Super idea from Mdm Halimah Yacob to help women – and the economy

A super idea from Mdm Halimah Yacob to address the issue of many women who are ‘economically dormant’ at home, but would like to contribute to the economy, without compromising their home needs.

MP urges home-based food catering business for women

Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports Halimah Yacob has urged the government to help a very specific segment of society – women who cannot work outside their homes as they have young children or elderly parents to look after.

Mdm Halimah, who is also MP for Jurong GRC, said this is what’s needed on top of measures in the Budget which she says are pro-family.

She said one way is to allow these women to run home-based food catering businesses.

But first, she says the government needs to relax its rules banning home kitchens, so that these women can earn extra income from their love of cooking.

Mdm Halimah said: “Recently many had received warning letters from the NEA and they are worried and confused, and their source of income has been disrupted.

“A couple of weeks ago, I was invited by Dewi, the women’s arm of the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce, to a dialogue session which was attended by more than 300 women. The women strongly appealed to the government to relax its rules prohibiting home kitchens.

“They were told to cook at central kitchens which are commercial cooking facilities but many cannot afford the rent and other related costs, and because of their caregiving responsibilities they cannot work outside their homes.

“Using a central kitchen is not a viable option for them. The women understand and are mindful of NEA’s concerns over hygiene, safety and neighbours’ complaints.

“Therefore in their proposal, they had suggested various measures to address these concerns including even devising a contraption to absorb smoke, grease and smell from their cooking. Sir, I would like to urge NEA to look into this proposal.”

- CNA/de

A simple idea given as feedback to the Minister of State, and the idea is now being fed to the public. Now why can’t women groups (like AWARE), who have been claiming they look after women’s needs, have been alert to such an idea?

In my opinion, this is a good idea. Not only it helps these women to earn an income, it also helps the economy. Of course, there are details to be worked out. For example as stated, hygiene concerns.

Perhaps to allay the concerns of the public and customers, such home kitchens turned “catering houses” could allow regular NEA inspections too. I am sure all parties concerned won’t mind that bit of inconvenience, if it is good for everyone, including the economy.

This episode actually shows that it takes a woman (in this case Mdm Halimah) to understand the needs of other women. It was because of her close contact with the women’s group that allowed her to get this feedback.

‘Safe Sex’ is a misnomer, ‘Safer Sex’ is worse

I have said this countless of times on this blog. I am going to say it again. When your good old grandma told you to behave yourself, she was right. Good old abstinence worked during her time and for generations before her. The moment liberal sex was introduced as the norm, all hell broke loose.

Liberals who campaign for safe sex got it wrong. There’s nothing safe about promiscuity. Even with the condom. Some liberals try to address the risk factor of condoms by renaming it “safer sex”, hopefully to sound more politically correct because technically, sex without condom is worse than sex with one. But there lies the stupidity. It infers that sex without condom is safe, while with one, it is safer!

Here’s a report telling you what dentists say. Yep, it looks like good old gram’s words are still haunting these liberal sex propagandists. Btw, the title is misleading. It should read “Dentists warn: [Illicit] Oral sex [with multiple partners] can lead to oral cancer”.

Dentists warn: Oral sex can lead to oral cancer

Oral sex could lead to cancer of the mouth more than smoking and drinking, doctors say.

At the joint conference of the Philippine Medical Association and the Philippine Dental Association, doctors and dentists cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine suggesting that people who have more than five oral-sex partners are nine times more at risk of contracting cancer of the tonsils, tongue or throat.
Vic Fileo Chua, convener of the Movement for the Early Detection of Cancer, says “unprotected oral sex” can lead to various infections of the oral cavity. The Human Papilloma Virus, which causes genital warts, has been positively linked to cervical cancer in women.
“This same virus can cause oral cancers in both men and women engaged in oral sex,” Chua said.

“Sexually transmitted infections like Herpes, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia and others can also cause serious irritations of the buccal cavity, and the repeated infections through oral sex can lead to cancers of the mouth.”

A study by the University of the Philippines Population Institute says more than four million young Filipinos have already engaged in sex, including oral sex. But only 20 percent of them protect themselves.

Anne Camus, president of the Manila chapter of the Philippine Dental Association, says the incidence of oral lesions among Manila’s residents is 15 percent. Any lesion of the mouth should be taken seriously, she says, because it can always develop into cancer.

