>Filial Piety

>There is an advertisement that is creating quite a buzz in the papers. It is about Filial Piety. Here is the ad.

Filial Piety: Father and Son (Eng subtitles)

Judging by the response in the Forum Board of the Straits Times (both the main letters and their comments), one can easily see that there are divergent views. One letter I would like to pick out is this one.

Ad does not convey correct values

I REFER to yesterday’s letter by Ms Hannah Chee, ‘Does ad convey right values?’.

People grow old and bitter for many reasons, including unmet needs arising from disappointments in life, depression and bottled-up anger.

Whatever the reason, the reality is that it is a tremendous burden to live with a harsh parent or grandparent. And it is an added strain on the family when younger members have other things to deal with.

When elderly parents are domineering, other children tend to stay away and see them as little as possible to avoid conflict.

I agree the TV advertisement does not convey the correct values as it appears to say one is entitled to be nasty and demanding just because of one’s position in life or good deeds done in the past.

One way to moderate the ad is to have the family see a counsellor and show how counselling helped in reconciliation.
Cindy Ong (Ms)

It is a fact that it is not easy to live with the elderly. However, before we crucify them, let us remember that all of us will one day be there too. The only way to prevent that is of course to die young.

So are the elderly unreasonable, or is it we who do not understand them? Since the problem is usually between mums-in-law and daughters-in-law, let’s take a look from this angle. Not that I am saying that there dads-in-law and sons-in-law are angels though.

Snapshot of concerns of the “unreasonable” elderly mum-in-law

1. Just like the wife feels her husband is being taken away by mum-in-law, mum-in-law also feels threatened that wife is taking her son away. However, the wife is mobile, adaptable and usually financially independent. Mum-in-law is usually not. In this case, don’t you think mum-in-law is justified to feel more insecure than daughter-in-law?

2. A wife “forcing” her husband to “choose” between his mum and his wife is a sure recipe for family disharmony. How would this wife feel if she had to choose between her parents and her husband.

3. A mum-in-law who does “let go” and allow her son to choose his wife over her does so because she wants her son to have a happy family. But how would this wife feel if her own son were to leave her, elope with his gf and does not return?

4. The elderly sees life differently from us. To us, we have friends, neighbours, colleagues, our children, our hobbies etc. To mum-in-law (especially if she is a widow), the only thing she has is her children. If that husband happens to be the only child, the wife who asks her husband to choose between her and his mum is effectively taking away the only thing his mum has – her only child.

5. In view of the fact that mum-in-law’s only world is her children, anything that her children do, or anything done to them, affects her very much. This is especially so when there is infighting between her children, or if any of her children were to face marital disputes. Mum-in-law has no one to turn to.

6. Finally – and this one is true for many – if there is anyone who can hurt you most, it is the ones you love most. To any mother, she loves her children most. The last thing she can take (or any parent for that matter), is for her children to forsake her. That’s why mum-in-laws are very possessive about their children.

Daughters-in-law, please note #6. Again, it is not that I am saying there are no disputes involving dads-in-law or sons-in-law. However, the most common in-law dispute is the mum-in-law vs daughter-in-law pair.

Let’s remember that short of dying young, we will all one day grow old and be just as “unreasonable and insecure” as them too. After all, it is our mothers who have looked after us when we were young. Isn’t it only fair and just we look after them now?

>Pro-Gay Straits Times now justifies Family Busting Activity

>Thanks to the AWARE Saga in 2009, we know that the Straits Times has journalists who have a pro-gay agenda as can be seen in this post here and here.

Now we have another article, by Andy Ho, that appears to justify extra-marital affairs. Below are excerpts of his article, which appeared in the Review Section of the Straits Times, dated 18 Mar 2009. You have to be a subscriber to get access to the link below.

Blame the woman, spare the man
Excerpt:

FILM-MAKER Jack Neo’s infidelity has been in the news of late.

Some applaud the dignified manner in which Madam Irene Kng, his wife of 27 years, has conducted herself. Others, however, are disappointed that she has not displayed more visceral anger at her husband’s behaviour. The other woman – who exposed Neo – has also been excoriated.

