists have always been hard on male society, alleging male dominant culture always stereotype women as the weaker sex, feminists themselves are now stereotyping third world women in their own way. At the end of the day, for all the cries and (hypocritical) claims feminists make that we should protect the Viet bride, these same feminists have not come up with a tangible, workable plan to "empower" Viet women to make choices. They offer no alternative, other than their "words only" that we give them education. So how is that to be done? They offer no ideas.This gives impression that feminists are only concerned about their own agenda and truly have no genuine concern for the individual Viet brides. The Hijab - Feminism vs Religious Clash Moving away from the topic of Mail to Order Brides, it can be argued that this notion that Feminism has replaced the Patriarchal Society is universal, and not just a Singapore phenomenon. An interesting point that was also discussed in the linked article above is the issue of the ban on the hijab worn by Muslim women. In fact, this issue magnifies the oppression and true nature of Feminism much more than the Mail to Order Bride case. So let's study how Feminism functions, or rather, "disfunctions" when it comes to the hijab case. Actually I really like to cite the hijab case in Feminism, because it is this issue that truly magnifies and amplifies the true nature of what Feminism stands for. It is here you get to see the real Feminism, warts and all. Here is the issue. If Feminism is about empowering women to make their own choice, and not being subordinate to male (or other) dominance, is not banning of the hijab an intrusion into the woman's rights, hence a feminist issue? What is interesting is that the same feminists who appear to fight for women's rights, actually justify why they do not see the need to fight for Muslim women who are forced to take the hijab off. Feminists cite that this is a religious issue. Oh, really? Let's see if feminists will stick to what they say, or will they have to eat their own words....Religion precedes Feminism? Have not feminists shot self in foot? -Ah, so if the hijab issue is a religious issue, and because of that feminists feel they don't have to defend their Muslim sisters, then are they not saying that if there is a clash between religion and feminism, religion precedes feminism? Hey, if I recall correctly, one of the major grouses feminists have is that religion (especially Christianity and Islam) is male bias and hence we should educate women to stand for their rights.Well, these Muslim women are now standing for their rights - to don the hijab. Yet, they are forced to have it off. Now feminists tell them that it is a religious issue? Have not feminists undone all they have tried to do, educating women that they should not submit to religious tyranny of male bias?Dress as you wish - Another very familiar feminist quote on women's dress is that "Women have a right to decide how they want to dress and not be subjected to what men decide for them." The above quote is always heard when it is argued that some women get raped because of the way they dress. Let's put aside the safety argument why women should dress decently. Let's just stick to the argument that the woman has the right to decide how she dress as she pleases. So why is this argument not used by feminists to defend their Muslim sisters to put on the hijab? Men stereotype women in mini skirt, Feminists stereotype women in hijab -It does get interesting, doesn't it? I mean the hijab issue exposing Feminism's hypocrisy. Feminists, decry that men stereotype women in scantily dressed attire. They hit out at men who say that women who dressed scantily are asking to be raped. OK, then are not feminists stereotyping women in hijab as backward and uneducated guilty too?It is a common perception by many (feminists included) that the hijab is oppressive to women. Feminists argue that the hijab covers the woman against her will. Hence if these women are given education and freedom to choose, somehow they would fling off their hijabs, show their pretty faces, beautiful hair and bosoms and behave as the new, liberated woman. Are not feminists assuming too much?Firstly, have not feminists stereotyped women in hijab, that is, have they not stereotyped women the way she dresses? So have they not committed the same sin they accuse men of, when these men stereotype scantily clad women as loose? Secondly, feminists assume that these women in hijab have been forced to put it on. Let's look at the Afghan women today. We were told that the Taliban forced women to cover up. Yet, years after the fall of the Taliban, these women are still covered up!Another viewpoint is that, what about the woman who wants to have the hijab on? The hijab is banned in schools and universities in France and parts of Germany. These women who want to have it on are university students - hardly ignorant like what feminists claim them to be. These female students have the knowledge, yet they choose to have it on. So isn't the assumption by feminists that a woman who wants to wear the hijab because she is ignorant, itself an ignorant assumption?Global Uniform Template-like Answer towards Hijab -The biggest irony of this whole episode is that the reasons given by feminists (pertaining to hijab ban) is all the same, wherever you go. The view that the hijab ban is a religious issue and not feminist issue, as well as it is worn only by ignorant women, is the same among all feminists, be it from Europe, America or from this part of the world. Isn't this ready-made, template-like answer, readily given by feminists all around the world, an indication that Feminists have successfully drilled and brainwashed women to think a certain way, and only in a certain way? What's this talk about Feminism is about breaking the Male deciding what women should think? Are these feminists not committing the same sin they accuse men of?ConclusionIt appears that it is a no-win situation for the modern woman. If she sticks to the traditional patriarchal system, she is accused of being submissive to male patriarchy. On the other hand, if she moves over to feminist ideals, she will only be transferring her submissive and subordinate