“Dentists are usually the first to see lesions in the mouth of patients, she said.
“At this early point, if the lesion turns out to be malignant, then chances are it is still curable.”

Liberals will cry, “But abstinence won’t work!”

Really? It worked for good old grams and generations before her for centuries. “Safe Sex” on the other hand became the fashion last century during the Woodstock Era. And it has shown that’s the one that doesn’t work.

The same liberals will claim that in Third World countries, the rate of HIV and STD cases are higher, when there’s no safe sex practised. Yep, neither do these people practise abstinence either. So what’s with the over elation displayed and false claim these liberals make that “safe sex” works better than abstinence?

In fact, these cases in Third World countries reinforce the fact that abstinence is the only real safe way even more. Prostitution in these countries are unregulated. Many young girls driven by poverty are made into sex slaves. Isn’t this illicit sex with multiple partners?

In the more developed countries, condoms are sold like sanitary pads or cigarettes openly. To say that our young adults do not know about the use of condom when it is displayed in full view is rubbish.

It is about time that the young in society be told that they have a choice. Abstinence is one of them. To claim that abstinence does not work, when it is safe sex that’s been advertised the last 50 years, is to place the blame on abstinence when it is shown safe sex is the one that doesn’t work – for the last 50 years!

Of late, MOE is reintroducing abstinence as part of Sexuality Education. As usual the liberals, mainly made up of Feminist groups and LGBTs, are up in arms on that. They are of the opinion that their brand of “safe sex”, or should it be “safer sex”, is safe enough.

What a fatal mistake.

US Dollar sinking

News and talk about the collapse of the (US) Dollar has been around for years. If you observe closely, slowly but surely it is happening.

Why a Dollar & Euro Collapse Is Guaranteed

About ten or eleven years ago, US$1 gives about CAD$1.6 or so. Today the Canadian Dollar is at parity with the USD.

Note that is about the length of time the US has been drawn into the Afghan and Iraq wars. The US economy and the wars have got to have some correlation!

Incidentally, the Canadian Dollar is known to Canadians as the Loonie. But to the world, the President of the United States (who is a crazed warmonger) is known as The Lunatic.

Heh.

Yankees, go home (Quran burning in Afghanistan)

In the last few days, we have seen the MSM reporting about the protests against a Quran burning incident in Afghanistan. Obama was quick to condemn the incident. So was the Commander of the NATO forces. But that didn’t calm down the situation.

Quran Burning Sparks Angry Afghan Protest

0:49 min – Commander of NATO Forces apologises profusely.

The issue isn’t just about Quran burning. It is a whole host of issues which includes:

1. Hypocrisy of US and its allies, using “war on terror” as an excuse when the intention is to control Afghanistan so that an 800 km oil/gas pipeline could be built from the Caspian to India/Pakistan through Afghanistan. That was discussed here. 911 10th Annivesary: Remembering the Lies (Part 1). Scroll down to the sub-header “Invasion of Afghanistan was planned long before 11 Sep 2001″.

2. In the process of occupying Afghanistan, which is now more than ten years, US and its allies have indiscriminately bombed civilian targets like hospitals, schools, govt offices. They also bomb funeral gatherings, wedding functions and children’s parties. That’s on top of using munitions that contain Depleted Uranium which affects the population and future generations. Depleted Uranium: Dead Babies in Iraq and Afghanistan Are No Joke

3. US and its allies also round up young men and torture them without trial. They are detained indefinitely, never to see their families again. Guantanamo Bay detention camp

4. In the process, the Bush Admin followed by Obama’s Admin, keeps targetting Islam and Muslims (its own Muslim citizens included) as a terror source. This shows that the govt of US is suspicious of Muslims in general (just like in S’pore). So for all the talk that the ‘war on terror’ is not about against Muslims, it actually is. NYPD says it is legal to conduct surveillance on Muslims in city and in Newark

Needless to say, the Quran burning is just “the last straw” for the Muslims in Afghanistan. While the US and its allies portray themselves as liberators, the true picture in the minds of these Afghans is that they are nothing more than oppressors and usurpers. Ask the Afghans what they want from these soldiers and they will tell you that they want those troops to go home.

“War on terror” just an excuse to invade lands of Muslims because of their oil and other resource -

Afghanistan -

Afghanistan was invaded because the Taliban halted the construction the 800 km oil pipeline during Clinton’s presidency. The purpose of the invasion was to replace the Taliban with a more US friendly govt so that the construction of pipeline could be resumed. Unfortunately, US isn’t winning the war, and that pipeline still isn’t completed either.