It is as if men were innately and naturally promiscuous, so that must be Neo’s only shortcoming. His wife had no one to blame but the other woman, not her adulterous spouse.

The usual reason given for Madam Kng’s quiet forgiveness is that a successful man’s marital infidelity has historically been tolerated in Chinese culture. According to the late Robert van Gulik, a noted sinologist, writing in his 1974 book, Sexual Life In Ancient China, sex was regarded in Chinese culture more as a natural appetite ‘than a social encounter’.

Note the unsubstantiated claim by Andy that Irene’s choice is because of social culture and pressure, in particular, Chinese Culture. This approach is the typical Western Feminist style to dictate terms that all that is not in conformance with what Feminism is, is considered less than good for society.

Note the shift towards the soft-attack on the traditional family, where the male is considered head of household below. Again, this is the typical soft-attack by feminists on traditional families that it is patriarchal and hence, must be abolished to make way for equal rights for women.

In practice, it was the male who really mattered in any relationship. This meant that females were, by and large, dominated and marginalised. Socialised into a subjugated role, Chinese women were rendered more tolerant of their straying husbands than they would have otherwise been.

Andy continues to discuss the above in the context of Chinese Culture. As if, the rest of the world (except the current West) does not have this family structure where there is the patriarchal figure!

Finally, note the subtle message (and celebration too if you notice!) from Andy that all this leads to extra-marital affairs.

Meanwhile, there are also modern, financially independent women with their own careers who are willing to get involved with married men for the romantic intimacy, without eventual marriage in mind. Men thus – even if they were not all wealthy or powerful – are presented today with even more opportunities for extramarital involvement.

Ironically, modernisation in Confucianist cultures thus works hand-in-glove with feminism to undermine women further.

Rejoice, Jack.

That’s the usual (feminist) argument that if a married man is adulterous, he is cheating wife. Ya, I agree with that. But what about the children? Are they not cheated too?

When a married man is adulterous, is he not wrecking THE WHOLE FAMILY and NOT just the wife?

Andy’s justification of adultery, ending with a snide remark at Jack, appears to be an encouragement and justification for married men to just carry on and have fun – at the expense of the whole family.

You can expect ST to be as irresponsible as that – noting that they have been known to promote gay agenda, which itself, is anti-family.

Here is a reproduction of Andy’s article above.
Blame the woman, spare the man

>Teenage Births – What Third World Countries knew that First World Didn’t

>An interesting article about women’s fertility was published in The Daily Telegraph, which was reproduced in Todayonline’s website (article below). It is about a scientific discovery why women in their latter years, especially after 30, find it more difficult to have babies. I would like to deviate from the scientific finding for the moment, and discuss about the social aspects of motherhood instead.

It would be a good time to make a comparison between young motherhood (as in teen motherhood) as practised in the Third World, as compared to delaying motherhood till as late as the thirties, as practised in the West and other developed countries (like Singapore). We will discuss the mentioned article above later.

First World / Third World Comparison-

The First World appears to bastadize young bride marriages, even calling it paedophelia. Anti-teen marriage proponents reason that these young brides do not have the ability to give consent as yet. Western media also talk a lot about how damaging it is to teen girls having babies at such an age. The whole idea appears to be painting young marriages as oppressive and against women’s rights. Of course, feminists would also jump on the bandwagon to add their bit.

However, truth is that those who campaign against young marriages in the Third World do not understand Third World needs and culture. To Third World citizens, the main source of income is agriculture. They need more hands to help out in the fields. The younger they have children, the better their lives would be. Those who call for the delay of marriages and having children are asking these people to put their security on hold. No different from telling First World inhabitants that you can only start saving for your retirement fund just a few years before your retirement!

Children are like a social security to these societies. The more you have, the higher the chances of you being well looked after in your old age. In developed countries, it is the opposite. The fewer children you have, the more you would have saved for your retirement fund.

To citizens of the developing countries, children are their future. To the citizens of developed countries, cash for your retirement is your future. We cannot impose our values on others because their lifestyle does not fit ours. Who are we to tell them what to do, let alone force them to follow us, which will not benefit them in any way?