ways to Feminism.The only way to be truly free from any dominance and/or oppression is when the woman decides for herself and for herself alone. No one should tell her what her choice should be.The bizarre ironic twist is that the women who have that courage to decide for themselves are the likes of the Viet Brides and the Muslim women in hijab - the very women Feminists so scorn. SDP playing to the Gay Gallery (Part 1) Since the Aware Saga earlier this year, I have suspected that some of our opposition parties have been behind a pro-gay agenda. That suspicion stemmed from the unwavering support the New Media organisations have shown for gay causes. See following link: Alternative Media has hijacked Opposition's chances for next GE Today, we can see how SDP appears to appease the gay community. Let's Talk with Alex AuTake note at 3:55 min mark, where Chia Ti Lek deliberately asked about gay rights, followed by the Aware takeover by Josie and gang. It sounds all too familiar. Who else, but really who else, is interested in the Aware takeover?Small wonder we have the likes of The Online Citizen, Temasek Review and even Kent Ridge Common that appear to be both pro-opposition and gay friendly.PS - I have for a long time been a harsh critic of the PAP. I still am. Past elections, how I vote depends on how well the candidate is able to connect with his/her constituents. Today, I have added an extra criteria - what is the candidate's stand on gay rights. How I will vote will depend how he or she answers that question. I will also take the candidate's silence as an answer.===Update: Part 2 is found in this link. Interpreting Messages in Movies - The Blue Mountain What the message is in a movie you see, may be a different message from what others see.Here is a cartoon clip, produced in 1948. Just watch the 10 min clip and ponder the next few minutes what the message really is about.So what has the above movie clip got to do with Glen Goei's The Blue Mountain? We'll come to that a little later. In the meantime, have you seen what the message is about?Now, if you were an American living today, and if you did not know that know that the movie was made in 1948, you would see the movie is alluding to today's America, where citizens are slowly losing their freedom - like the implementation of the Patriot Act. Alternatively, if you knew it was a 1948 movie, you would have taken that the producers somehow had visionary powers, what the future holds - not far off from the likes of Nostradamus worhippers.But if you knew the political background of the movie above, you would have noted that it actually has a nationalistic message. America represents freedom and democracy. It represents peace, stability and all things free. It also has a political message of "one upmanship" against the communists and Marxists, that America the Free Nation, is superior and no one should give up this freedom.Note that one movie can have different interpretation and messages.So what about The Blue Mountain? Well, same thing. It has more than one message. Kelvin of Kent Ridge Common feels it is about our political situation, where LKY rules with an iron hand. I feel that on top of that message, it also has feminist theme, where feminists clash with the ideas of the patriarchal family.The cartoon clip above is just to show that one movie can have more than one message. There is no need to be boxed up and feel that it has one message and one message only. So exactly what about Made to Order Brides are feminists not happy about? From Mathia's link Mathia Lee is looking for a Mail-Order GroomThe bride is an adult, is willing, and most importantly gives her consent. Isn't this what feminists claim women should be accorded? So what's the problem?Or is it the portrayal that women can be bought that these feminists find insulting. Then my question to these feminists is:What is your real concern? The rights of individual women whom you claim to represent, or your ideals of what a woman should be? The Blue Mansion: Same Gay and Feminist Message Movies have long been used by lobbyists to soft sell otherwise unpalatable, even undesirable causes. That's how the Vietnam War was sold - loads of war movies during the 1970s and 1980s showing how Men in Green Berets fought with valour - never mind using chemicals like Napalm and Agent Orange on civilians are well against humanity.We have seen how movies and TV shows sold free sex, single motherhood etc as well. When once these lifestyles were condemned by our grandparents, free sex promoted on the screen today is no longer an issue.So it comes as no surprise that gay themes are now being played over and over in movies. What comes hand in hand about gay theme is also the deconstruction, or should I say more accurately, the destruction of the family unit. The all encompassing argument of the "patriarchal" family is always played out by feminists, who by now work closely with gay groups.Here is a review by Kent Ridge Common (KRC), (which I have pointed out are gay theme promoters themselves- you can dispute me if you wish) on the movie show, The Blue Mansion.Note that the movie review was the result of Kent Ridge Common's close working relation with AWARE. The review in point form as follows.1. The usual patriarchal (Asian ?? - you mean only Chinese are Asians? - shouldn't it be East Asian?) that leads to much unhappiness.2. The unhappiness includes the overbearing (patriarchal again!) father who is the head of the family, which in turn causes mayhem in the family.3. This includes the daughter turning to alcoholism.4. The second son has an unhappy marriage and turns to a mistress.5. The eldest is a closet gay and suffers in silence.6, The producer of the movie (as highlighted by KRC) tries to send a message that the PAP, using Confucian values, can cause those subjected to such authority to rebel.7. KRC appears to allude the above to the Singapore Family and Singapore lifestyle of control under the family environment and/or the Singapore environment where the government places heavy emphasis on the Family Structure. What a far fetched idea by KRC, as we shall see later.8. In other words, the Blue Mansion is a soft sell, the very tool used by gays and feminists, to promote gay themes and deconstruction