It must be remembered that prior to this Afghan War, the Afghans were fighting against the Soviets in the last century. And who trained Osama bin Laden and his forces (now called Al Qaida by US) to fend off the Soviets? Yep, the United States of America.

After the Soviets were booted out of Afghanistan, America uses Osama as a tool and excuse to invade Afghanistan.

Iraq -

Likewise for Iraq, US supplied Saddam Hussein with Chemical Weapons in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War. The war ended when both sides decided to a ceasefire.

Iraq was the second largest oil producer during Saddam’s reign. Since Saddam’s use to the US was no longer valid, it was decided that he was to be disposed of. And what better way than to accuse Saddam of stockpiling WMDs (never mind that it was the US that supplied him that!) as an excuse to invade.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Hans Blix, then Head of IAEA made it clear to Bush that Saddam had no more stockpile of WMDs. Bush decided to invade anyway.

Unfortunately and embarrassingly for the US, Saddam got rid of whatever WMDs he had after the Iran-Iraq War. That turned out to be a big PR disaster for the Bush Admin because after US invaded Iraq, they found no WMDs.

Bush sheepishly said that US troops couldn’t find those WMDs because Saddam had destroyed it. But that’s what Blix said earlier, didn’t he, dumbo? =.=

Iran, next possible target -

Of all the Muslim nations in the Mid East and North Africa, Iran is the most challenging for the US. Many of the young population don’t know that Iran was once America’s strongest ally.

This short video gives a quick explanation of the recent history of Iran’s relationship with the US.
History of Iran & USA in 10 min, Every American must watch this!!

Iran is the third largest oil producing country. That makes it too tempting for greedy US and its allies not to invade. But invading Iran is not like invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or any other Muslim state in the region. Iran is battle hardened and has the backing of Russia and China. Here are four posts I published about the challenges facing Iran’s would be invaders.

Bomb Iran? Let’s lay out the cards (Part 1 – Military Perspective)

Bomb Iran? Let’s lay out the cards (Part 2 – Geopolitical Perspective)

Bomb Iran? Let’s lay out the cards (Part 3 – Economic Perspective)

Bomb Iran? Let’s lay out the cards (Part 4 – Israeli Involvement)

Quran burning protest must be seen in context -

So let’s get back to the issue of the protests against the Quran burning in Afghanistan. The MSM would like to portray this issue as a hyped up, over reaction from some Afghans. However, the issue is much deeper.

The issue is about the anger, the frustration and the deep resentment these Afghan Muslims have towards the invading oppressive troops of the US and its allies.

Afghans are not stupid. Like the Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Iranians and many other citizens of nations who have been America’s targets, the true message of the protests against the Quran burning is loud and clear.

The message is, “Yankees, go home!”

Aiding accident animal victims – what if it attacks?

There’s a lot of talk from Animal Rights groups that in an event of an accident, the driver should stop and render aid even if the injured is an animal. In fact, the law also states that.

However, the law although explicit about helping animals, by definition within that law itself, does not include cats. So the SPCA would like to have the law to include cats too.

That sounds OK. But what struck me is that while Animal Rights and Welfare Groups give a whole load of advice on what is to be done when someone knocks down an animal, it pays zero attention to the fact that the injured animal may turn aggressive and attack the aider. No advice is given to handle that situation.

Yeah, talking about how these groups are more concerned about animals than humans!

In the meantime, here’s the article from ST reporting that SPCA would like to see that the law includes cats. The “simisai animal also must be included” recommendation….

Cats, other mammals neglected under Road Traffic Act

Cast a wider net of protection for animals under the Road Traffic Act, animal welfare groups are urging. The law states that any motorist involved in an accident where a person or an animal is injured must stop to help the victim.

However, as now defined, an animal is any horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog. This leaves out many others, such as cats.

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) has approached the Law Ministry about reworking the legislation, said its executive director Corinne Fong.

I don’t have a problem with that. After all, if we exclude other animals like cats, cat lovers will scream discrimination.

Where I have a problem is the advice given by these groups. They talk and give advice so much, but with all the minute details left out, it puts drivers who do knock animals down in a more confused and perplexed state as what really he/she should do. Continued below.

HELPING INJURED ANIMALS
WILD ANIMALS

Call the Acres Wildlife Rescue Hotline for advice on 9783-7782. It operates 24 hours.