Another factor that has to be considered is the mortality rate at birth. Infant mortality rate in the Third World is much higher than in the First World. We can afford to delay having children because our medical facilities are good. No mother in the First World plans to have five births, because she thinks that her chances of having two surviving children would be higher than having just three births. But that line of thinking exists in the Third World.

Hence, in order to have a higher number of births, so that you can have a higher number of surviving children, you need to marry young, and start giving birth young!

This is the very fundamental thinking of societies in the Third World pertaining to young motherhood, which the First World inhabitants do not seem to understand.

Because of the lack of understanding of the needs of the Third World families, proponents like Feminists, Human Rights Activists and what not, demonize and bastadize teen marriages and teen births. Such arrogance, ignorance and self-righteous attitude can only be found amongst those who feel they are superior to others.

But scientific findings vindicates this Third World Practice of young motherhood. Here is the article in full.

Women lose 90% of eggs by age 30

Quality of eggs also suffer with age, new study reports
by The Daily Telegraph
05:55 AM Feb 17, 2010

LONDON – Scientists have discovered the reason why women find it difficult to conceive later in life – they have used up about 90 per cent of their “ovarian reserve” by the age of 30.

While they may continue to produce eggs throughout their 30s and 40s, the reservoir of potential eggs from which they are taken has shrunk to almost nothing, it suggests.

As the body chooses the best eggs from the reserve, the likelihood is that the quality of the eggs will suffer as women get older, increasing the difficulty of conception and the risk of an unhealthy baby.

The new research by the University of St Andrews and Edinburgh University is the first to collate the actual decline of the “ovarian reserve” – the potential number of eggs women are born with – from conception to the menopause.

It shows that, on average, women are born with 300,000 potential egg cells but this pool declines at a much faster rate than first thought. By the age of 30, there is only 12 per cent left on average and by the age of 40 just 3 per cent.

The researchers said many women make the mistake of thinking that because they are still producing eggs, their fertility remains constant. But this new research shows that it declines rapidly.

Dr Hamish Wallace (Edinburgh), the co-author, said: “Our research shows that they are generally over-estimating their fertility prospects.

“Our model shows that for 95 per cent of women, by the age of 30 years, only 12 per cent of their maximum ovarian reserve is present, and by the age of 40 years only 3 per cent remains.”

The researchers also discovered for the first time that the number of eggs in the ovarian reserve peaks at about 20 weeks after conception – when the female embryo is still in her mother’s womb – and dwindles until menopause at the age of about 50.

They also found that the rate of recruitment of immature eggs towards mature eggs increases from birth until approximately 14 years of age, then drops off.

Co-author Tom Kelsey, of St Andrews University, was quoted by Britain’s The Daily Express newspaper as saying that was something they hadn’t seen before.

“We think there is some sort of hormonal explanation that during puberty, something switches and women start losing fertility at a different, faster rate,” he said.

The study collected information from 325 different women of different ages in the United Kingdom, the United States and Europe.

The research, published in the journal Public Library of Science One, also showed that there was an enormous difference between the size of individual women’s “ovarian reserve”. Some women had more than 2 million, while others had as little as 35,000.

The research is the latest to warn that women should not leave it too late to conceive. Women’s fertility declines substantially after the mid-30s but the speed of the drop differs for each individual.

Women’s fertility peaks at 14? If motherhood is all about procreation and starting a family, has not the Third World practice of young motherhood been complying to nature’s design, rather than the First World “we know all” practice of late motherhood?

It has been argued by many feminists, as well as some human rights activists, that teenage births in developing countries are damaging to these young girls. They argue it from a medical perspective that birth at such an age damages the girls’ health and well-being. I am not going to argue on that, because it is medically ascertained that there are risks to the teenage mother, as compared to a mother more senior in her years. The approach I am taking is that while teenage births has its negatives, so do older mothers giving birth.

Early Motherhood, bad for mother; Late Motherhood, bad for baby – your choice

The West and other developed countries see early motherhood from their perspective and their perspective only. To them, the woman reigns supreme, because it is her body. Never mind that what she does affects the child too – including abortion for the most flimsy reason. As such, self-preservation is the key here. Since early motherhood affects her health – and looks – late motherhood is preferred.