of the family unit.My Personal PointsI feel that this is another subtle message to sell gay theme and deconstruct the family unit. Here are my reasons why I feel that The Blue Mansion is nowhere anything like the typical Singapore Family Unit.The average Singapore Family lives in the HDB flat. The more well to do live in landed property. Those who live in Mansions are the very rich, and are probably Singapore Perm Residents and/or expatriates who own businesses outside Singapore, rather than typical citizens. How does the producer (or KRC as in its review) expect the average Singaporean to even empathise with such a family as portrayed in The Blue Mansion?Here are the main issues what the typical average Singaporean family are concerned with....School, school, school - Even before little lad starts primary school, some parents will take pains to ensure that their child enters "top schools". They do that either by finding residence within the 1 km radius of the school, or be volunteers in the schools' Parents Support Group.From then on, it is school results, gaining place in top secondary schools, JCs and NUS or NTU. It is always studies that is on the minds of the typical Singapore family. Not just for the kids, but for the over worried parents too!For young parents who have pre-school kids, the main concern is who looks after their children. It is not uncommon for both parents to work. The question of hiring domestic help, together with all the problems tied with that, has to be factored.In the light of the current economic downturn, another concern the family has is job security and making ends meet. And for families with elderly parents and/or grandparents, the issue of the high healthcare costs comes into the picture.The above are more relevant to the average Singapore family. A far cry from the billionaire family lifestyle The Blue Mansion tries to portray.Gay Theme and Patriarchal Family - the fingerprint of gays and feministsThe above theme has to be played out, isn't it? That's what they're after, isn't it? The film isn't about Asian values or The Family per se. It is about subtly sending out negative images of the family unit, and celebrating gay issues.I feel that Jack Neo's production is more representative of the typical Singapore Family. Yes, it has its own controversy, like the subtle racist themes, stereotyping Westerners and ethnic minorities in Singapore. But that aside, the Singapore audience can empathize the characters in Jack Neo's movies, rather than the far fetched, airy-fairy, "typical Asian Family" (haha) The Blue Mansion erroneously tries to portray.Finally, going by the recent Aware Saga where 8000+ signatories petitioned against Aware's CSE to the MOE, the typical Singapore Family actually is against gay themes, rather than willing to celebrate it the way The Blue Mansion tries so hard to project.What the show could be representing insteadI would like to say that if there are any morals or message the The Blue Mansion highlights, it can be that alcoholism destroys lives as portrayed by the daughter. The message can also show that having extra marital affairs turns your life upside down, as played out by the second son. Finally, the eldest shows that being a gay can mean being a misfit in society, in spite of your high wealth status. (Why not that provocative message, since so called "modern" movie themes are about prodding the mind to think laterally?)Another message could be that if the head of the family (the father) is too engrossed with wealth, rather than forming ties with his children, it can cause a fallout. Hence, the message could be that bonding within the family, rather than creating excessive wealth, is far more important.Lastly, since it involves the death, the message could also be a reflection of what one wants to achieve in life. When asked what is the one regret any dying person has, it is always that he or she did not spend enough time with his or her family. No one answers that he or she did not make enough money.Again, the above is a powerful message that can be used to drive the point that family unity and cohesion is much more important than chasing after gold.Now why can't The Blue Mansion be seen in that light? It can, of course. But the producer's and the reviewer's message is about gay theme and destruction of the family unit. That explains the way off mark alluding that a billionaire family can represent the typical Singapore family unit. What a laugh. Asia getting jittery over US Dollar? As a follow up to this post, US in Deep Doodoo, here is my observation of the US Dollar. I notice that Asian investors are heavily skewed towards stocks rather than other types of financial instruments. They are less savvy in futures, options, currencies, commodities than their European and American counterparts. This is evident in the volume traded. Whenever Asia is buzzing from approximately 2200h GMT to 0700h GMT the next day, the Asian stock markets see a high volume traded. That's natural, right? The Forex market, unlike the stock market however, is a 24-hour market. Depending on whether it is summer of winter, Europe will kick in at 0600h or 0700h GMT, while New York will kick in about about 1300h or 1400h GMT.One indication that Asians stay away from currencies is the thin volume traded during Asian market time. The volume picks up when Europe kicks in, and it goes crazy when New York wakes up and start work.So it can be quite dead during Asian hours as far as Forex markets is concerned. Even if there are any movements or swing during Asian hours, it is the Euro/Dollar or US/JPY (US-Yen) that would see any activity. However, I noticed that this is the second day there is "significant" movement in the US/CAD (US Dollar - Canadian Dollar) during Asian hours. Usually, this pair is dead during Asian hours. US markets closed last night at around 1.0320 for US/CAD. Some hours after Asia took over, it dropped to 1.0276 at about 0340h GMT (and still dropping). So why is Asia, known for its lack of interest in the Forex markets, so jittery? Signs of Asian investors dumping the US Dollar?PS - The same thing happened yesterday. It was the US investors that brought the US/CAD up to above 1.300, before it dropped again when Asia took over this morning.