Fine. Clear and concise. No problem doing that.

Do not pick animals up with your hands, even if you are wearing gloves.

If the animal is severely injured or immobile, place a container over it, slide the lid or a thin board underneath, gently turn the container so the animal ends up at the bottom, then cap it.

But, but… what if injured wild animal attacks? Can I sue Acres for giving ill-advice?

Furthermore that advice is practical for only small animals like say an anteater. Or a squirrel. What if it is a larger animal like a wild boar?

Make sure that there are breathing holes.

To treat for mild shock, keep the animal warm, quiet, and in a dark container.

How does one recognise shock in animals? How does one treat shock? What good is that advice for someone who is not medically trained?

OTHER ANIMALS

Call the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on 6287-5355. It operates 24 hours.

Place a distress cone or triangle to cordon off the space.

Check if the animal is moving or breathing. If it is still conscious or breathing, prepare to move it to the side of the road.

So far, no problem with that advice.

Use a strip of cloth to wrap the muzzle tightly and tie it behind its neck, to prevent the animal from snapping defensively.

Now this really makes no sense at all. You want the driver to muzzle the animal so that it won’t attack? How is that driver going to do it, knowing that most people are not trained to handle animals?

In other words, what good is such advice when it is not practically sound?

Use a piece of cardboard and slide it under the animal.

Avoid carrying the animal as the spine or bones may be fractured, but use the cardboard to slide the animal safely to the side of the road.

All said and done, note that there’s a helluva lot of advice on how to lessen the pain of the animal while rendering aid to it.

No advice on what precautions the driver must take in order to be safe from attack from the injured animal while rendering aid.

Now, why do I feel that some Animal Rights groups are Human haters?

Isn’t forcing Christian group to stop all activities against freedom?

Oh the irony of it all. Secularists, who have been using Democrazy, er I mean Democracy, as their benchmark to judge others, are only too quick to use the iron hand against religion themselves, aren’t they?

Isn’t banning all activities that a Christian group can undertake just as repressive and draconian as the very actions secularists decry against religion? Hellooo?

NUS orders Christian group to stop all activities on campus

The National University of Singapore (NUS) has ordered a student Christian group to cease all activities on campus, after it came under fire for its insensitive remarks about Buddhists and Muslims.

The NUS Campus Crusade for Christ received flak over the comments, which appeared on posters around campus and on its website last week.

The group, which has around 80 to 100 members, had put up the posters to promote a mission trip to Thailand. They said the country, known as the Land of Smiles, was actually ‘a place of little true joy’ because few there believe in Jesus Christ. The posters then urged students to help take Christianity to the Thais.

It made a similar gaffe on its website, where it promoted a mission trip to Turkey and said the country needed ‘much prayer and work’ because ‘much of the population is M’, referring to Muslims.

The group has taken down the offending posters. They have also acknowledged their mistake. What need to ban all activities?

The whole irony is that the “offended” parties, namely the Buddhists and the Muslims, have been largely silent. It is the non-religious guys who are making the most noise. Then in the name of democracy and freedom of expression, the Christian group has all activities banned! Huh?

This is nothing but an opportunistic attempt to engage in some Christian bashing, isn’t it? If these people are serious in freedom of expression (but done sensitively), there’s no need to wield the iron arm and ban all activities.

This isn’t the first time such an opportunistic blatant attempt at Christian bashing has taken place. If you recall, there was a Christian Pastor named Rony, who ridiculed Buddhist teachings. His speech was posted online and it created an uproar.

The main victims, the Buddhists, were not the most noisy. It was a non-religious group – the LGBTs. It just so happened that prior to Pastor Rony making fun of Buddhists teachings, he took a swipe at the LGBT Community.

Again, in the case where Buddhism was ridiculed, while the Buddhist Community forgave Rony for his swipe at Buddhism and moved on, the LGBTs blew hot and cold – about his ridiculing of Buddhism! Why was that needed? Because if the LGBT Community had talked about how he ridiculed LGBT ideals, no one would care? Therefore they tried to “instigate” a docile Buddhist Community into attacking Pastor Rony?

For those who are new here, or have forgotten my religious affiliation, I am no Christian. So this post is not a knee-jerk response to the banning of all activities against a Christian group. It is based on months and years of observation how non-religious groups are quick to attack certain religions in the name of democracy, only to commit the same “sin” they accuse religions of – restricting freedom of the followers to practise and preach their ideals!