Those from the Third World on the other hand, go for early motherhood because that’s the time when the healthiest babies are produced. Today, we know that the later the birth, the higher the risk to the baby, especially if the mother is above 35, where the risk of having a Mongoloid baby increases exponentially.

It can be argued that while the First World mothers are skewed towards self-preservation, Third World mothers are more compassionate towards their offspring – a true representation of what MOTHERHOOD is all about, which entails self-sacrifice to ensure the well-being of her offspring.

Unfortunately, this uncorrupted motherly love that is so present in the Third World is so missing in the First World, where Feminism is dominant and Motherhood so neglected.

It is time that we pause and think for a moment. We have lived in a developed society for so long. Many pride that we have human rights, women’s rights, children’s rights and even animal rights in place.

But upon close examination, we are the arrogant ones looking down on the Third World, who have actually shown us what true love and compassion is. Like the ability to sacrifice yourself, so that your offspring is better off.

The Third World has that Motherly Love embedded in their society. First World inhabitants have not attained that stage.

Who’s the civilized and who’s the uncivilized?

>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 US
Tight finances and fewer jobs making them move back in with their parents

WASHINGTON: 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.

>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 Forum
Consensual underage sex: Review two law issues

Nov 23, 2009

I 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 Cheong

Well, 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 16

A 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!

>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 more

I 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 Devasahayam
Coordinator, Gender Studies Programme
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies

Note 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.

>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 marriage

Now we have another call from the wild, that we decriminalize “consensual” sex between minors. From the Straits Times Forum.
Decriminalise consensual underage sex

I 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 Ramasamy

Point 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.

>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 Points

I 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 feminists

The 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 instead

I 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.

>Say NO to bastardizing marriage

>The family busters up to their mischief again. Failing to get a decent number of supporters for their petition through the Straits Times and Channel News Asia, they have come up with another sensational video clip, depicting marriage as the road to hell.

Taken from notorape website.

The producers of the clip should be commended for being able to concoct such a strong visual impact. True talent that would have made themselves tons of money in the reel industry.

Unfortunately, as we all know, such clips are over-dramatizing and can give wrong impressions in real life. That’s what the Family Busters hope to achieve. The producers cannot be blamed for that.

Bastardize marriage, legalize homo sex and there you have it – the destruction of the Basic Family Unit.

To radical feminists, homosexuals and other family busters, the biggest threat to their existence is the existence of strong family units in society.

So destroy the family unit, they must.

Say NO to bastardizing marriage.

>Nothing but NOTHING beats Good Old Traditional Family Values

>In the world today, we see feminists debunking the age old family values, calling it partriarchial. We see threats to the traditional family from all directions. From radical feminists to the gay pride.

Traditional family values require parents to be in charge of their children. It is not the duty of dare care centres, domestic help or schools. If parents do not get involved in their children’s activities, the wolves will come after their sheep.

From the Straits Times
Too sexy for kids?

THE games look like they are designed for children, with colourful animated characters and cheery music. But the aim of one such game, called Under Cover, is for the player – who might well be a child – to snap photographs of women’s exposed underwear.

Players of another game called Lust for Bust are supposed to stare at women’s breasts for as long as possible without being caught.

These free online flash games – electronic games played on Web browsers – are practically training players to be perverts.

And they are reaching a wide audience through multiple gaming websites on the Internet.

For example, statistics on just one website show that Under Cover has been played more than 6.5 million times since it was launched in February last year.

Experts here are warning against the potential risks, particularly for children, of such free online flash games, some of which contain sexual content.

Exposure to such materials may result in children being desensitised to sex, and eventually trivialising it, said Mr Poh Yeang Cherng, 41, manager of Touch Cyber Wellness & Sports, a cyber-wellness education programme for youth run by voluntary welfare group Touch Community Services.

‘Children are in their formative years and their values can be influenced playing these games,” he added.

A school counsellor, who declined to be named, said that when it comes to undesirable content in games, violence, and not sex, is the first concern that comes to mind.

