Singapore is ready for a Female President replied by HyperFocal @ Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:03:57 +0800

HyperFocal — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:03:57 +0800

... Male, Female, Shemale, what's the difference?

... this position is just for cutting ribbons...

PETROL PRICE WENT DOWN. HOW ABOUT PUBLIC TRANSPORT replied by whampoard @ Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:51:32 +0800

whampoard — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:51:32 +0800

That's the problem with Singapore. Petrol price go down you don't expect price drop. Even when the economy went down there were no price drops. There were even increases. This is how Singapore became so expensive.

Has anyone ever heard of price decrease in Singapore before? Not in my 40 years of my life. Only price hikes.

Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views. replied by purpledragon84 @ Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:49:21 +0800

purpledragon84 — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:49:21 +0800

Originally posted by eyeballl:

i think singapore's stand on conscription is independent of whether there is a single united world government or not. it is a clear indication of one of singaporeans' biggest attributes: "KIASU"

there are many more countries with a much LESS peaceful record as compared to singapore and still do not see the need for compulsory national service. even if national service is needed to chalk up numbers of soldiers i do not see why is is necessary to make it compulsory for males to need to serve 2 years of their lives in army!

correct me if i am wrong, but singapore is one of the only nations still practising conscription. this concept has already been been deemed outdated by so many other countries.

although i have to admit, with the mighty ego and pride singapore has in its armed forces, it cannot carry on without conscription. it all boils down to pride imo

what is "one of the only nations"?

Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views. replied by purpledragon84 @ Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:47:36 +0800

purpledragon84 — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:47:36 +0800

Originally posted by jojobeach:

Perhaps that's why 2 years is just nice.. for conditioning our felllow men.

if u saw the way i march on my ord day(and most probably many others), u will be starting a thread questioning singapore's security

Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views. replied by eyeballl @ Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:46:09 +0800

eyeballl — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:46:09 +0800

Originally posted by 4Justice:

We er... haven't achieved world peace yet unfortunately. Won't happen until earth is ruled by a single united world government.

i think singapore's stand on conscription is independent of whether there is a single united world government or not. it is a clear indication of one of singaporeans' biggest attributes: "KIASU"

there are many more countries with a much LESS peaceful record as compared to singapore and still do not see the need for compulsory national service. even if national service is needed to chalk up numbers of soldiers i do not see why is is necessary to make it compulsory for males to need to serve 2 years of their lives in army!

correct me if i am wrong, but singapore is one of the only nations still practising conscription. this concept has already been been deemed outdated by so many other countries.

although i have to admit, with the mighty ego and pride singapore has in its armed forces, it cannot carry on without conscription. it all boils down to pride imo

Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views. replied by jojobeach @ Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:36:17 +0800

jojobeach — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:36:17 +0800

Originally posted by purpledragon84:

if they can be trained to march like robots, they can do anything..

Perhaps that's why 2 years is just nice.. for conditioning our felllow men.

Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views. replied by purpledragon84 @ Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:32:20 +0800

purpledragon84 — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:32:20 +0800

Originally posted by jojobeach:

Like the Tiananmen incident . I still wondering why those tank drivers can happily run over their own people just at the drop of an order.

if they can be trained to march like robots, they can do anything..

JI Leader Mas Selamat Escaped From Detention Centre replied by mancha @ Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:09:44 +0800

mancha — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:09:44 +0800

Originally posted by Arakawa.shizuka:

WKS still have the cheek to make national day speech ar? If I were him, I either resign or hide myself from public le.

If you were WKS, you would be doing as WKS does, because WKS does as WKS does, and somebody else would post "If I were WKS, I either resign or hide myself from public le."

Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views. replied by jojobeach @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:20:42 +0800

jojobeach — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:20:42 +0800

Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:

I'm quite sure you don't deal with civilians while holding a gun.

Sometimes you have to show who's in charge.

Of course, it's my observation, but if the civilians start to get rowdy, then of course I have to show them who's boss.

You don't have to grip your rifle to do that. The mere presence of your arms and ammos is enough.

Your's is the hypothetical one, going a step further, responsability can be abused.

Why do you need to intimidate civilians ?

Will you carry out your superior's order to attack the civilians if they are just protesting for more human rights ?

Will you carry an order knowing the civilians are being oppressed and the gahmen wants to crush them using military force ?

Like the Tiananmen incident . I still wondering why those tank drivers can happily run over their own people just at the drop of an order.

Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape replied by Glasscastlezine @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:39:23 +0800

Glasscastlezine — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:39:23 +0800

Indeed, I have written to my MPs, and my first post was actually including a URL for those who are interested in taking action to access to find out how to work to change the law. It's been moderated though. If anyone is interested PM me and I will end you the website.

Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape replied by yamizi @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:33:13 +0800

yamizi — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:33:13 +0800

Originally posted by Glasscastlezine:

Yamizi:

Yes, grievous hurt is another example. But again, why are we shying away from calling the incident rape? Not just outrage of modesty, not just grievous hurt, but rape. If rape is not the same as grievous hurt outside of marriage, why does this change within marriage? The law should reflect what things are. Forced sex is rape, and someone who forces sex on someone should be formally censured by criminal law as a rapist. Marriage has no bearing on the question.

A raped wife can already divorce the husband for the incident. This was brought up in Parliament in 2004. So taking away immunity from criminal law for marital rape does not affect the divorce proceeding. It just means that proper criminal proceedings can also be taken, in addition to divorce proceedings. It means recognising that rape is more than just "a reason to divorce someone". It is worse than something like "adultery" or "irreconcilable differences". It is sexual violence, which cannot be tolerated in a decent society, and which should be addressed with criminal punishment and a criminal record.

I know that wives were traditionally seen as property of their husbands. That view is wrong, and the law needs to change.

What I mean that it can affect is that an alledged rape was mock up in order to take the husband's assets. But of course you would have disagree on this point.

Anyway, I'm not here to debate, if you're really so fervent about this, you can consider writing into the Ministry of Law to voice your concern. =)

Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape replied by Kuali Baba @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:30:47 +0800

Kuali Baba — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:30:47 +0800

Is spousal abuse already a separate punishable offence under the law?

Charisma of Lee Hsien Loong, or lack thereof replied by Fantagf @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:26:34 +0800

Fantagf — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:26:34 +0800

No offence, definitely don't expect LHL to have that sort of charisma of ex President Bill Clinton. IN fact LHL does not need charisma, he needs his father more than anyone more than anything. Ke ke ke, hee hee hee.

Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape replied by Glasscastlezine @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:13:04 +0800

Glasscastlezine — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:13:04 +0800

Yamizi:

Yes, grievous hurt is another example. But again, why are we shying away from calling the incident rape? Not just outrage of modesty, not just grievous hurt, but rape. If rape is not the same as grievous hurt outside of marriage, why does this change within marriage? The law should reflect what things are. Forced sex is rape, and someone who forces sex on someone should be formally censured by criminal law as a rapist. Marriage has no bearing on the question.

A raped wife can already divorce the husband for the incident. This was brought up in Parliament in 2004. So taking away immunity from criminal law for marital rape does not affect the divorce proceeding. It just means that proper criminal proceedings can also be taken, in addition to divorce proceedings. It means recognising that rape is more than just "a reason to divorce someone". It is worse than something like "adultery" or "irreconcilable differences". It is sexual violence, which cannot be tolerated in a decent society, and which should be addressed with criminal punishment and a criminal record.

I know that wives were traditionally seen as property of their husbands. That view is wrong, and the law needs to change.

Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape replied by PRP @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:11:28 +0800

PRP — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:11:28 +0800

In principle, the govt should criminalise marital rape.Maybe it can be called forced marital sex.But such act might be difficult to proof in court.

Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape replied by Kuali Baba @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:08:57 +0800

Kuali Baba — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:08:57 +0800

Fear of abuse is not a good reason to stop this from becoming legislation, but if the loopholes can be tightened (such as by including evidence of injuries), then it'd be so much better.

Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape replied by yamizi @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:03:34 +0800

yamizi — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:03:34 +0800

Originally posted by purpledragon84:

after the episode about sexual inequality, I've decided not to get involved in such male-vs-female-infront-of-law discussion anymore.. it's endless, and nobody's views gets changed.. just scold scold insult insult.. nothing gets done..

or maybe i've gotten lazy recently..

Actually you're very right. Haha =)

Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views. replied by yamizi @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:02:30 +0800

yamizi — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:02:30 +0800

Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:

I have little faith....because it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking anybody can shoulder responsability.

As for the crowd gets rowdy scenario.....I wasn't referring to riots. It happens. Uncooperative civilians should be put into place.

The above, you'll understand only when you have civilians walking up and down your place and you take charge of them and they don't cooperate.

You don't use your gun, but you have to show them who's boss.

Hmm your thinking probably belong to 2G or even 1G Army.

At least the 3G Singapore Army doesn't think like this anymore.

As you said, uncooperative civilians, then of course they have to be put into place.

However, I think you're very diverted from this topic. This thread is do we agree women should serve NS.

And I disagree that NS = military!

Military is only one of our 5 principles of Total Defence.

Think about it.

Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape replied by purpledragon84 @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:02:10 +0800

purpledragon84 — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:02:10 +0800

after the episode about sexual inequality, I've decided not to get involved in such male-vs-female-infront-of-law discussion anymore.. it's endless, and nobody's views gets changed.. just scold scold insult insult.. nothing gets done..

or maybe i've gotten lazy recently..

Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape replied by yamizi @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:57:30 +0800

yamizi — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:57:30 +0800

Originally posted by Glasscastlezine:

purpledragon84:

Criminal proceedings are separate from divorce proceedings. It's already possible for wives to file for divorce now; making marital rape a crime doesn't affect that. What isn't possible is for rapists (of their wives) to be punished under criminal law. Also, we already recognise that spouses cannot hit each other. At the moment wives could also falsely claim that their husbands hit them, but we rely on the legal system to make sure their claims are discredited. Surely you don't think the risk of false allegations in divorce proceedings means we should allow men to hit their wives? Why does the situation change when the beating is with a penis instead of a fist?

It does affect for the divorce proceedings. The affidavits would have to include the reasons for filing a divorce proceedings.

Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape replied by yamizi @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:55:21 +0800

yamizi — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:55:21 +0800

Originally posted by Glasscastlezine:

yamizi:

Maybe my first post was not very clear. At the moment, the Penal Code says specifically that an act that would normally be rape, is exempted from being rape, just because the rapist is married to the victim. I am suggesting that the exemption be removed.

Yes, there are other offences relating to sexual violence: for instance, there is outrage of modesty. However, rape is more serious than outrage of modesty, and in every case where the offender is not married to the victim the law now recognises this. But when it comes to spouses the classification "rape" is suddenly removed. So the only relevant question here is whether marriage means we think a rape is somehow less serious than it would be outside of marriage.

Why would someone think that except based on old-fashioned and sexist ideas about men owning their wives?

The distinction cannot be based on the risk of false allegations. At the moment a girlfriend who is not married to her boyfriend can falsely allege rape; a woman can falsely allege rape by her colleague; a student can falsely allege rape by her classmate; a businesspersoncan falsely allege rape by a business rival... just as all these people can falsely allege they were slapped or kicked by the other person. In every crime (NOT just rape, NOT just sex crime) with every set of people there is ALWAYS the risk of false allegations. We rely on proper police investigation, proper screening by the Attorney-General's Chambers, and proper examination of the evidence by judges, to prevent injustices from being done. Why should rape within marriage be seen as so special as to be taken outside of this process, so that even where the evidence is overwhelming it is not considered rape?

Understood. You made a good point. However, as I already said, I am neither to nor against for this idea at this juncture, considering the many possible complications it may lead into.

Anyway the section that I had mentioned is not outrage of modesty, but causing grievious hurt to another. I hope you get my point, there is still avenue in addressing the issue, though it may not be equivalent to what you deem it to be.

I'm not sure are you aware of this, the traditional thinking is that women are men's property in marriages, that is why rape is became an exclusion in marriage.

Chee Soon Juan steals map from Singapore Land Authority replied by leetahsar @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:43:53 +0800

leetahsar — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:43:53 +0800

pap's policies might not be all good. similarly, chee's intention and motives might not be that simple.

if chee really have supports, he won't be calling for donation. by the way, gopalan is also advocating donations through the account of chiatilik's citibank account (personal?).

contradiction here is they 'fought for high cost of living'* and yet they are having a hawaiian bash at $25 per pax; i think they must have realised that RP dinner by jbj was fully booked and they were anticipating for some bumper financial windfall from their supporters - imaginery or otherwise.

*one of the 'high cost' products on display was FORTUNE SHARKSFIN.

PETROL PRICE WENT DOWN. HOW ABOUT PUBLIC TRANSPORT replied by 16/f/lonely @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:40:17 +0800

16/f/lonely — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:40:17 +0800

Wrong, because public transport does not use petrol.

PETROL PRICE WENT DOWN. HOW ABOUT PUBLIC TRANSPORT replied by sunnytv @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:38:12 +0800

sunnytv — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:38:12 +0800

PETROL PRICE WENT DOWN at a wrong time. After they have submit their fare hike application form.

Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape replied by Glasscastlezine @ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:30:34 +0800

Glasscastlezine — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:30:34 +0800

purpledragon84:

Criminal proceedings are separate from divorce proceedings. It's already possible for wives to file for divorce now; making marital rape a crime doesn't affect that. What isn't possible is for rapists (of their wives) to be punished under criminal law. Also, we already recognise that spouses cannot hit each other. At the moment wives could also falsely claim that their husbands hit them, but we rely on the legal system to make sure their claims are discredited. Surely you don't think the risk of false allegations in divorce proceedings means we should allow men to hit their wives? Why does the situation change when the beating is with a penis instead of a fist?

Recent Posts in Speaker's Corner | sgForums.com