=========

PS – As a Muslim, I can tell you I am not too offended by the Christian group about its take on Turkish Muslims. That has been the way Christians talk about Muslims when it comes to “evangelizing Muslims” since the Crusades.

What truly needs to be addressed is the consistent, deceitful portrayal of an existence of “extremist Muslims”, when these so called Muslim extremists are actually victims of oppressive wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, fighting to get their rightful land back from foreign oppressors.

Then to top it up, anyone (and I really mean anyone, even non-Muslims including Jews!) who shows sympathy for these victims, he/she is portrayed as a Jew-hater, American-hater, anti-Semite, freedom-hater and/or a terror supporter.

So non-Muslims who think they are doing Muslims a favour by whacking Christian groups even after these Christians realise their mistakes and have rectified them, please know where the Muslim heart really is.

Stop bashing Christians pretending you are trying to protect Muslims (or Buddhists or any other followers of religion), when your intent is to stem freedom of expression of religion in the first place.

Demonizing Iran

The warmongers have been trying to bomb Iran for the last few years. As far back as during GW Bush’s term. With all the unsubstantiated allegations against Iran flying around and perpetuated by MSM, it is no wonder we have people believing in distorted lies about Iran.

From ST Forum dated 23 Feb 2012
Threat of a nuclear Iran

TWO months into the new year, Iran has halted its oil exports to Britain and France. The prospect of a military conflict with Iran looms on the horizon (‘How dangerous is the Iranian threat?’; Monday).

To understand the extent of the danger a nuclear Iran poses to the world, one has only to look at the pro-regime rallies in Iran calling for the destruction of Israel, as well as naming the United States as ‘the Great Satan’.

Those who claim the Iranian regime will be deterred from using its nuclear power as a military option, due to the fear of mutually assured destruction, must first understand that Iran itself has not engaged in a conventional war since the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988).

Instead, the Iranian regime fights using its proxies, having been a long-time sponsor of militant groups such as Hamas of the Gaza Strip and Hizbollah of Lebanon.

Plausible deniability is what the Iranian regime seeks and should Iran arm itself with nuclear weapons, one cannot help but wonder if such devices might fall into the hands of the numerous terror groups that the regime funds. Chances of that happening are arguably greater than Iran directly launching a nuclear warhead at the states it detests.

The untold horror that may unfold should a nuclear weapon fall into the hands of such terrorist groups is inconceivable.

The world should always be watchful of nuclear weapons, even more so when a terror-sponsoring regime like Iran’s has desires for them.

Diplomatic sanctions, however biting, seem to have merely delayed the Iranian regime’s quest for nuclear weapons rather than stopping it entirely.

The threat Iran poses to the world has never been greater, especially so when it is a nuclear Iran.

Kenddrick Chan

Iran has not attacked or invaded another country the last 200 years. On the other hand, the US and Israel, two nations that have been beating the wardrums to invade Iran, have invaded and pillaged other nations since last century.

Together with other war mongering nations in Europe, which are complicit in the war crimes committed in Afghanistan and Iraq the last ten years, US and Israel are now trying to demonize Iran, a country that has not invaded any other nation.

Here are some facts.

1. Iran is a member of the IAEA, which allows them to build nuclear power plants. US and other European states are also members. This means that US and Europe recognise Iran has a right to build that nuclear plant. Israel on the other hand is a non-member, has 200 over nuclear warheads and no one seems to notice that big, fat elephant in the room. Isn’t the assumption that Iran’s nuclear site is for building nukes a lie?

I posted a more detailed discussion on the IAEA in this post – Beating the War Drums on Iran

2. During the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, it was US who armed Saddam with chemical weapons to be used against Iran. US hypocritically then invaded Iraq in 2003 for that very WMDs they supplied! Unfortunately for US, Saddam disposed those chems long before 2003. So now it makes US look stupid, invading Iraq for some non-existent WMDs, which US supplied in the first place.

3. If Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah and that makes them terror supporters, what makes US who supports Israel? Super terrorist?

Finally, what’s this talk about Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map stuff? Iran has the third largest Jewish population in the world, after US and Israel itself.

Israel has an immigration policy that gives any Jew around world Israeli citizenship. If living in Iran is hell for Jews, why are these Iranian Jews not migrating to Israel?

Stop the lies. Stop the madness. Stop the wars.