Children who play these games may form degrading views of the opposite gender from young and this could affect their relationships with others in future, he warned. — MYPAPER

From the same webpage above, here is another link giving the background story.
HOOKED ON UPSKIRT PHOTOGRAPHY

A NINE-YEAR-OLD girl started playing games like Under Cover, where the player snaps upskirt photographs of women, after her friend sent her a link to the website which hosted them.

Such free online games that mask sexual content have been an ‘in thing” among her friends for about three months, because they found playing such games exciting, the girl said.

She said she knows that the behaviour portrayed in the games is unacceptable. She would not behave that way, or want to be on the receiving end of such actions, in reality.

But she felt that playing the games was harmless as their characters are ‘fake, like cartoons, and do not have feelings’.

Her alarmed accountant mother, 38, said: ‘It’s shocking, I didn’t know my child could play such games online.”

The average parent is unaware of such potential risks in free online games, said Mr Poh Yeang Cherng, 41, manager of Touch Cyber Wellness & Sports, a cyber-wellness education programme for youth run by Touch Community Services.

The programme does not track the number of children playing such games online. But its informal poll showed that up to 40 per cent of lower- secondary school students have played Grand Theft Auto 4, even though it is a violent video game with sexual content that has been rated ‘mature-18′.

Such games are harder for children to access than free online games, as they can be bought only by those aged above 18.

Ms Yuvarani Thangavelu, the Media Development Authority’s (MDA) deputy director for licensing policy, said that it has taken initiatives to safeguard the young from harmful online content, but these have limitations, given the Internet’s borderless nature.

Parents can subscribe to a service that filters out undesirable materials, which is provided by Internet service providers SingTel, StarHub and PacNet, with help from the MDA.] But such content in games cannot be detected easily by the filters as it is embedded, a StarHub spokesman said. Parents can also adjust settings on the Internet browsers or install client-based filtering software to block specific websites.

But probably the best precaution they can take is to be more aware of their children’s online activities and to communicate openly, said the National Institute of Education’s Associate Professor Angeline Khoo, who developed Internet safety materials for parents.

It is a known fact that today, many parents spend much less time with their children, as compared to our forefathers. This kind of environment suits those who have intention to influence young children with odious ideas.

Young minds are the most vulnerable. Here is where they can be shaped. It is a small wonder that those with not so good intentions target this group of youngsters. They include:

1. Porn site distributors -
This group as seen from the article, introduce them as children’s games. It may seem innocent at first, but they are starting somewhere. It is not a secret that the two most profitable online industries are the gaming and the porn industries. The money involved is too lucrative for these people not to target young children – a big pool of future customers when they grow up as adults.

2. The gay pride -
As we now know, the gay pride also start their work on children when they are young. The introduction of the CSE through Aware was made public earlier this year. I have shown in my past articles links that Aware has had foreign help to introduce gay materials into schools.

Quoting Poh Yeang Cherng, 41, manager of Touch Cyber Wellness & Sports in the first article above, he said:

“Children who play these games may form degrading views of the opposite gender from young and this could affect their relationships with others in future, he warned”.

I fully agree. Gays know that too. That’s why they start them young.

In another article, unrelated to the one above, we have another sad story of the effects of debunking traditional values for so called “modern values”.

It is believed that promiscuous sex is one contributor to cervical cancer in women. Instead of teaching girls abstinence, a national campaign was set to vaccinate young girls against cervical cancer, because presumably educating about abstinence doesn’t work.

Here are the after effects of the vaccination.

Two thousand schoolgirls suffer suspected ill-effects from cervical cancer vaccine

Source: Telegraph

Thousands of schoolgirls have suffered suspected adverse reactions to a controversial cervical cancer vaccine introduced by the Government.

Doctors’ reports show that girls of 12 and 13 have experienced convulsions, fever and paralysis after being given the vaccine, which is now administered in schools as part of efforts to prevent women developing cancer.

Others suffered nausea, muscle weakness, dizziness and blurred vision, according to a special report drawn up by drug safety watchdogs.

A support group says it has received dozens of calls from parents who believe their daughters have been damaged by the vaccine.

The parents of one teenage girl given the jab last autumn believe it was to blame for repeated seizures which have left her with brain damage and psychosis.