Hougang by election a necessity, Marine Parade 1992 by election a circus

If you thought ministers gave you crazy replies, their subordinates are even worse. It is clear as daylight that WP hit the nail on the head, turning the tables on the PAP claiming that WP was irresponsible by “forcing” a by election on Hougang. Low Thia Khiang reminded how the PAP frivolously called for a by election at Marine Parade in 1992.

But lo and behold, we have the Press Secretary to Senior Minister Emtitus who of course, disagrees. Just take a look at how lame his argument could be.

WP’s Low Thia Khiang wrong to cite 1992 by-election

TUESDAY’S report (‘WP ‘had absolutely no idea of Yaw’s alleged affairs”) described the letter by Mr Low Thia Khiang, secretary-general of the Workers’ Party (WP), published in Lianhe Zaobao on Monday.

Mr Low had cited the 1992 by-election in Marine Parade GRC called by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, to rebut an allegation that the WP had ‘abused the democratic system’ by causing a by-election in Hougang when the WP expelled Mr Yaw Shin Leong.

The reference to the 1992 by-election is inappropriate.

When Mr Goh announced on Aug 17, 1991 that he would call for an early general election to secure a strong mandate to govern, he said at the same time that he would call for by-elections within 18 months to field more good candidates for self-renewal and to give (the late) Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam a chance to contest for election into Parliament.

Mr Jeyaretnam had complained that Mr Goh had called for an early general election to keep him out of Parliament, as he was still disqualified from standing for elections at that time.

Mr Goh had been transparent about the reasons for the 1992 Marine Parade GRC by-election from the beginning.

The by-election was also expected.

Mr Low therefore cannot compare the reasons for his causing a by-election in Hougang with Mr Goh’s purpose in having one in Marine Parade GRC in 1992.

Foo Kok Jwee

Press Secretary to

Emeritus Senior Minister

What’s this crap about calling an early election in 1991, only to have a by election 18 months later for “renewal”? The 1991 GE was a snap election. A GE was not due till 1993. Everyone knew that if the GE had been held in 1993, JBJ would have been eligible.

To say that the 1991 snap GE was to call for a strong mandate, only to call for a by election 18 months later is like the PAP slapping its own face. That’s because:

1. It implies that the previous GE in 1988 was not a strong mandate for PAP to govern, never mind the fact that it recaptured and won back one seat from the opposition. In 1984, the opposition captured two seats – Anson and Potong Pasir. In 1988, the opposition captured only one – Potong Pasir. And to that fact, PAP admits it did not have strong mandate! What Kok talking Foo Kok Jwee?

2. It means that even with the snap 1991 GE, PAP still will have no strong mandate and hence, need a by election later to get that strong mandate! An even Kokier talk!

The fact was that on the ground in 1991, everyone was talking about the comeback of JBJ and PAP was shivering in their pants. The snap elections in 1991 was to prevent JBJ from returning to politics because if the GE had been in 1993, JBJ would have qualified – and won in an SMC.

PAP came up with a master plan to stop JBJ. Hold a snap 1991 GE to prevent JBJ from contesting any single seat against a weak MP. Then when a by election is held later, get a strong heavyweight GRC (in this case Marine Parade headed by PM Goh himself) to take on JBJ.

The Hougang by election is a necessity. It has been vacated due to unforseen circumstances. The 1992 Marine Parade by election was nothing short of a circus. It was a wayang show to everyone that PAP gave JBJ a chance to contest.

Heck, if PAP really was serious in allowing JBJ to contest, there was no need to have a snap GE in 1991, followed by a by election. They could have waited till 1993. Period.

Some civil servants should stop talking Kok.

=======

PS – Incidentally, that by election in Marine Parade did not see WP (and JBJ) contesting. No thanks to no cow sense pair Chiam See Tong and Chee Soon Juan (then SDP) who hijacked that by elections.

Shouldn’t it be humans first, animals second?

Before I start, let me make my stand clear. I do love animals and nature. But between humans and animals, humans come first.

I was brought up in an environment where I had the chance to be close to nature. Animals included. I learned to love animals, domesticated, stray or wild. It also led me to learn more about animals. It therefore makes me wonder if today’s “animal lovers” who have been brought up in urban environment, who don’t even know what animals’ needs are, know what they are talking about, when it comes to Animal Rights or Welfare.

One of points I contested in this blog is the call to release dolphins into the wild because “dolphins need space”. Little do these lobbyists know why dolphins need space in the first place. I discussed that here – Food, strongest bond between Man and Animal; Territory, the most contentious

In this post, I would like to look at three instances where it has come to a point that some sections of society put animals so high up the hierarchy, humans are left second to them. Here is the first incident.

Case 1 – One cat’s and many rats’ lives are more important than many people’s health

Ban on glue board urged after cat death

SINGAPORE: The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) has called for an “immediate ban” on glue board traps used by pest control companies.

This comes after it found a cat stuck on such a trap.

SPCA posted on Facebook a photo of a dead cat which was extricated from the glue board.

The board had been placed by a pest control company hired by the Jurong Town Council to trap rats.

SPCA said the case was reported last Friday and by the time the cat was brought in, it was in “deep distress and panting heavily”.

The cat was eventually put down to prevent further suffering.

SPCA has written to the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority (AVA) to request for an immediate ban on the traps.

It is also calling for action to be taken against the parties responsible.

SPCA executive director Corinne Fong said: “The animals, when they get trapped on these traps – as the case with this cat – they die a slow and very painful death, so we are urging the authorities to ban the use of these products.”

SPCA said it has contacted both the town council and pest control company.

Of course it was a cruel way for the cat (the unintended victim) to die that way. It was meant for the rats. But that too, SPCA says it is a cruel way to get rid of rats.

This is the first time a cat was killed. The glue trap has all along done its job perfectly – catching rats. And that’s what SPCA has been grumbling about long before this cat incident, because it feels that itself is cruel to the rats.

Let’s face this fact. Rats are not just pests. They spread diseases. Rats breed fast. In fact, in many HDB estates, they breed faster than the pest control companies can get rid of them. If not for the glue traps, which is one effective way, what other methods do we have to stem the rat population?

Has the SPCA come up with any other alternatives that is just as effective? Or is SPCA just saying that the kind treatment of animals is so important, human health is secondary?

Case 2 – Doggone it, if you hit a canine and run

This is about animals involved in road accidents.

Dog’s death: SPCA gets Remy Ong’s statement

Animal rights group says it will work with Traffic Police on case

Animal welfare group SPCA has obtained a statement from national bowler Remy Ong over an alleged hit-and-run incident he was involved in outside the Safra National Service Resort and Country Club on Sunday.

His black Porsche Boxster was said to have hit a stray dog shortly before 1pm along Changi Coast Road.

‘We have the authority to take statements… and obtained Mr Ong’s this morning,’ said the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ executive director Corinne Fong. As part of its role as an animal welfare group, SPCA also looks into animal cruelty complaints and would obtain statements in such cases to facilitate investigations.

‘I’m unable to share contents (of the statement) as it may jeopardise Traffic Police investigations,’ she added, noting that the SPCA would work with the Traffic Police in this matter.

Little known to many motorists is that you are to stop and render assistance to an accident victim, even if the victim is an animal. But there lies the problem. If the victim were human, call 995. What if the victim is an animal? Mouth to mouth resuscitation? Call the ambulance? You mean there’s an animal ambulance?

The SPCA again is ever so eager to get involved in this, helping the Police. Small wonder why. If you read the full article (you need to be an ST Online subscriber), you will note that SPCA recommends that the person who knocks the animal down takes the victim to a vet.

Well, if these Animal Rights groups love animals that much, how about putting their money where their mouth is? How about raising and/or spending money to have animal ambulances, trained animal first aiders and what not, so that when an animal does get knock down, there is a number to call for aid during that emergency?

Case 3 – A few shark species endangered and its licence to persecute anyone who kills any shark

No sense in shark’s fin ban: Marine life experts

It may be politically incorrect, but three marine life experts said at a forum on Thursday that it makes no sense to ban the sale of shark’s fin.

But a fourth expert stood his ground, insisting a temporary ban on shark’s fin and meat would reduce the killing.

Yes, that’s right. “Politically correct” here refers to the societal acceptance, but not supported with scientific fact, that the craving for shark’s fins is damaging both the ecosystem and the shark population.

Only a few species of sharks are endangered. If these campaigners against shark’s fin are so adamant, how about producing data to show which species are the ones endangered, instead of having a blanket statement such that those who want to eat shark’s fin have to give up their favourite dish?

I am no shark’s fin lover. Neither am I a shark lover. So I have no vested interest on either side. My point is that if lobbyists want to convince the public that shark’s fin should be banned, they have to come up with hard data and not just blanket statements and talk.