The immunisation programme for teenage girls is controversial because it protects them from the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus which causes 70 per cent of cervical tumours.

When the Government introduced the Cervarix vaccination programme last year, some campaigners dubbed it a “promiscuity jab”.

Campaigners and families said the new figures showed the vaccination should not have been introduced via a mass programme.

More than one million girls have already been given the jab, which is offered to all as they enter their teens.

Until 2011 it will also be administered to older girls, so that all female teens below the age of 18 will be covered by the programme.

Ministers say that ultimately the scheme will save 700 lives a year, while drug safety experts insist the number of suspected reactions are outweighed by the benefits from the jab.

Most of the more than 2,000 suspected reactions recorded by drug safety watchdog Medicines and Health care products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) were mild, with dozens of girls recording rashes, pain in the arm, and allergies.

But the report prepared by the MHRA earlier this month also discloses cases in which teens have suffered convulsions, eye rolling, muscle spasms, seizures and hyperventilation soon after being given the jab.

The analysis by the MHRA, drawn up this month, found 2,107 patients had reported some kind of suspected adverse reaction to Cervarix. Several reported multiple reactions, with 4,602 suspected side-effects recorded in total.

Jackie Fletcher, founder of Jabs, a support group for families whose children have fallen ill after immunisation, said she had taken dozens of calls from parents who believed their daughters had been damaged by the cervical cancer vaccine.

She said: “We have spoken to parents whose daughters have had seizures, paralysis, blurred vision, severe headaches and the loss of feeling in parts of their body.

“Doctors will try to convince parents that these problems are in their child’s mind, or have nothing to do with the vaccines, but we don’t think there is sufficient evidence to show Cervarix is safe.”

Medical safety experts insist the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.

They say many of the patients who experienced an “adverse” reaction to the jab since April 2008, including some who took part in drug trials or bought the drug privately, only suffered short-term side effects from the injection process, not as a result of the drug.

There was no evidence to suggest “isolated cases of other medical conditions” were actually caused by the vaccine, and not just a coincidence, the regulator’s report said.

Cancer charities urged parents to continue allowing their daughters to have the jabs, saying the numbers were well within what would have been expected for a large-scale programme, and that most of the side effects were minor.

Robert Music, director of cervical cancer charity Jo’s Trust said: “I can understand why parents would feel cautious, but this programme could reduce 70 per cent of cervical cancers.

We need to keep reviewing the evidence, but we would really urge parents to make sure their daughters have the vaccination.”

Stacey Jones is one of those who believes she has suffered side effects from the vaccine. She was 17 when she had her first Cervarix injection.

Her parents Julie and Kerry, from Bilston, West Midlands, noticed her becoming increasingly emotional in the weeks following the first two jabs, but feared their “happy-go-lucky” girl had finally succumbed to adolescent moodswings.

Within four days of the third injection in March of this year, Stacey suffered an epileptic seizure, followed by 17 more in the following week.

She has now been diagnosed with a brain injury, caused by inflammation of the brain, and is being treated in an NHS rehabilitation unit in Birmingham, which helps her with basic tasks like making a sandwich.

Seizures are minimised by five types of medication, but her memory is badly damaged.

The family has been given no explanation for how the damage occurred. Mrs Jones, 44, said: “She was such a lovely, happy go-lucky girl, now she is just a shell.

“When we go to see her, she can’t remember what she has just eaten for tea. The impact on her and all of us has been absolutely devastating. I feel she has been used as a guinea pig.”

A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Cervarix, said the drug had to undergo rigorous testing, with over 70,000 doses used in trials before a licence was granted.

He said: “The UK medicines safety agency has reviewed all reported adverse events relevant to Cervarix and there is no evidence to suggest that the vaccine carries any long-term side effects.

“The symptoms this girl has experienced are clearly upsetting and it is understandable that the girl and her parents want to uncover the cause.”

Let’s face the hard facts. The only guaranteed methods against these sex related diseases are abstinence and loyalty to spouse.

All other “safe sex” methods are no guarantee.

So why is this very effective option abstinence and/or loyalty to spouse are always under-emphasized in sex education programmes?

Nothing, but NOTHING, beats good old traditional family values.