Shark’s fin is a delicacy. It is also a means of livelihood for many in the trade. Are these shark huggers not worrying about an unproven theory, that eating shark’s fins would cause extinction of sharks, more than the livelihood of many people?

Final Word

Being raised close to nature allowed me to love animals and nature. What makes me shake my head is that today’s so called animal lovers, who mostly have not had the chance to live in the rural areas to be close to nature, think they know animals so much, they have to love these beings more than they think of human needs.

To me, I take this stand. Love animals and nature all you want. But the line is crossed when that love for animals precedes love for humankind.

Shouldn’t it always has to be humans first, animals second? Let’s get our priorities right.

The slow but steady deconstruction of the Family

The slow but steady deconstruction of the family is taking shape right before our very eyes. It all started in the last century during the Woodstock era, where casual sex and live in partners are the in thing. Next thing, it was legalising abortions as a means of birth control.

Today, about half a century later, the latest slew of actions that’s out to destroy the very fabric of society, criminalizing rape in marriage, is about to take place in Singapore.

Criminalising marital rape ‘worth looking into’

Law Minister K. Shanmugam said in Parliament on Tuesday that he found the arguments for criminalising marital rape worth looking into.

But as the law that grants immunity to husbands who force their wives to have sex with them is in the Penal Code, it comes under the jurisdiction of the Home Affairs Ministry, not the Law Ministry.

He was replying to Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang GRC), who advocated the repeal of this law during a debate on amending the Evidence Act to prevent a rape victim’s sexual history from being used to discredit her in court.

Mr Nair said the marital rape law was related to the amendment under debate – which Parliament later endorsed – as both disadvantaged the victims of sexual assault.

Wazzat again? Rape in marriage? Isn’t this a misnomer? By definition, isn’t rape the forcing of sex by a man unto an unwilling woman? But by definition and cultural acceptance, isn’t marriage a blanket understanding between the two spouses that they can have sex?

Now if the issue is about violent forcing of sex on an unwilling spouse, isn’t that battery, rather than rape?

Classifying an action as “rape in marriage” is akin to saying that there’s “rape in consensual sex”. Duh.

No to Rape’s objective is to destroy the family -

The founders of No to Rape are the very parties who were involved in the promoting of sex between minors, even teaching underage schoolgirls how to have sex. Its main founder, Jolene, once even made a post in her blog (now defunct) that the Family is supposed to be treated as a loaded gun.

But isn’t the term “No to Rape” when it refers to the Family misleading? Imagine a lobby group named “No to Men Bashing” and its objective is to stem the tide of Feminism. Then when feminists object, these lobbyists ask, “You mean you support men bashing?”

Here’s one of No to Rape’s misleading ads, which I posted in 2009. Say NO to bastardizing marriage

Interestingly, the same campaigners who are trying to criminalize “rape” in marriage, are trying to decriminalize sex between the underage! What a topsy turvy world these guys are living! I wrote about that in this blog too – Agenda of Notorapers exposed – followed by Damage Control

But isn’t the argument that these minors are unable to consent to sex in the first place, and that’s why sex with a girl below 16 is considered pedophilia in our secular society? So what’s with this decriminalizing of sex for the underage?

Isn’t violence what the issue is about? -

It is not that there is no protection laws in Singapore, against rape of spouse who have been separated. It is there.

It is also not that there are no laws against a husband who forces on his wife to have sex. It is also there. The husband could be charged for battery.

But these No to Rapers, who have been influenced by the so called “developed world”, would like to bring in their weird cultural practices to destroy the Family. To them, sex between minors is OK. But the Family structure is not.

Family the basic unit of society

It is no overstatement that the Family is the basic unit of society. Destroy the Family, and you destroy society. If you can’t even respect your parents, don’t expect that you will respect teachers in school. Don’t expect you will respect your commanders in the military. Don’t expect you will respect your superiors in the workplace. And of course, don’t expect you will respect the law in society.

Isn’t it clear that respect for others and society starts from the Family? And these guys want to destroy the very fabric that binds society?

As a matter of interest, have you noticed that the very parties who are pushing for the No to Rape cause in Singapore, happen to be the LGBT and pro-LGBT groups? AWARE is pushing for it. So is Constance Singam. So is Jolene, the founder of No to Rape. So is Mr Wang, a pro-LGBT ex PP. So is TOC. Interesting. Very, very interesting.